Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics

46 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/21/99
to
Subject: Why the Ether is not Part of Modern Physics
Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Date: November 21, 1999


This is the third of three articles posted to sci.physics.relativity:
[1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
[2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
[3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
alone from each other.

In the first two articles of this series I have shown that there is an
infinite class of ether theories each of which is equivalent to SR, in
the sense that they are all experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
Why then, are these theories not given equal weight with SR in the
teaching of modern physics? Why are these ether theories, and indeed
this entire equivalence class of theories, not well known and familiar
to most physicists? What justification is there for the mainstream of
physics to completely ignore these theories which are validated by
experiments to _exactly_ the same extent as is SR?

The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
Symmetry. This article is devoted to discussing why the symmetry aspects
of SR completely overshadow all of these ether theories in modern physics.


Symmetry in SR is a rich and varied topic. The basic symmetry of SR is
Lorentz invariance, and the essence of SR is encapsulated in the
statement that the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant (i.e.
unchanged under the operation of any member of the Lorentz group). This
is an instance of the modern approach to symmetries: a symmetry principle
states that something remains unchanged when a specific type of operation
is performed. Note that Einstein's original two postulates for SR are
both symmetry principles.

Einstein was instrumental in bringing the importance of symmetries to
the forefront of modern physics, and SR is an excellent example of the
power of symmetry groups in determining the possible structure of
physical laws: considerations of group theory alone plus the simple
observation that pion beams exist are sufficient to derive the
equations of SR. In addition, an assumption of Lorentz symmetry and
the guess that electrodynamics is the simplest possible gauge theory
is enough to derive the Maxwell's equations. Symmetry principles are a
very powerful (nay indispensable) tool in modern theoretical physics.

And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as a fundamental
part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
not a principle of the theory). It is highly doubtful that any of the
modern theories of physics would have been discovered without the
symmetry principles of SR leading the way -- modern gauge theories are
direct descendants of the geometrical description of SR; this includes
both GR and the Standard Model. Such a geometrical description is not
possible in any ether theory (geometry is inherently coordinate
independent, but the ether is not).


There are several auxiliary reasons why the ether is not part of modern
physics. These are essentially confirmations of the basic reason due to
the lack of symmetry in ether theories -- in most cases these are direct
consequences of that lack.

1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable [2].
Quantum theory and the experiments related to it have repeatedly
pounded home the lesson that one must not attempt to describe things
which have not been observed or measured. This is a second powerful
argument against the believability of ether theories.

2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a reductio ad
absurdum in math, as the ether is assumed to be unique, but its
unobservability makes it merely one member of the equivalence class
of inertial frames -- _any_ inertial frame can be assumed to be the
ether frame without changing the predictions of any viable ether
theory. And since the ether frame is intrinsically unobservable,
assumptions and guesses are all the ether advocate has.

3) The assumption of a unique ether frame is directly analogous to the
assumption that there is a preferred frame in a Euclidean space. It
is absurd to claim that there _is_ a preferred frame in Euclidean
space but it is unobservable. But that's essentially what the viable
ether theories do.

4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools must change in
an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt the ether. This seems
both counterintuitive and strange -- it's as if these effects were
diabolically constructed simply to make the viable ether theories
indistinguishable from SR. As ether theories are a clear attempt to
preserve an older, seemingly "common sense" approach to physics, it
seems unreasonable to have tools change, because there is no
precedent for such behavior in our everyday lives, or in older
physical theories -- this is very much not "common sense".

5) In every viable ether theory except LET, the one-way speed of light
differs from c, but is unmeasurable. It seems strange that slow clock
transