Re: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
PD
> On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > remember that?
>
> > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it
> > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > either observer.
>
> Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
surprised you weren't aware of this.
> That is why Einstein
> wrote, "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
> in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
> defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a
> common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all
> unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light
> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
> to A."
>
> > Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> > equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> > that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> > observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> > completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.
>
> Assuming the speed of light is the same in both directions.
Which is an experimentally confirmed fact. Done well after Einstein's
comments on the matter, by the way.
>
>
>
> > Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the
> > original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives
> > both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays
> > are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer
> > receives both signals at different times, then (because the
> > propagation delays are the same) the original events were
> > nonsimultaneous.
>
> > Then the frame-dependence of simultaneity follows directly from the
> > experimental *observation* that for the same pair of events, one
> > observer correctly and unambiguously concludes the events were
> > simultaneous, and the other observer correctly and unambiguously
> > concludes the events were nonsimultaneous.
>
> > You've mentioned in the past that you found your disbelief in
> > relativity stems from being unable to find a good, understandable
> > explanation of it. I invite you to read back on this thread where I
> > was trying to explain to Ste (who has a similar complaint) how this
> > comes about.
>
> No need. Lorentz showed how all frames could measure the speed of
> light to be c. That in effect confirms the second postulate, which is
> the stumbling block for many.
Well then, you are just *choosing* what you would like to believe. In
this case, lodging a complaint against relativity that it is not well
explained, when you are not interested in pursuing a better
explanation, having settled on LET instead, is a bit on the
disingenuous side.
PD
Bruce Richmond
> On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > > remember that?
>
> > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it
> > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > > either observer.
>
> > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
Do you mean like this one?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf
The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
For example, has he made any assumption about contraction of his
equipment in the direction of motion? Tom Roberts has written posts
in this group showing where some of these experiments are in effect
two way measurements.
>
>
>
> > That is why Einstein
> > wrote, "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
> > in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
> > defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a
> > common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all
> > unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light
> > to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
> > to A."
>
> > > Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> > > equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> > > that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> > > observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> > > completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.
>
> > Assuming the speed of light is the same in both directions.
>
> Which is an experimentally confirmed fact. Done well after Einstein's
> comments on the matter, by the way.
>
Provide a link to an experiment and I'll take a look.
You are reading more into that than what I wrote. I am not choosing
LET over SR. They use the same math and I consider them two
interpertations of the same thing. The LET interpertation had the
advantage, for me, of showing how c + or - v could end up being
measured c in all frames. Given that was possible I no longer had any
problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
were petty/anal. An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
taught new tricks :)
Bruce
Jerry
> On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> > surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> Do you mean like this one?
>
>
> The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
> experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
>
> For example, has he made any assumption about contraction of his
> equipment in the direction of motion? Tom Roberts has written posts
> in this group showing where some of these experiments are in effect
> two way measurements.
Do you understand the principle of Gagnon's experiment? Do you
understand the inverse relationship between group velocity and
phase velocity that exists in a wave guide? Do you understand
that length contraction would be a second order phenomenon, while
Gagnon's experiment should be sensitive to first order, assuming
an anisotropy exists? Do you understand that Gagnon's experiment
is a true one-clock measurement of OWLS anisotropy? Do you
understand the difference between an attempt to detect OWLS
anisotropy versus an attempt to perform a one way light speed
measurement?
On the negative side, I probably know a lot more about defects
in Gagnon's experiment than you have ever dreamed of. Gagnon
drove the wave guides near cutoff. What does that imply about
heating? Take a good look at the test theory that they used to
analyze their results. Do you notice something about its internal
consistency in terms of an important criterion that I shall not
name, but which you ought to be aware of? Is the fact that the
test theory does not meet this standard of internal consistency
important in their analysis? Can you guess what this problem is?
Can you guess why I consider Gagnon et al. to be an important
experiment, despite some problems in analysis?
Start with the basics. I've given you important clues. How does
Gagnon et al's xperiment work?
> Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> were petty/anal. An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> taught new tricks :)
Thank goodness!
Jerry
Inertial
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7806715d-93d2-49ff...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Yes
> and I consider them two
> interpertations of the same thing.
Not at all. Very different as far as how they explain reality
LET has and required a fixed (theoretically undetectable) aether in a fixed
absolute frame.
SR does not specify nor require anything about an aether
LET has objects physically compressed due to absolute motion thru the aether
SR has no absolute motion, so objects are not affected by such motion
LET has processes physically slowed due to absolute motion thru the aether
SR has no absolute motion, so processes are not affected by such motion
LET has a side-effect of the speed of light being measured as the same in
all frames of reference, due to measuring with compressed rulers and slowed
clocks, even though its only really has that speed relative to the aether,
SR has no absolute compression and slowing, and the speed of light really is
c
LET has a side-effect of an appearance of the lorentz transforms holding on
measured values, due to measuring with compressed rulers and slowed clocks.
SR has no absolute compression and slowing, so the lorentz transform hold
> The LET interpertation had the
> advantage, for me, of showing how c + or - v could end up being
> measured c in all frames.
In SR there is no c+v or c-v, because there is no fixed absolute aether
frame in which light really travels at c.
> Given that was possible I no longer had any
> problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
> Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> were petty/anal.
:) Always a good conclusion to reach .. it shows you really are thinking
and learning and advancing.
> An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> taught new tricks :)
>
> Bruce
And several points up my estimation ladder for doing so and admitting it
:):)
BURT
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7806715d-93d2-49ff...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> >> > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> >> > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > remember that?
>
> >> > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> >> > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in
> >> > > > each
> >> > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> >> > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> >> > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> >> > > either observer.
>
> >> > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> >> > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> >> Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> >> surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > Do you mean like this one?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Space contraction leads to flat atoms which do not pass for physics.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7806715d-93d2-49ff...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf
An apple is an orange assuming both are fruit.
[(c+v)/c] * [(c-v)/c] = (c+v)(c-v)/c^2
= [c^2 -v^2]/c^2
= c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2
= 1 - v^2/c^2
==================================================
I am not choosing division over multiplication, they are identical.
l = l0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
I am not choosing an idiot over an imbecile, they are different.
Peter Webb
> LET over SR. They use the same math
> ==================================================
Well, e = mc^2 is maths. It appears in SR, but not LET.
So I guess you were wrong, and they don't use the same maths.
Inertial
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa1471c1-20e6-4d8f...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
One reason why LET is not regarded as a good model. In SR there is no
intrinsic change to atoms themselves.
rotchm
> > and I consider them two
> > interpertations of the same thing.
>
> Not at all. Very different as far as how they explain reality
Note that he said "and I consider...interpretations...". He did not
say taht they are the same thing. he interprets them to be the 'same"
or "equivalent".
Nonetheless, LET and SR have identical predictions (for kinematical/
optical) effects.
> LET has and required a fixed (theoretically undetectable) aether in a fixed
> absolute frame.
> SR does not specify nor require anything about an aether
True. That is a reason why SR confuses many; there is not a "master
reference".
> LET has objects physically compressed due to absolute motion thru the aether
True. this can be taken as a postulate of LET or deduced via field
eqs.
> SR has no absolute motion, so objects are not affected by such motion
That is why SR confuses many: The objects are not affected yet they
shorten
(measured length diminishes). Some call it "real", "physical",
"visual", "projection"
etc. In LET, there are no such confusions.
> LET has processes physically slowed due to absolute motion thru the aether
True. This can be taken as a postulate in LET or deduced as above.
> SR has no absolute motion, so processes are not affected by such motion
That is why SR confuses many. The processes are not afected by such
motion yet clocks slow down.
In LET, clocks are affected and is the "cause" of the slowing down of
clocks.
> LET has a side-effect of the speed of light being measured as the same in
> all frames of reference, due to measuring with compressed rulers and slowed
> clocks,
True. From highschool kinematics one deduces that although the speed
of light is not iso in i-frames, a (two way) measurement will always
give c. A simple highschool exercise.
> SR has no absolute compression and slowing, and the speed of light really is
> c
SR has the side effect that the speed of light is c for all
observers, contrary to other type of waves, contrary to common
kinematics. That is why SR confuses many.
> LET has a side-effect of an appearance of the lorentz transforms holding on
> measured values, due to measuring with compressed rulers and slowed clocks.
> SR has no absolute compression and slowing, so the lorentz transform hold
As above...
> > The LET interpertation had the
> > advantage, for me, of showing how c + or - v could end up being
> > measured c in all frames.
I too prefer that model. The LET model has advantages as the SR model
has its advantages.
I use both but prefer "LET".
> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
lengths.
Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
mpalenik
> > No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
> What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
> lengths.
> Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
> This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
This was not the definition used at the time of Einstein. This
definition was put into effect many years later after it had long been
observed that the speed of light does not depend on your choice of
reference frame.
> Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
Nobody?
rotchm
> > Length has an operational definition that uses the integer 299792458.
> > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
> This was not the definition used at the time of Einstein. This
> definition was put into effect many years later
It was the definition used long before Einstein. It is just that it
took ~ 100 years for it to be acknowledged and ratified as a standard
(definition). See for instance Poincare's work and the "Telegraphers
synch procedure" ( before 1900) aka, Poincare synch/Einstein synch
procedure.
> ... after it had long been
> observed that the speed of light does not depend on your choice of
> reference frame.
Read for instance Poincare's works in the ~ 1900. He mentions that the
speed of light depends on the choice of the reference frame ( on the
choice of the definitions). It is well understood today that our
"Laws" ( the way we express them) depend on the choice of definitions.
Bruce Richmond
> On Mar 4, 10:33 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> > > surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > Do you mean like this one?
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988...
>
> > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
> > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
>
> > For example, has he made any assumption about contraction of his
> > equipment in the direction of motion? Tom Roberts has written posts
> > in this group showing where some of these experiments are in effect
> > two way measurements.
>
> Do you understand the principle of Gagnon's experiment? Do you
> understand the inverse relationship between group velocity and
> phase velocity that exists in a wave guide? Do you understand
> that length contraction would be a second order phenomenon, while
> Gagnon's experiment should be sensitive to first order, assuming
> an anisotropy exists? Do you understand that Gagnon's experiment
> is a true one-clock measurement of OWLS anisotropy? Do you
> understand the difference between an attempt to detect OWLS
> anisotropy versus an attempt to perform a one way light speed
> measurement?
I know what OWLS is, and I know what assume means.
> On the negative side, I probably know a lot more about defects
> in Gagnon's experiment than you have ever dreamed of. Gagnon
> drove the wave guides near cutoff. What does that imply about
> heating? Take a good look at the test theory that they used to
> analyze their results. Do you notice something about its internal
> consistency in terms of an important criterion that I shall not
> name, but which you ought to be aware of? Is the fact that the
> test theory does not meet this standard of internal consistency
> important in their analysis? Can you guess what this problem is?
> Can you guess why I consider Gagnon et al. to be an important
> experiment, despite some problems in analysis?
>
> Start with the basics. I've given you important clues. How does
> Gagnon et al's xperiment work?
I haven't looked it over that closely but off hand I would say it is a
gussied up MMX.
> > Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> > have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> > the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> > I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> > were petty/anal. An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> > in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> > have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> > measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> > That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> > There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> > taught new tricks :)
>
> Thank goodness!
>
> Jerry- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7806715d-93d2-49ff...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> >> > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> >> > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > remember that?
>
> >> > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> >> > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in
> >> > > > each
> >> > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> >> > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> >> > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> >> > > either observer.
>
> >> > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> >> > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> >> Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> >> surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > Do you mean like this one?
>
Read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. I wrote, "I
consider them two interpertations of the same thing." The events are
the same. The predictions are the same. The interpertation of why
things appear the way they do is different.
> > The LET interpertation had the
> > advantage, for me, of showing how c + or - v could end up being
> > measured c in all frames.
>
> In SR there is no c+v or c-v, because there is no fixed absolute aether
> frame in which light really travels at c.
There most certainly is a c+v and c-v in SR. They are called closing
speed. And one of the most difficult things for a new student to
understand is why unlike anything else EM waves have the same speed in
all frames. I will probably screw up how I put this but IMO it is
because we made it that way. Nature does what it wants to, but we
still have some choice in how we write the equations that describe
what nature is doing.
Say you have a cannon that launches a projectile using a spring.
Given the strength of the spring, how far it is compressed, the weight
of the projectile and the inclination of the barrel, you could
calculate the trajectory of the projectile. Put the cannon on a
flatbed of a moving train and it would be easiest to calculate the
trajectory relative to the train, and then add the velocity of the
train to get the position of the projectile relative to the ground at
any given instant. But it is possible to work things out directly
from the FoR of the ground, so long as you are consistant. For
example, the spring may only expand a foot in the barrel of the
cannon, but in doing so it pushes the projectilie six feet relative to
the ground.
When we make a calculation from the track FoR that involves the train
we use the closing speed of c+v and get a correct answer. There is
nothing stopping a rider on the train from using the same track
coordinates and the same c+v to get the same answer. It just makes
things a whole lot easier if he uses coordinates from his rest frame.
Maxwell had found that the speed of light always seemed to be c, as
measured using clocks synchronized in the rest frame the measurement
was made in. I don't know if he was aware of RoS or not, but it
certainly made the writing of his equations easier to keep the speed
of light a constant.
> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
It was an observed fact in part because of the proceedures used to
observe it. As I have said before, light behaved differently than
anything else and it wasn't clear how it could do so.
> > Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> > have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> > the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> > I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> > were petty/anal.
>
> :) Always a good conclusion to reach .. it shows you really are thinking
> and learning and advancing.
Reading Bondi he gave a good explaination for why time is considered a
fourth dimension and how rotations fit in. I wont say any more at
this point because I would probably screw it up. Sometimes it is
easier to understand things than it is to express the ideas to
others. Then again, it could be because I don't really understand it
that well yet.
> > An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> > in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> > have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> > measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> > That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> > There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> > taught new tricks :)
>
> > Bruce
>
> And several points up my estimation ladder for doing so and admitting it
> :):)- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
It can be derived using LET. SR wasn't the first place it showed up,
so it doesn't own it any more than LET does.
Others here say they use the same math, so I guess you are wrong :)~
Jerry
No, their experiment was very different from MMX.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf
There is a reciprocal relationship between group velocity and
phase velocity in a waveguide. Depending on the frequency, a
typical waveguide transmits microwave signals at 70% of the speed
of light. However, the phase velocity would be 140% of the speed
of light (the product of group velocity and phase velocity is c^2).
Gagnon et al. used two parallel waveguides with different cutoff
frequencies, one close to the oscillator frequency, the other
widely different from the oscillator frequency. At the cutoff
frequency, the wavelength in an ideal waveguide would become
infinite,and there would no longitudinal position dependence for
the electrical phase of the wave along the waveguide. At the far
end of the waveguides, Gagnon et al. situated a phase comparator.
The signal was injected at one end of the two waveguides. The
phase difference was measured at the other end of the two
waveguides. Here is an ascii art representation of their setup:
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
@ >
===================================================
The top parallel set of hyphens represents the first waveguide.
The equal signs represents the second waveguide.
The @ represents the oscillator at one end.
The > represent the phase comparator at the other end.
In the first waveguide (operating at close to cutoff frequency),
the phase of the RF exiting the waveguide would be essentially
identical to the phase of the RF entering the waveguide. In the
second waveguide, variation in OWLS would alter the phase of the
RF exiting the waveguide as a first-order effect. So DEPENDING ON
THE THEORY BEING TESTED, the setup should be highly sensitive to
anisotropies in the one way speed of light (OWLS).
if you wish to measure OWLS, you need synced clocks at different
points. The hidden assumption in most measurements of OWLS is
that the synchronization procedure for the clocks either involves
two-way signaling (as for instance in Einstein synchronization),
or can be shown to be equivalent to the Einstein sync procedure.
Gagnon et al. didn't measure OWLS. Rather, they measured
DELTA OWLS. That's a -very- different measurement, and hence
they were able to use a single clock.
If Tim Lincecum simultaneously throws a baseball and a paper
airplane to you against the wind, you do not need a clock
synchronized to Lincecum's watch to determine that they arrive
at your location at different times.
Gagnon et al. "threw" two continuous RF beams simultaneously in
the same direction, one, like the baseball, relatively
insensitive to any hypothetical aether wind, the other, like the
paper airplane, sensitive to a classical aether wind.
There are no hidden assumptions concerning clock synchronization
in their experiment. They did make assumptions, however, about
their "test theory" that turn out to have been unwarranted.
Gagnon et al. believed that their setup was capable of
distinguishing between between LET and SR. In other words, they
believed their experiment capable of detecting a LORENTZIAN
aether wind. This turns out to have been wrong.
Despite defects in their test theory that led them to erroneous
conclusions concerning their ability to distinguish between LET
and SR, the experiment of Gagnon et al. is important because it
represents a true one-clock measurement of OWLS anisotropy.
Jerry
Peter Webb
_________________________________
You said that SR uses the same maths.
1. e=mc^2 is maths
2. It appears in SR
3. It does not appear in LET
4. Therefore the maths in LET is not the same as the maths in SR
Which part of this do you disagree with?
More generally, you are missing the difference between LET and SR. LET
compared to SR is a bit like Kepler's laws of planetary motion compared to
Newton's laws of gravity. Mathematically, inverse square laws imply
elliptical orbits (and Kepler's equal area formula), and Kepler's laws
require inverse square forces for gravity. You could say that Kepler is
mathematically identical to Newton for calculating planetary motion, because
you could derive the inverse square law purely from Kepler. Just as you can
derive time dilation purely from LET.
What Newton did, in a sense, is create a model of the solar system which
obeys the same physical laws as Kepler, but did so using a completely
different starting point and framework. Newton and Kepler predict exactly
the same kinds of orbits, but Kepler's laws of planetary movement are not
the same as Newton's law of gravity, even though mathematically they produce
exactly the same orbits.
A very similar relationship exists between SR and LET. SR in a sense
"explains" LET, just as Newton "explained" Kepler.
Kepler's laws were statements about what is observed, Newton explains why
these observations occurred. LET was statements about what was observed, SR
explains why these observations occur.
When Newton's law of gravity came out, it did not invalidate Kepler, and nor
did it even make any new predictions concerning elliptical orbits. It did
explain however why Kepler's laws were in a sense correct. Physicists did
not say immediately after Newton that Kepler was wrong, or his equations
were wrong (and indeed they produce mathematically identical elliptical
orbits). Newton just told a whole lot more of the story a lot more clearly,
and Newton's laws were immediately taken as more fundamental and useful than
Kepler.
When SR came out, it did not invalidate LET, and nor did it even make any
new predictions concerning time dilation. It did explain however why LET's
equations were in a sense correct. Physicists did not say immediately after
SR that LET was wrong, or its equations are wrong (and indeed they produce
mathematically identical time dilation). SR just told a whole lot more of
the story a lot more clearly, and SR was immediately taken as more
fundamental and useful than LET.
Had Kepler known calculus, he could have worked out that the acceleration of
a planet is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and
eventually got Newton's law of gravity, which is implicit in elliptical
orbits. He didn't. More to the point, he had no explanation of why his laws
held; they were empirical and not theoretical in that they described the
results of experiments, but provided no theoretical framework.
Similarly, if Lorentz and the others had considered the relationships
between energy and momentum in the right way, they would have got e=mc^2.
They didn't. More to the point, Lorentz had no explanation of why the
various transforms worked, they were empirical and not theoretical in that
described the results of experiments, but provided no theoretical framework.
You can use LET to calculate time dilation, just as you can use Kepler to
calculate orbits. But that doesn't mean that Kepler's theories are the same
as Newton's, or that LET is the same as SR.
HTH
Jerry
wrote:
> More generally, you are missing the difference between LET and SR. LET
An excellent analogy that I've never seen before!!!
I'll remember it.
Jerry
kenseto
>
> news:7806715d-93d2-49ff...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> >> > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> >> > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > remember that?
>
> >> > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> >> > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in
> >> > > > each
> >> > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> >> > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> >> > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> >> > > either observer.
>
> >> > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> >> > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> >> Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> >> surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > Do you mean like this one?
>
Then why did Einstein say that M' is runshing toward the light front
from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the
rear (c-v)??
Ken Seto
>
> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> > Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> > have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> > the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> > I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> > were petty/anal.
>
> :) Always a good conclusion to reach .. it shows you really are thinking
> and learning and advancing.
>
> > An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> > in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> > have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> > measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> > That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> > There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> > taught new tricks :)
>
> > Bruce
>
> And several points up my estimation ladder for doing so and admitting it
waldofj
> > frame in which light really travels at c.
>
> Then why did Einstein say that M' is runshing toward the light front
> from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the
> rear (c-v)??
>
> Ken Seto
called closing speed (c + v) and separating speed (c - v).
Why is that so difficult to understand?
rotchm
>LET was statements about what was observed, SR
> explains why these observations occur.
Hmmm, the opposite is generally said.
SR is a math theory which predicts outcomes of observations.
LET is a physical theory, predicting and dynamically explaining the
outcome.
This is often pointed out in the literature and in some scholarly
books on SR.
Peter Webb
Then why did Einstein say that M' is runshing toward the light front
from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the
rear (c-v)??
____________________________
If you want to know why the expressions c+v and c-v appear in Einstein's
1905 paper, it is because from the viewpoint of some inertial reference
frame then an object moving at v is moving with a relative velocity of v+c
to a light ray travelling in the opposite direction, and similarly for c-v.
A simpler example: We fire two photons in opposite directions. After 1
second, they are 2 light seconds apart, their relative velocity is 2c,
measured in the frame which fired the photons.
HTH
JT
Bwhahahahah that is emitter theory, they have hijacked emitter theory
now and want to start call it special relativity bwhahahahahah fucking
hilarious.
Listen to the stupid fucker pretending that the separation velocity
have anything with the observer to do, bwahahahahha he do not realise
that the separation velocity is between the two objects. Bwahahaha
distances is distances measured by units.
Wow this is mindboggling they want to interbreed special relativity
with emitter theory and get a turd with legs, still claim invariant
lightspeed in space bwhahahhahah patch nr 2010 bwahahahha.
I can see the new turd starting crawling now bwhahahahhahh and not a
unit in sight bwhahahahahahha.
JT
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:91cf20f2-735c-4ba2...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Very difficult when an ignorant, stupid cunt like you doesn't know
the ground is moving.
"And yet it moves" -- Galileo Galilei.
http://tinyurl.com/yjhx93c
G. L. Bradford
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:91cf20f2-735c-4ba2...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=====================
In both going away and closing, 'c' always forces the view that the
traveler is located, positioned, somewhere between the real-time traveler
and the real-time observer. A false position always apparently closer in
space than the real, always apparently earlier in time than the real, always
apparently slower in velocity than the real.
In going away not only does the real-time space traveler distance itself
from the observer, but distances itself from what will be apparent to the
observer. Distancing itself from what is apparent to the observer
(distancing itself from the virtual of itself being observed by the
observer). An expansion. At apparently one light second's distance from the
observer, the real-time traveler will be one light second plus one second in
distance from the observer. At apparently ten light seconds in distance from
the observer, the real-time traveler will be ten light seconds plus ten
seconds in distance from the observer. And so on, gaining distance in both
space and time (at once) from both the observer and the virtual of itself
being carried by the speed of light to the observer.
In closing, not only does the (unobserved) real traveler close upon the
observer, but closes upon the apparent traveler (only apparent to the
observer) situated between them until it closes up to the virtual of itself
and a merger of the real traveler and the apparent traveler occurs [dead at
the observer in the merged frame of all three]. A contraction. At apparently
ten light seconds from the observer (apparent coordinate position) the
real-time -older- traveler will be ten light seconds plus ten seconds in
distance from the observer. At apparently one light second from the observer
the real-time -older- traveler will be one light second plus one second from
the observer....and closing fast upon that light-time -younger- virtual of
itself -- apparently gaining in age ever more quickly -- being observed;
closing fast upon the light-time -younger- virtual of the observer -- also
apparently gaining in age ever more quickly -- it is observing; closing fast
upon the (unobserved) -older- real-time observer.
At [apparently] one light micro-second from the observer, as pointed out
above WHETHER IN CLOSING OR OPENING DISTANCE, the real-time traveler will be
one light micro-second plus one micro-second in [actual] distance from the
observer.
At [apparently] one light year from the observer, as pointed out above
WHETHER IN CLOSING OR OPENING DISTANCE, the real-time traveler will be one
light year plus one year in [actual] distance from the observer. Thus in
either direction, contracting or expanding distance in space-time, the
unobserved -faster- real always gains on the observed -slower- apparent
[always] located between itself and the observer. Yet!.....in closing to any
observer....it, the light speed carried -younger- apparent, or -younger-
virtual version, of the -older- traveler, did get there "between" reals
(getting there first! only -- and always -- to be tied by the real at the
finish line: every finish line)!
GLB
======================
BURT
> "waldofj" <wald...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Light travels through space at C in the space frame.
Mitch Raemsch
Bruce Richmond
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I didn't even
know what group velocity was till I looked it up last night. Still
need to look the experiment over more to fully understand it.
> There are no hidden assumptions concerning clock synchronization
> in their experiment. They did make assumptions, however, about
> their "test theory" that turn out to have been unwarranted.
> Gagnon et al. believed that their setup was capable of
> distinguishing between between LET and SR. In other words, they
> believed their experiment capable of detecting a LORENTZIAN
> aether wind. This turns out to have been wrong.
That is why in my response to PD I asked if assumptions were made
about contraction of the equipment. I had noticed that after pointing
out the distinction between SR and LET he didn't use LET but GGT
instead.
> Despite defects in their test theory that led them to erroneous
> conclusions concerning their ability to distinguish between LET
> and SR, the experiment of Gagnon et al. is important because it
> represents a true one-clock measurement of OWLS anisotropy.
>
> Jerry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just as some background, when I first studied EM waves in high school
the teacher told us that the speed of light was always c. If you were
standing on the ground it was c, and it was c for those in an airplane
flying by you. I asked how that could be? Why wasn't it c+v like it
would be for a sound wave or a bullet. His answer was "That's just
the way nature made things." When I didn't buy that answer he told me
"Thousands of scientists say it works that way. Who should I believe,
them or you." Whe I didn't accept that as an explaination I was told
that I could work the problems out my way and have them marked wrong,
or I could work them out his way and get them marked right. It was a
bitter pill to swollow but I just let it go at that. Never gave it
much thought again until I got on line and found this group.
When I took the SATs I got a 730 in math and a combined score of
1425. Just for fun I took the physics SAT and got a 700 on it. That
was over 40 years ago, but I don't think I have lost too many marbles
since then ;)
Bruce
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:26e68f86-9827-4534...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 1:04 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > > You are reading more into that than what I wrote. I am not choosing
> > > LET over SR. They use the same math
> > > ==================================================
>
> > Well, e = mc^2 is maths. It appears in SR, but not LET.
>
> > So I guess you were wrong, and they don't use the same maths.
>
> It can be derived using LET. SR wasn't the first place it showed up,
> so it doesn't own it any more than LET does.
>
> Others here say they use the same math, so I guess you are wrong :)~
>
> _________________________________
> You said that SR uses the same maths.
>
> 1. e=mc^2 is maths
> 2. It appears in SR
> 3. It does not appear in LET
> 4. Therefore the maths in LET is not the same as the maths in SR
>
> Which part of this do you disagree with?
Like I said, it can be derived from LET just as easily as SR. How
many books on LET have you read? ;)
Nice analogy, and for the most part I can buy that.
> Had Kepler known calculus, he could have worked out that the acceleration of
> a planet is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and
> eventually got Newton's law of gravity, which is implicit in elliptical
> orbits. He didn't. More to the point, he had no explanation of why his laws
> held; they were empirical and not theoretical in that they described the
> results of experiments, but provided no theoretical framework.
>
> Similarly, if Lorentz and the others had considered the relationships
> between energy and momentum in the right way, they would have got e=mc^2.
> They didn't. More to the point, Lorentz had no explanation of why the
> various transforms worked, they were empirical and not theoretical in that
> described the results of experiments, but provided no theoretical framework.
Not sure what you mean by that. The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction
was proposed to explain experimental results, but there was definitely
a theory about how it was arrived at. It's not like some oddball
equation was picked out of the air to match the data points recorded
in the MMX. He was aware that in order to measure the speed of light
as c in all frames, which what experimental results showed, he had to
use "local time" that was different from absolute time. And again he
made a pretty good guess at what that "local time" had to be.
I do agree that in a way SR shows how LET arrives at it's results, but
at the same time I see LET explaining how to get from a single
absolute frame to the second postulate. SR doesn't attempt to explain
that, it just postulates it.
> You can use LET to calculate time dilation, just as you can use Kepler to
> calculate orbits. But that doesn't mean that Kepler's theories are the same
> as Newton's, or that LET is the same as SR.
>
> HTH
I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that the theories
make the same predictions.
Bruce Richmond
Just to confuse you.
Seriously, each frame has its own perspective. Anything moving
relative to the frame you consider to be at rest will have a closing
speed with light. In its own rest frame light it sees things
differently.
>
>
>
> > > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> > > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> > > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> > > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> > No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> > > Recently I have been going back and re-reading some of the books I
> > > have bought over the years to see if I can come to grips with some of
> > > the modern interpertations of SR. After thinking about it for awhile
> > > I have realized that my objections about the changing definition of c
> > > were petty/anal.
>
> > :) Always a good conclusion to reach .. it shows you really are thinking
> > and learning and advancing.
>
> > > An analogy would be that there used to be 24 hours
> > > in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute. Now we
> > > have defined a second as so many transitions of an atom, and can
> > > measure the variation in the length of a day. The new way is better.
> > > That it is not in perfect agreement with the old doesn't change much.
> > > There was nothing sacred about the old. So yes, an old dog can be
> > > taught new tricks :)
>
> > > Bruce
>
> > And several points up my estimation ladder for doing so and admitting it
> > :):)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dono.
>
> > Start with the basics. I've given you important clues. How does
> > Gagnon et al's xperiment work?
>
> I haven't looked it over that closely but off hand I would say it is a
> gussied up MMX.
>
Not even close.
Mind you, since Gagnon there have been a lot more experiments that did
a fantastic job in constraining one way light speed anisotropy.
Inertial
"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:77f3f705-45fc-4505...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an observed
'fact'.
Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
reference.
That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very
easily reproduced and accurate standard for length.
> Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
> This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
>
> Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
No idea.
Inertial
OK .. I understand what you meant now. My comments about the differences
between the two stand, of course
Inertial
news:19d3efdd-b1d3-433f...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Closing and separation speeds. This has been explained to you over and
over.
Inertial
news:c95b950e-f271-496c...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 mar, 15:46, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > In SR there is no c+v or c-v, because there is no fixed absolute
>> > > aether
>> > > frame in which light really travels at c.
>>
>> > Then why did Einstein say that M' is runshing toward the light front
>> > from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the
>> > rear (c-v)??
>>
>> > Ken Seto
>>
>> that is from the point of view of the observer on the ground and it's
>> called closing speed (c + v) and separating speed (c - v).
>> Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
> Bwhahahahah that is emitter theory,
SO .. its jsut simple vector difference in speeds.
> they have hijacked emitter theory
No hijacking invovled
> now and want to start call it special relativity bwhahahahahah fucking
> hilarious.
See.. you just have no idea what you're talking about.
> Listen to the stupid fucker pretending that the separation velocity
> have anything with the observer to do,
Every observer will measure a (possibly) different separation speed.
> bwahahahahha he do not realise
> that the separation velocity is between the two objects.
As measured by a third
>Bwahahaha
> distances is distances measured by units.
Yes it is
> Wow this is mindboggling they want to interbreed special relativity
> with emitter theory
nothing of the sort .. its all jsut SR. If you actually understood any
physics, you would know
> and get a turd with legs, still claim invariant
> lightspeed in space bwhahahhahah patch nr 2010 bwahahahha.
>
> I can see the new turd starting crawling now bwhahahahhahh and not a
> unit in sight bwhahahahahahha.
More nonsensical gibberish from moron JT
Jerry
> On Mar 6, 5:21 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > There are no hidden assumptions concerning clock synchronization
> > in their experiment. They did make assumptions, however, about
> > their "test theory" that turn out to have been unwarranted.
> > Gagnon et al. believed that their setup was capable of
> > distinguishing between between LET and SR. In other words, they
> > believed their experiment capable of detecting a LORENTZIAN
> > aether wind. This turns out to have been wrong.
>
> That is why in my response to PD I asked if assumptions were made
> about contraction of the equipment. I had noticed that after pointing
> out the distinction between SR and LET he didn't use LET but GGT
> instead.
GGT was their "test theory". Tom Roberts explains better than I
can what test theories are all about:
"A test theory of SR is a generalization of the Lorentz
transforms of SR using additional parameters. One can then
analyze experiments using the test theory (rather than SR
itself) and fit the parameters of the test theory to the
experimental results. If the fitted parameter values differ
significantly from the values corresponding to SR, then the
experiment is inconsistent with SR. But more normally, such
fits can show how well a given experiment confirms or disagrees
with SR, and what the experimental accuracy is for doing so.
This gives a general and tractable method of analysis which
can be common to multiple experiments."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One cannot just throw in additional parameters willy-nilly into
a theory and get a test theory out of it. Test theories need to
satisfy many of the same tests for physical reasonableness as
"real" theories.
One important physical reasonableness criterion is that a set of
transformations must form a group. If you apply the Lorentz
transform twice in a row, the result should also be a Lorentz
tranform. If you use the Lorentz transforms to map events from a
first frame onto a second frame, it should be possible to do an
inverse mapping from the second frame back onto the first, and
so forth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)
It is trivial to demonstrate that the Galilean transforms form a
group. It is a somewhat tedious, but when you finally succeed,
rather satisfying exercise to demonstrate that the Lorentz
transforms form a group.
The GGT transforms do not form a group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On these newsgroups, one frequently sees the assertion that LET
is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Remind me some time
to explain why I consider that to be a false statement, although
a few technological breakthroughs might be necessary before
definitive tests can be made...
Jerry
bert
>
> It is trivial to demonstrate that the Galilean transforms form a
> group. It is a somewhat tedious, but when you finally succeed,
> rather satisfying exercise to demonstrate that the Lorentz
> transforms form a group.
>
> The GGT transforms do not form a group.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On these newsgroups, one frequently sees the assertion that LET
> is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Remind me some time
> to explain why I consider that to be a false statement, although
> a few technological breakthroughs might be necessary before
> definitive tests can be made...
>
> Jerry
Light going from gamma to radio photons lose energy but their speed is
the same. It would not be a photon if it went slower than c TreBert
Bruce Richmond
>
> It is trivial to demonstrate that the Galilean transforms form a
> group. It is a somewhat tedious, but when you finally succeed,
> rather satisfying exercise to demonstrate that the Lorentz
> transforms form a group.
>
> The GGT transforms do not form a group.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On these newsgroups, one frequently sees the assertion that LET
> is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Remind me some time
> to explain why I consider that to be a false statement, although
> a few technological breakthroughs might be necessary before
> definitive tests can be made...
>
> Jerry
Thanks once again for the thorough answer. But my point was that the
author had implied that his experiment could distinguish between SR
and LET, so why not use LET as the test theory. To disprove a theory
that was known to be wrong to "confirm" SR hardly seems fair. Isn't
that what is called a strawman? The fact that he couldn't disprove
LET shows that somewhere in the analysis of the experiment an
assumption was made, since LET definitely uses c+v.
Bruce
Jerry
> Thanks once again for the thorough answer. But my point was that the
> author had implied that his experiment could distinguish between SR
> and LET, so why not use LET as the test theory.
An experiment to test a theory need a framework of assumptions
that are broader in scope than those of of the original theory.
One cannot test a theory in terms of itself.
The idea behind a test theory is to parameterize a theory's basic
assumptions so that a -quantitative- comparison can be made
between the theory's predictions and the results of experimental
test. The form of the test theory constrains the questions that
one asks in a particular experimental analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity
Take, for instance, Newton's law of gravity. What exponent in r
is consistent with the observed distribution of stellar velocities
in the nearby galaxies? An appropriate test theory might be
F = GmM/r^(2+delta), and after lots and lots of curve fitting
against Doppler measurements, the best-fit value of delta might
be found to be -1.32e-8 +/- 2.19e-9 (totally made-up numbers).
Such an observation would show that something is seriously lacking
in our understanding of stellar dynamics in galaxies. It would not
necessarily mean that the inverse-square law actually needs to be
modified, but the use of a test theory provides A COMMON LANGUAGE
FOR DISCUSSION among people researching a problem. Viewed in terms
of my over-simplified test theory, it -would- appear as if the
force of gravity falls off more slowly than inverse-squared.
An alternative test theory might choose to model galaxies as
surrounded by a dilute halo of invisible matter, in which case
the question is, how much of this invisible stuff would be needed
to account for the observed Doppler measurements?
Different test theories use different parameterizations, and the
different parameterizations imply different questions. This is
just the nature of the beast. Test theories are generally not
meant to be taken seriously as real explanations of nature, but
as I said, offer a framework for common understanding
Going back to Gagnon et al., the questions that they tried to
address with GGT were (1) how to parameterize the Lorentz
transforms so that any measured anisotropies might be accounted
for in terms of the parameterized theory (2) to distinguish
between the predictions of SR and LET.
Standard test theories of special relativity do not distinguish
between the predictions of SR and LET, so Gagnon et al. rolled
their own.
> To disprove a theory
> that was known to be wrong to "confirm" SR hardly seems fair. Isn't
> that what is called a strawman?
Gagnon et al. didn't know that their test theory was inconsistent.
So it wasn't an -intentional- strawman.
> The fact that he couldn't disprove
> LET shows that somewhere in the analysis of the experiment an
> assumption was made, since LET definitely uses c+v.
Jerry
BURT
> On Mar 7, 11:58 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks once again for the thorough answer. But my point was that the
> > author had implied that his experiment could distinguish between SR
> > and LET, so why not use LET as the test theory.
>
> An experiment to test a theory need a framework of assumptions
> that are broader in scope than those of of the original theory.
> One cannot test a theory in terms of itself.
>
> The idea behind a test theory is to parameterize a theory's basic
> assumptions so that a -quantitative- comparison can be made
> between the theory's predictions and the results of experimental
> test. The form of the test theory constrains the questions that
The constant of C is through space not any matterial frame. Light can
flow ahead of your flow by inches. You can stay behind light and this
confirms your absolute motion below light speed through space.
Mitch Raemsch
Paul Stowe
> "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:77f3f705-45fc-4505...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> >> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> >> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> >> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> > It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
> > What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
> > lengths.
>
> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an observed
> 'fact'.
And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
behavior.
> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
> reference.
Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements. Again
LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
> That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very
> easily reproduced and accurate standard for length.
>
> > Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
> > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
> > Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
>
> No idea.
Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
of LET... :) To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach
pigs to sing...
Paul Stowe
Androcles
"Paul Stowe" <theaet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Paul Stowe
==================================================
Yippee, a kook fight!
Inertial
"Paul Stowe" <theaet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:77f3f705-45fc-4505...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
>> >> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
>> >> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
>> >> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our
>> >> > standard.
>>
>> >> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>>
>> > It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
>> > What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
>> > lengths.
>>
>> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an
>> observed
>> 'fact'.
>
> And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
> as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
> behavior.
SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
>> reference.
>
> Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements.
AS I said
> Again
> LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in the
only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether
frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks.
There are no such distortions in SR
>> That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very
>> easily reproduced and accurate standard for length.
>>
>> > Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
>> > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>>
>> > Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
>>
>> No idea.
>
> Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
> of LET... :)
LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I just
don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not compatible
AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the assumption of an
undetectable aether with properties that don't make sense.
Peter Webb
> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I
> just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the
> assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make
> sense.
>
The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the
experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either
exists.
Inertial
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b946681$0$24251$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless perhaps
some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but
compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would allow
one to test for its presence or not.
If that is the case, then we cannot scientifically prove or refute that
aether exists.
Occam's razor wipes out aether as being required for physics. If it exists,
it makes no difference to how we measure reality.
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I
> > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the
> > sense.
>
> The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the
> experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either
> exists.
What is a 'fixed ether'?
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Oh, and BTW, please derive the physical basis of the LTE within the
framework of SR.
Thanks,
Inertial
LTE?
Paul Stowe
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Lorentz Transform Equation => Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)
Paul Stowe
BURT
Its the space frame and its aether.
Mitch Raemsch; changing position is the element of aether creating
motion in its space
Paul Stowe
Well it's no more 'fixed' that the atmosphere is around us. And, just
like it, c varies with position and conditions which, of course, is
the real reason the SR is only special for local regions...
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally.
> I just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the
> assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make
> sense.
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE
LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY
WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT"
Peter Webb
_______________________
Non-existent.
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is your 'belief'. The question was in physical model arena.
Give or reference a basic hypothetical definition...
Paul Stowe
Inertial
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7vjadl...@mid.individual.net...
I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer review?
Who is this Ilja person?
Inertial
Ok .. it is more standard to refer to the Lorentz Transforms as 'LT', rather
than 'LTE'
And Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) is not it. That's the value usually referred to as a
gamma factor.
Se Einstein's 1950 paper for a derivation from basic axioms (in particular
the 'physical' speed of light as c). It also comes out naturally from the
geomtry of space being minkowski rather than Euclidean (from which one gets
the basis for Gallilean transforms). One does not need a 'physical' basis
for Gallilean transforms (other than the assumed geometry of space), so one
doesn't need one for Lorentz Transforms (other than the assumed geometry of
spacetime)
Peter Webb
_____________________________
A priveleged inertial reference frame. Of course, as I don't believe it
exists, I am hardly in a position to extol its qualities. This seems to be
what believers in a "fixed ether" mean by the term, but you would be better
off asking them. I know as much about ether as I do about Unicorns. In fact,
I don't even know if Unicorns are horses with a single spiral horn, or are a
completely different species that just looks like a horse with a horn. If
you really want to know, ask somebody who believes in Unicorns and/or the
fixed ether what they are exactly.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally.
> > I just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the
> > sense.
>
> http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE
> LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY
> WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT"
Hi Fred,
This looks interesting...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf
Paul Stowe
Jerry
> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless perhaps
> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but
> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would allow
> one to test for its presence or not.
I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in
principle.
The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with
is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of
electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space. But
there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the
strong, weak, and gravitational forces.
These other forces are so completely different in properties from
electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their
own aethers. It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could
be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse
characteristics. Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether,
there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers.
These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other
in their mechanical properties, and therefore the speed at which
waves propagate through them must differ.
Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter
differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong
aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind
should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing
luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material
substances.
=================================================================
A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be
that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves,
and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds. For
even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission
would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the
imagination.
Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable
due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as
the Lorentz transformations. The measured speed of transmission
of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in
different directions due to the Earth's motions through space.
=================================================================
Special relativity, however, makes a different prediction than
aether theories. Electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, and
strong waves should all travel at a common speed c, while the
weak force should not propagate at any constant speed.
=================================================================
Jerry
Inertial
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4618fc10-f129-4474...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless perhaps
>> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but
>> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would
>> allow
>> one to test for its presence or not.
>
> I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in
> principle.
OK .. so you know how to falsify the hypothesis that aether exists?
> The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with
> is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of
> electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space.
Hypothetical, but not (as yet) falsifiable
> But
> there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the
> strong, weak, and gravitational forces.
>
> These other forces are so completely different in properties from
> electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their
> own aethers.
Why not the same aether? Why does there need to be ANY aethers? How does
this make the ( luminiferous ) aether falsifiable .. let alone the others
(if any) ?
> It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could
> be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse
> characteristics.
Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR?
> Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether,
> there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers.
You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is not
a prediction of LET.
> These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other
> in their mechanical properties,
What mechanical properties does aether have?
> and therefore the speed at which
> waves propagate through them must differ.
Why?
> Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter
> differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong
> aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind
> should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing
> luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material
> substances.
Or even why it ANY aether should induce object compressions and process
slowing due to movement through it
> =================================================================
> A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be
> that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves,
> and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds.
No .. that does not follow
> For
> even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission
> would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the
> imagination.
Not really.
> Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable
> due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as
> the Lorentz transformations.
We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers (if
any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed).
> The measured speed of transmission
> of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in
> different directions due to the Earth's motions through space.
You are making your own assertions about what you think is the case
falsifiable. Your assumptions can be false and LET still valid.
So we're back at square one.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4618fc10-f129-4474...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless perhaps
> >> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but
> >> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would
> >> allow
> >> one to test for its presence or not.
>
> > I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in
> > principle.
>
> OK .. so you know how to falsify the hypothesis that aether exists?
>
> > The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with
> > is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of
> > electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space.
>
> Hypothetical, but not (as yet) falsifiable
>
> > But
> > there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the
> > strong, weak, and gravitational forces.
>
> > These other forces are so completely different in properties from
> > electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their
> > own aethers.
>
> Why not the same aether? Why does there need to be ANY aethers? How does
> this make the ( luminiferous ) aether falsifiable .. let alone the others
> (if any) ?
You forget that the WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN AETHER was to provide a
mechanistic basis for the transmission of waves. Classically,
supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to
come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties
to support all the known characteristics of light.
> > It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could
> > be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse
> > characteristics.
>
> Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR?
>
> > Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether,
> > there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers.
>
> You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is not
> a prediction of LET.
Read Lorentz's original writings. Here on these newsgroups we
tend to forget that Lorentz was developing a theory of the
electron. LET is not an abstract mathematical theory. It is a
MECHANISTIC theory.
> > These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other
> > in their mechanical properties,
>
> What mechanical properties does aether have?
That is what advocates of an aether must supply.
> > and therefore the speed at which
> > waves propagate through them must differ.
>
> Why?
Why not?
> > Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter
> > differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong
> > aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind
> > should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing
> > luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material
> > substances.
>
> Or even why it ANY aether should induce object compressions and process
> slowing due to movement through it
That is an INTRINSIC assumption of LET.
> > =================================================================
> > A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be
> > that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves,
> > and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds.
>
> No .. that does not follow
>
> > For
> > even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission
> > would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the
> > imagination.
>
> Not really.
>
> > Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable
> > due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as
> > the Lorentz transformations.
>
> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers (if
> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed).
>
> > The measured speed of transmission
> > of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in
> > different directions due to the Earth's motions through space.
>
> You are making your own assertions about what you think is the case
> falsifiable. Your assumptions can be false and LET still valid.
>
> So we're back at square one.
No. Because you are mistakenly treating LET as an abstract
mathematical theory. It is not.
Inertial
I didn't forget anything
> Classically,
> supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to
> come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties
> to support all the known characteristics of light.
It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting all
matter and slowing all processes in particular :)
Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to to
explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect.
However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify
aether.
>> > It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could
>> > be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse
>> > characteristics.
>>
>> Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR?
>>
>> > Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether,
>> > there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers.
>>
>> You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is
>> not
>> a prediction of LET.
>
> Read Lorentz's original writings. Here on these newsgroups we
> tend to forget that Lorentz was developing a theory of the
> electron. LET is not an abstract mathematical theory. It is a
> MECHANISTIC theory.
You still haven't answered why there must be multiple aethers and why they
need to have different properties.
>> > These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other
>> > in their mechanical properties,
>>
>> What mechanical properties does aether have?
>
> That is what advocates of an aether must supply.
But you are the one claiming that such difference in properties can be used
to falsify aether. But you don't know what the properties are. SO it seems
like your claims that aether could be falsifiable have not substance (rather
aetherial :):))
>> > and therefore the speed at which
>> > waves propagate through them must differ.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why not?
Why not is not a good enough reason for using this to falsify the aether.
>> > Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter
>> > differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong
>> > aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind
>> > should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing
>> > luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material
>> > substances.
>>
>> Or even why it ANY aether should induce object compressions and process
>> slowing due to movement through it
>
> That is an INTRINSIC assumption of LET.
It is an assumption that it does that. But how and why ANY aether would do
this (or why one sort of aether would and another not) is unanswered. If
one is to falsify an aether one must know
>> > =================================================================
>> > A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be
>> > that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves,
>> > and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds.
>>
>> No .. that does not follow
>>
>> > For
>> > even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission
>> > would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the
>> > imagination.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> > Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable
>> > due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as
>> > the Lorentz transformations.
>>
>> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers
>> (if
>> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed).
>>
>> > The measured speed of transmission
>> > of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in
>> > different directions due to the Earth's motions through space.
>>
>> You are making your own assertions about what you think is the case
>> falsifiable. Your assumptions can be false and LET still valid.
>>
>> So we're back at square one.
>
> No.
Yes
> Because you are mistakenly treating LET as an abstract
> mathematical theory. It is not.
Irrrelevant whether it is or is not.
You still have not backed up your claim of a falsifiable aether with
anything but handwaving and 'why not's
Jerry
> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers (if
> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed).
As a supporter of the "one aether hypothesis", please provide me
with a mechanistic description of a single aether that can
support both the inverse-squared (gravity and light) and diverse
non-inverse-squared laws (strong and weak forces).
Also, you will have to prove that W and Z particles travel at
the speed of light. :-)
Jerry
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > Classically,
> > supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to
> > come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties
> > to support all the known characteristics of light.
>
> It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting all
> matter and slowing all processes in particular :)
>
> Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to to
> explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect.
No. Present-day advocates of aether theory may invest the aether
with godlike magical properties, but Lorentz did not do that.
Lorentz's aether had a highly specific set of properties.
> However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify
> aether.
Not within LET itself, but within the meta-theory of which LET
must represent merely one of multiple media of highly diverse
properties.
Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity,
for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that?
Jerry
Peter Webb
for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that?
___________________________
That would be a somewhat stronger argument if we had ever actually detected
a gravity wave. As it is, their absence may prove a MM moment for GR sooner
or later.
Jerry
wrote:
Of course, Hulse Taylor makes the existence of gravitational
waves all but certain.
My contention is that aether theories impose no necessary
constraint on the speed of gravitational waves versus light waves.
There is no existing aether theory that explains them as
manifestations of the same phenomenon. Aether theories as
presently understood therefore predict different speeds for
gravitational waves versus light waves.
Note: PREdict, not POSTdict. The speed of gravitation has not
been measured.
If the speed of sound were measured to be the same in air, water
and steel, that observation would disprove all current theories
of sound.
If the speed of gravitational waves is ever shown identical to
the speed of light waves, that observation would disprove all
current aether theories...
Jerry
PD
>
> Just as some background, when I first studied EM waves in high school
> the teacher told us that the speed of light was always c. If you were
> standing on the ground it was c, and it was c for those in an airplane
> flying by you. I asked how that could be? Why wasn't it c+v like it
> would be for a sound wave or a bullet. His answer was "That's just
> the way nature made things." When I didn't buy that answer he told me
> "Thousands of scientists say it works that way. Who should I believe,
> them or you."
I'm sorry you had such a terrible HS science teacher. You would not
encounter this response in a decent college class.
> Whe I didn't accept that as an explaination I was told
> that I could work the problems out my way and have them marked wrong,
> or I could work them out his way and get them marked right. It was a
> bitter pill to swollow but I just let it go at that. Never gave it
> much thought again until I got on line and found this group.
>
> When I took the SATs I got a 730 in math and a combined score of
> 1425. Just for fun I took the physics SAT and got a 700 on it. That
> was over 40 years ago, but I don't think I have lost too many marbles
> since then ;)
>
> Bruce
PD
>
> Occam's razor wipes out aether as being required for physics. If it exists,
> it makes no difference to how we measure reality.
This will lead to bickering over Occam's razor, as those who favor the
aether say that, because it is harder for people to believe in 4D
spacetime than in 3D space + time, then Occam's razor favors aether
theory.
Occam provided a *rule of thumb*. Abuse of a rule of thumb is too easy
to take it more seriously than that.
PD
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak,
and gravitational forces. However, it is right to expect that if LET
*is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it
*should* be applicable in the case of the other forces.
You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz
covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the
Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained.
However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance
of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of
application.
You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the
electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance
of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would
be an obviously obstinate stance.
Uncle Al
[sni crap]
> This will lead to bickering over Occam's razor, as those who favor the
> aether say that, because it is harder for people to believe in 4D
> spacetime than in 3D space + time, then Occam's razor favors aether
> theory.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
No Lorentz violation
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Inertial
> On Mar 8, 6:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:7ec422c5-c1be-4bb7...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Classically,
>> > supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to
>> > come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties
>> > to support all the known characteristics of light.
>>
>> It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting
>> all
>> matter and slowing all processes in particular :)
>>
>> Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to
>> to
>> explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect.
>
> No. Present-day advocates of aether theory may invest the aether
> with godlike magical properties, but Lorentz did not do that.
> Lorentz's aether had a highly specific set of properties.
Which are not falsifiable.
And even if one COULD find some test that would make aether falsifiable, if
it fails, it would be resolved by aether supporters by providing some new
property of the aether that explains it.
>> However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify
>> aether.
>
> Not within LET itself, but within the meta-theory of which LET
> must represent merely one of multiple media of highly diverse
> properties.
But that is not LET. That is some arbitrary theory you're putting forward
that there must be multiple aethers. All we can do is refute your theory
that there are which does NOTHING to refute LET
> Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity,
> for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that?
NO idea .. but if it is put forward as a way to refute LET because it
doesn't, then LET will be modified so that it does.
Inertial
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6df7b680-7ee4-47a1...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
So either the same aether transmits them, or a different aether (which may
have some properties in common with the EMR aether), or some other mechanism
(eg for strong and weak forces)
> You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz
> covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the
> Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained.
> However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance
> of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of
> application.
Indeed it does.
> You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the
> electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance
> of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would
> be an obviously obstinate stance.
Supports of 'alternatives' to SR can be a very obstinate bunch.
Inertial
> On Mar 8, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>>> Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity,
>>> for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that?
>>
>> ___________________________
>> That would be a somewhat stronger argument if we had ever actually
>> detected
>> a gravity wave. As it is, their absence may prove a MM moment for GR
>> sooner
>> or later.
>
> Of course, Hulse Taylor makes the existence of gravitational
> waves all but certain.
>
> My contention is that aether theories impose no necessary
> constraint on the speed of gravitational waves versus light waves.
Unless (aether proponents will calim) they are transmitted using the SAME
aether, or event a separate aether (as you proposed). Perhaps all aethers
have a propagation speed of c due to whatever-it-is that makes them an
aether. Of crouse, we can't tell what the properties are directly, as we
don't know what an aether really is and have never detected one. So we can
only go by what we can observe that we THINK is caused by aether .. and so
if we observe that everything has a speed of c in any aether, then that must
be a property of all aethers. One cannot ever falsify a 'theory' that is so
easily changed.
So you cannot use gravity wave propagation rate being the same as the speed
of light (say) as a refutation of an aether.
> There is no existing aether theory that explains them as
> manifestations of the same phenomenon. Aether theories as
> presently understood therefore predict different speeds for
> gravitational waves versus light waves.
>
> Note: PREdict, not POSTdict. The speed of gravitation has not
> been measured.
>
> If the speed of sound were measured to be the same in air, water
> and steel, that observation would disprove all current theories
> of sound.
>
> If the speed of gravitational waves is ever shown identical to
> the speed of light waves, that observation would disprove all
> current aether theories...
It would do no such thing.
Inertial
> On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers
>> (if
>> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed).
>
> As a supporter of the "one aether hypothesis",
I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can
give it any properties they want, there is no reason why we need separate
aethers. There is also no reason why an aether should have to be responsible
for the weak and strong forces. Unless (as a clear supporter of multiple
aethers) you have a reason why aether must exist.
> please provide me
> with a mechanistic description of a single aether that can
> support both the inverse-squared (gravity and light) and diverse
> non-inverse-squared laws (strong and weak forces).
>
> Also, you will have to prove that W and Z particles travel at
> the speed of light. :-)
*I* don't have to do anything .. I am not advocating aether theories. I am
simply pointing out that you have not provided ANY way to falsify aether
theories. All you have done is said that if we add another level of theory
that predicts multiple aethers, then IF those aethers had different
propagation speeds we would get different speeds for emr and gravity waves
.. but of crouse, if we DONT" get different speeds, all that refutes is your
assumption that the speeds in the aethers is NOT different (or gravity and
EMR use the same aether).
Jerry
> That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak,
> and gravitational forces.
Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904.
> However, it is right to expect that if LET
> *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it
> *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces.
Why?
Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be
applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various
alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le
Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory.
If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the
propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads
to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct
properties.
The fact is, no plausible unified aether theory exists. There is
no reason whatsoever for aether theories to predict a common
speed of propagation for any of the fundamental forces.
> You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz
> covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the
> Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained.
> However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance
> of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of
> application.
Yes.
> You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the
> electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance
> of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would
> be an obviously obstinate stance.
Jerry
BURT
Increase your flow to near light speed. Shine a flashlight in same
direction and its light fill flow ahead of you only by a small speed.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak,
> > and gravitational forces.
>
> Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904.
>
> > However, it is right to expect that if LET
> > *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it
> > *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces.
>
> Why?
Because the other forces are just as manifestly covariant as
electromagnetism. See below.
>
> Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be
> applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various
> alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le
> Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory.
>
> If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the
> propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads
> to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct
> properties.
Indeed. Especially since the weak force is mediated by carriers that
generally do not travel at c, and the interaction is STILL Lorentz
covariant.
Jerry
> On Mar 8, 4:06 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak,
> > > and gravitational forces.
>
> > Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904.
>
> > > However, it is right to expect that if LET
> > > *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it
> > > *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because the other forces are just as manifestly covariant as
> electromagnetism. See below.
>
>
>
> > Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be
> > applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various
> > alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le
> > Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory.
>
> > If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the
> > propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads
> > to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct
> > properties.
>
> Indeed. Especially since the weak force is mediated by carriers that
> generally do not travel at c, and the interaction is STILL Lorentz
> covariant.
KLUNK!!!
(sound of jaw dropping on the floor...)
Now THAT is interesting!!!!
Reference? That's worth making a special trip to the university
library!!!
Paul Stowe
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an
> >> observed 'fact'.
>
> > And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
> > as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
> > behavior.
>
> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
That's simply a silly idea...
> >> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
> >> reference.
>
> > Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements.
>
> AS I said
>
> > Again
> > LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
>
> So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in the
> only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether
> frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks.
> There are no such distortions in SR
No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation
velocity of the medium. In LET that is not changed regardless of
motion. In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a
simply derivation to show this.
> >> No idea.
>
> > Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
> > of LET... :)
>
> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I just
> don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not compatible
> AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the assumption of an
> undetectable aether with properties that don't make sense.
Mea cupa,I stand corrected. In fact LET is a better foundation in
physical science than SR. The physical model (aetherial medium) on
which is LET is founded is perfectly compatible with GR. In fact, it
fits GR better given the fundamental hydrodynamical form of its
mathematics. It even easier to explain its behavior in a more unified
manner.
> > To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach
> > pigs to sing...
>
> > Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ec6405e7-99b7-4137...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 7:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:f0ae8888-de0b-4d93...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Minkowski isn't fundamental, and, in fact, trying to use it is a
classic circular argument.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9c1e1ae6-c9c1-497d...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? There
is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field
profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing
priveleged as in having different properties about it.
Inertial
> On Mar 7, 6:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an
>> >> observed 'fact'.
>>
>> > And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
>> > as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
>> > behavior.
>>
>> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>
> That's simply a silly idea...
That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>> >> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames
>> >> of
>> >> reference.
>>
>> > Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements.
>>
>> AS I said
>>
>> > Again
>> > LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
>>
>> So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in
>> the
>> only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether
>> frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks.
>> There are no such distortions in SR
>
> No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation
> velocity of the medium.
Only in the absolute aether frame.
> In LET that is not changed regardless of
> motion.
Yes .. it is. But it only appears to be travelling at c because we measure
speed with contracted rulers and out-of-sync clocks.
> In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a
> simply derivation to show this.
Indeed it is .. but that doesn't mean you are right. The gamma factor in
LET is how much ones rulers shrink and how clocks slow etc .. resulting in
incorrect measurements of speed. If you could use rulers and clocks
unaffected by their motion in the aether, then you'd get very different
non-isotropic speeds for light, according to LET
>> >> No idea.
>>
>> > Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
>> > of LET... :)
>>
>> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I
>> just
>> don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
>> compatible
>> AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the assumption of
>> an
>> undetectable aether with properties that don't make sense.
>
> Mea cupa,I stand corrected. In fact LET is a better foundation in
> physical science than SR. The physical model (aetherial medium) on
> which is LET is founded is perfectly compatible with GR. In fact, it
> fits GR better given the fundamental hydrodynamical form of its
> mathematics. It even easier to explain its behavior in a more unified
> manner.
How does aether theory work with GR (that has curved space-time) ? SR is a
subset of GR .. LET is not.
Inertial
Yes .. it is .. Just because you think it isn't doesn't make it so.
Minkowski geometry is as fundamental as Euclidien space. Probably more so,
because the universe actually is properly modelled by Minkowski geometry.
> and, in fact, trying to use it is a
> classic circular argument.
Nope. That was just a typical hypocritical aetherist response. According
to aetherist the universe MUST be Euclidean and so they do not need to
justify using that geometry as a basis. But when a physicist say the
universe has Minkowski geometry instead, then the aetherist demands a
justification for it. Neither geometry is more fundamental than the other
.. just different. So either both need justification, or neither.
Inertial
In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame.
In all other frames of reference, the compression of rulers and the slowing
and change of sync in processes means we *measure* the speed incorrectly and
get a value of isotropic c .. when *really* the speed is not isotropic c in
that frame at all.
If we could have a ruler and clock immune to the effects of movement through
the aether (ie that stayed its correct length and kepy correct time) then we
would see that.
Perhaps we can find a way to make a region of space aether-free (though that
would involve knowing the properties of aether and finding a way to stop it
getting into a given region, or extracting it from there). Then putting our
clocks and rulers in that space. That would then give correct measurements
and show that the aether frame is indeed privileged (as LET claims it to
be).
But due to the nature of the effects of movement through the aether, we are
destined to never be able to measure correct speeds or distances with our
compressed rulers and slowed out-of-sync clocks. And worse, as that means
we cannot really know which is the aether frame, we cannot even calculate
the correct adjustments.
How sad. But that's how things are according to LET.
Jerry
> I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can
> give it any properties they want,
False. That would be resorting to magic.
The classsical aetherists firmly disbelieved in magic. The
aethers that they devised always had solid grounding in
mechanical analogy. Whether it be the vortices of Descartes, the
cogwheels of Maxwell, or the ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage,
the mechanisms employed in their models always had mechanical
precedent.
There is simply no mechanical precedent for a single medium
capable of transmitting multiple vibratory modes spanning 38
orders of magnitude in strength, all of these vibratory modes
traveling at the same speed, yet coupling differently to matter.
Without any sort of mechanical precedent, classical aetherists
would utterly reject your magical handwavings.
> there is no reason why we need separate
> aethers. There is also no reason why an aether should have to be responsible
> for the weak and strong forces. Unless (as a clear supporter of multiple
> aethers) you have a reason why aether must exist.
Quite frankly, you have done nothing but present a series of
special pleads, quite similar to how HW explains BaTh.
Jerry
FrediFizzx
news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7vjadl...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally.
>>> I just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is
>>> not compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has
>>> make sense.
>>
>> http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF
>> THE LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY
>> WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT"
>
> I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer
> review? Who is this Ilja person?
Ilja Schmelzer is a serious independent researcher and is a long time
poster to these sci.physics.* groups. Do a googlegroup search and you
will find some interesting discussions in years past. Some of the
general ideas of that paper linked above were recently peer reviewed in
this article,
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/FOOP9262.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2470867k22637651/
Inertial
Sounds like its you. Self-publishing on private web-sites generally tends
to be the activity of crackpots because reputable journals won't publish
them
Inertial
> On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can
>> give it any properties they want,
>
> False. That would be resorting to magic.
No .. That's what they can do. As we have never observed aether, they can
assign any property they like to it in order to discredit possible
refutations (if there were any). No magic invovled.
[snip nonsense about magic]
> There is simply no mechanical precedent for a single medium
> capable of transmitting multiple vibratory modes spanning 38
> orders of magnitude in strength, all of these vibratory modes
> traveling at the same speed, yet coupling differently to matter.
But the aether of LET is not like any other medium. So that other things
that are NOT aether are different to aether does not matter to LET
advocates.
> Without any sort of mechanical precedent, classical aetherists
> would utterly reject your magical handwavings.
No .. they wouldn't .. Because it is what they do already.
>> there is no reason why we need separate
>> aethers. There is also no reason why an aether should have to be
>> responsible
>> for the weak and strong forces. Unless (as a clear supporter of multiple
>> aethers) you have a reason why aether must exist.
>
> Quite frankly, you have done nothing but present a series of
> special pleads, quite similar to how HW explains BaTh.
Nope .. I have shown your arguments false, and that one CANNOT (or at least
not yet) make the existence of aether falsifiable.
You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about supposed
other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good
luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a
testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or not
once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that.
Paul Stowe
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:db9b3abf-9d31-4978...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 7, 6:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an
> >> >> observed 'fact'.
>
> >> > And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
> >> > as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
> >> > behavior.
>
> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>
> > That's simply a silly idea...
>
> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
Something physical may be represented by a geometric description.
But, to say that something physical results from, a.k.a. is caused by
geometry, is putting the cart before the horse, its intellectually
silly. It's certainly not my problem since I won't buy into it.
> >> >> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames
> >> >> of reference.
>
> >> > Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements.
>
> >> AS I said
>
> >> > Again LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
>
> >> So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in
> >> the only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether
> >> frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks.
> >> There are no such distortions in SR
>
> > No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation
> > velocity of the medium.
>
> Only in the absolute aether frame.
In LET (inherited from the physical medium model) light speed is the
actual propagation speed of all disturbances/perturbations, PERIOD!
It a physical property and if it like all other known media, it not
universally constant. However, if you're moving c doesn't change.
Then, if your measuring devices are not tied to those very same
processes and are, in fact independent of and uninfluenced you can get
MMX predicted result. The ONLY difference is the travel length along
the axis of motion. That's enough to discriminate the asymmetry and
properly realize you're moving. Again however, by our definition of
speed as the observed or measured change in distance divided by
observed or measured change in time, if round trip length is always
uniform that very same definition guarantees that everyone will
'measure' the same value.
>> In LET that is not changed regardless of motion.
>
> Yes .. it is. But it only appears to be travelling at c because we measure
> speed with contracted rulers and out-of-sync clocks.
Maybe we have semantic issue but its not due to 'out-of-synch'
clocks. All physical processes are regulated by the properties and
processes of the medium c doesn't change, go faster and clocks must
tick slower because the it simply takes that fixed speed of c to
travel the longer paths that all propagating energy must take.
> > In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a
> > simply derivation to show this.
>
> Indeed it is .. but that doesn't mean you are right. The gamma factor in
> LET is how much ones rulers shrink and how clocks slow etc .. resulting in
> incorrect measurements of speed. If you could use rulers and clocks
> unaffected by their motion in the aether, then you'd get very different
> non-isotropic speeds for light, according to LET
Well, that only because of our accepted definitions is it not???
> >> >> No idea.
>
> >> > Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
> >> > of LET... :)
>
> >> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I
> >> just
> >> don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> >> compatible
> >> AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the assumption of
> >> an
> >> undetectable aether with properties that don't make sense.
>
> > Mea cupa,I stand corrected. In fact LET is a better foundation in
> > physical science than SR. The physical model (aetherial medium) on
> > which is LET is founded is perfectly compatible with GR. In fact, it
> > fits GR better given the fundamental hydrodynamical form of its
> > mathematics. It even easier to explain its behavior in a more unified
> > manner.
>
> How does aether theory work with GR (that has curved space-time) ? SR is a
> subset of GR .. LET is not.
Spacetime is curved because the energy density (directly related to
pressure) varies from on region to another. This, in turn varies all
fundamental, including c. Thus, c isn't constant and this is modeled
as curvature.
Paul Stowe
Jerry
> You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about supposed
> other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good
> luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a
> testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or not
> once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that.
Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about
trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether. I have
repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments
that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST. What
would it have taken to convince, for example, Michelson, or Arago,
or Cauchy?
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly resorted to utter crackpot
arguments that would have been recognized as such by any of the
premier classical aetherists, like Stokes, Cauchy, or Lorentz.
To the classical aetherists, physical explanations about the
nature of light needed to be grounded firmly in mechanical
plausibility. You have REPEATEDLY departed from any such limits
to your imaginings.
Jerry
Inertial
> On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:db9b3abf-9d31-4978...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 6:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an
>> >> >> observed 'fact'.
>>
>> >> > And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates
>> >> > it
>> >> > as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
>> >> > behavior.
>>
>> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>>
>> > That's simply a silly idea...
>>
>> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>
> Something physical may be represented by a geometric description.
And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry.
> But, to say that something physical results from, a.k.a. is caused by
> geometry, is putting the cart before the horse, its intellectually
> silly. It's certainly not my problem since I won't buy into it.
It is your problem if you don't understand it .. not mine.
What physically makes the universe behave as modelled by euclidean geometry
??
>> >> >> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all
>> >> >> frames
>> >> >> of reference.
>>
>> >> > Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements.
>>
>> >> AS I said
>>
>> >> > Again LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.
>>
>> >> So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c
>> >> (in
>> >> the only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed
>> >> aether
>> >> frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and
>> >> clocks.
>> >> There are no such distortions in SR
>>
>> > No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation
>> > velocity of the medium.
>>
>> Only in the absolute aether frame.
>
> In LET (inherited from the physical medium model) light speed is the
> actual propagation speed of all disturbances/perturbations, PERIOD!
No .. only in the medium. It is MEASURED by compressed rulers and slwoed
out-of-sync clocks to be c in other frames, but isn't.
You really don't know LET well, do you.
> It a physical property and if it like all other known media, it not
> universally constant. However, if you're moving c doesn't change.
It does according to LET. Because the tools we use to measure it are not
distorted by the motion.
> Then, if your measuring devices are not tied to those very same
> processes and are, in fact independent of and uninfluenced you can get
> MMX predicted result. The ONLY difference is the travel length along
> the axis of motion. That's enough to discriminate the asymmetry and
> properly realize you're moving. Again however, by our definition of
> speed as the observed or measured change in distance divided by
> observed or measured change in time, if round trip length is always
> uniform that very same definition guarantees that everyone will
> 'measure' the same value.
Yes .. due to distorted rulers and slowed-down out of sync clocks. The
actual speed is not what is measured (in LET). Those distorted measurements
in different frame are related by lorentz transforms. However, in LET,
reality is Euclidean geometry and galillean transforms. We are simply
unable to correctly measure reality and so the world appears in this
distorted way
>>> In LET that is not changed regardless of motion.
>>
>> Yes .. it is. But it only appears to be travelling at c because we
>> measure
>> speed with contracted rulers and out-of-sync clocks.
>
> Maybe we have semantic issue but its not due to 'out-of-synch'
> clocks.
Yes .. it is
> All physical processes are regulated by the properties and
> processes of the medium c doesn't change, go faster and clocks must
> tick slower because the it simply takes that fixed speed of c to
> travel the longer paths that all propagating energy must take.
That was just gibberish .. try again
>> > In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a
>> > simply derivation to show this.
>>
>> Indeed it is .. but that doesn't mean you are right. The gamma factor in
>> LET is how much ones rulers shrink and how clocks slow etc .. resulting
>> in
>> incorrect measurements of speed. If you could use rulers and clocks
>> unaffected by their motion in the aether, then you'd get very different
>> non-isotropic speeds for light, according to LET
>
> Well, that only because of our accepted definitions is it not???
But its not reality .. as LET would have us belief. We are measuring things
incorrectly. We can do physics with those measurements, because we know how
the distorted rulers and clocks relate between frames of reference. But its
all an illusion. REAL reality doesn't work that way (according to LET) ..
there is an underlying reality we cannot measure using our current tools.
Of course .. if we could make a ruler out of a material that wasn't affected
by and dependent on EM fields .. just pure neutral matter .. then we could
measure that reality.
So it is changes in aether 'pressure' or 'density' (which is undetectable
anyway) that cause it? Hmm. Sounds like witchcraft to me.
Inertial
> On Mar 8, 8:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about
>> supposed
>> other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good
>> luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a
>> testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or
>> not
>> once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that.
>
> Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about
> trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether.
hasn't it occured to you that I'm not either?
> I have
> repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments
> that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST.
But they aren't. They are very easily dismissed .. which is what I showed
you
> What
> would it have taken to convince, for example, Michelson, or Arago,
> or Cauchy?
>
> You, on the other hand, have repeatedly resorted to utter crackpot
> arguments that would have been recognized as such by any of the
> premier classical aetherists, like Stokes, Cauchy, or Lorentz.
No .. I've just shown that your arguments would not be convincing, because
they have logical flaws in them.
You propose to refute the existence of aether by claiming there MUST be
other aethers and that these other aethers MUST have different propagation
speeds. But your only argument as to 'why' is proof by assertion and hand
waveing. That doesn't hold water (or aether).
> To the classical aetherists, physical explanations about the
> nature of light needed to be grounded firmly in mechanical
> plausibility.
Indeed they do .. though the properties of the aether that have been
attributed to it over time as new experiments refute it, are improbable
(almost to the point of being self-contradictory).
However, you claiming there are other aether's that you think are highly
unlikely to have (say) the same propagation speeds as the luminiferous
aether do not constitute a valid argument against it. If such differing
speeds are not found, then all that is refutes is your arguments that they
must be different.
> You have REPEATEDLY departed from any such limits
> to your imaginings.
Nope. I'm just trying to get you to understand that throughout the history
of aether theory, there have been many challenges to it, and each time a new
property or behavior is attributed to the aether to keep the theory 'alive'.
Regardless if that .. your arguments for a test for the existence of aether
are not even test for that at all .. but tests for whether there are
multiple aethers with different propagation speeds. If that fails, then
that does not mean there is no luminiferous aether. You need to be careful
about what it is you are testing.
BURT
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Space's immaterial substance is round and flows toward its geometric
center of point energy density.
Mitch Raemsch
Bruce Richmond
>
>
>
> > Just as some background, when I first studied EM waves in high school
> > the teacher told us that the speed of light was always c. If you were
> > standing on the ground it was c, and it was c for those in an airplane
> > flying by you. I asked how that could be? Why wasn't it c+v like it
> > would be for a sound wave or a bullet. His answer was "That's just
> > the way nature made things." When I didn't buy that answer he told me
> > "Thousands of scientists say it works that way. Who should I believe,
> > them or you."
>
> I'm sorry you had such a terrible HS science teacher. You would not
> encounter this response in a decent college class.
>
LOL, he was one of the better ones. My freshman year I took general
science. When handing back the first test of the year the teacher
explained his scaling system. He would take the highest score in the
class and add as many points as needed to bring it up to a 100. All
others would receive the same number of points added to their score.
Since *someone* had gotten a 100 on this test no points would be
added. Only one other person passed that test. Out in the hall I was
informed by a half dozen members of the football team that they would
pound the crap out of me if I cost them any more points, and that I
better not make them look bad in algebra class either! Oh, did I
mention, the teacher was also the football coach.
My senior year I was taking physics and getting mostly A's. I was
also doing well in other classes and made honor roll. Half way
through the year the teacher had to leave and a new one was brought
in. He was actually a history teacher and was trying to stay ahead of
the class as he learned physics. He was not succeeding and got
irritated if anyone corrected him. He threw me out of class and gave
me zeros for tests that were given while I was out. I ended up
flunking physics for the year, the same year I scored a 700 on the
physics SAT.
By the time I got to college I had learned not to make waves.
>
> > Whe I didn't accept that as an explaination I was told
> > that I could work the problems out my way and have them marked wrong,
> > or I could work them out his way and get them marked right. It was a
> > bitter pill to swollow but I just let it go at that. Never gave it
> > much thought again until I got on line and found this group.
>
> > When I took the SATs I got a 730 in math and a combined score of
> > 1425. Just for fun I took the physics SAT and got a 700 on it. That
> > was over 40 years ago, but I don't think I have lost too many marbles
> > since then ;)
>
> > Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Webb
_______________________________
Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the
reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference
frame where lengths and times are "correct".
There
is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field
profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing
priveleged as in having different properties about it.
_____________________________
It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real length
is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I
don't actually believe it exists at all.
Bruce Richmond
> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7vlpef...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:7vjadl...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >>>> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I
> >>>> just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not
> >>>> compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the
> >>>> assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make
> >>>> sense.
>
> >>>http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE
> >>> LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY
> >>> WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT"
>
> >> I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer
> >> review? Who is this Ilja person?
>
> >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/
>
> > Ilja Schmelzer is a serious independent researcher and is a long time
> > poster to these sci.physics.* groups. Do a googlegroup search and you
> > will find some interesting discussions in years past. Some of the general
> > ideas of that paper linked above were recently peer reviewed in this
> > article,
>
> >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/FOOP9262.pdf
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/2470867k22637651/
>
> Sounds like its you. Self-publishing on private web-sites generally tends
> to be the activity of crackpots because reputable journals won't publish
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not Fredi, or me, or anyone else that posts here. When Ilja
posts he uses his own name. Read a few of his posts and I think you
will agree that he is no crackpot.
Dono.
>
>
> In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame.
>
...then all the modern tests that put severe constraints on light
speed anisotropy falsify LET.
earlier you were asking Jerry for tests that falsify LET, here you
have it. I can provide you with an extensive list.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7e28b441-ee70-4736...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 8, 8:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about
> >> supposed
> >> other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good
> >> luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a
> >> testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or
> >> not
> >> once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that.
>
> > Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about
> > trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether.
>
> hasn't it occured to you that I'm not either?
>
> > I have
> > repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments
> > that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST.
>
> But they aren't. They are very easily dismissed .. which is what I showed
> you
Sure...
Light results from vibrations in the aether.
Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether.
Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether.
Electric fields represent distortions of the aether.
Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether.
The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether.
The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether.
Light travels at c.
Gravitational waves travel at c.
Strong force travels at c.
Weak force travels at less than c.
Light couples with charge.
Gravity couples with matter.
Strong force couples with color charge.
Weak force couples with flavour.
et cetera...
Lorentz would be happy at your claim that a single aether
represents the common transmitter for all of these effects.
It explains so much!!!
Jerry
Inertial
"Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9a5eb50c-6ed1-4435...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame.
>>
>
> ...then all the modern tests that put severe constraints on light
> speed anisotropy falsify LET.
No .. because we measure the speed as isotropic due to the distorted rulers
and malfunctioning clocks that movement thru the aether causes (according to
LET).
> earlier you were asking Jerry for tests that falsify LET, here you
> have it.
Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of light.
> I can provide you with an extensive list.
Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by the
effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes.
Inertial
So says LET .. we have never observed this aether
> Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether.
NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional waves
> Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether.
So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether
> Electric fields represent distortions of the aether.
So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether
> Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether.
NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces
> The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether.
NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces
> The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether.
NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces
> Light travels at c.
Yes .. only in the aether frame in LET .. but distorted matter and slowed
processes results in us measuring it as c in every frame
> Gravitational waves travel at c.
That is what is predicted .. I don't know of any definitive results that
show that.
> Strong force travels at c.
No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it.
> Weak force travels at less than c.
No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it.
> Light couples with charge.
Yeup
> Gravity couples with matter.
Yeup
> Strong force couples with color charge.
Yeup
> Weak force couples with flavour.
Yeup
> et cetera...
>
> Lorentz would be happy at your claim that a single aether
> represents the common transmitter for all of these effects.
> It explains so much!!!
Noone said it has to explain anything other than what it explains (ie it
doesn't need to explain things outside its domain) .. it only has to be the
medium for EMR. It is not part of LET that gravity is carried by an aether
.. or if it *is* carried by an aether whether or not it is the same aether
as light uses.
All one can test is what LET actually says and what can be directly derived
from it.
If you can find something that LET predicts that SR doesn't (as the things
in common have already been tested when we test SR) .. then please let us
know. I'm sure there would be aetherists out there keen to have LET
distinguished from SR based on factual evidence, rather than on metaphysics
and unobservables.
Jerry
As a matter of fact, Lorentz DID work on an aether theory of
gravitation. Lorentz's theory would have predicted the existence
of gravitational waves, but the waves would have traveled at
-many times- the speed of light.
If and when the speed of gravitation is ever measured, if the
speed turns out to be identical to the speed of light, that
would be an incredible finding that casts severe questions on
the viability of aether theories in general. Aether theories
explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties
of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason
whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed.
Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't.
Jerry
Inertial
No .. it just means all aethers (itf there are more than one .. or any)
propagate disturbances at c. That may simply be an inherent property of all
aethers (well, it will be claimed to be by aetherists if that is ever found
.. the aether has gotten more and more (often apparently conflicting)
properties attributed to it over time as experiments refute previous
understandings.
> Aether theories
> explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties
> of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason
> whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed.
Nor any reason why they cannot.
> Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't.
No reason they cannot. No reason why gravity waves and EM waves cannot both
travel at c. Any test showing that the do both travel at c will simply
refute your assertion that they must be different .. it won't refute aether
theory itself. And if necessary, aether will be modified yet again to
account for it.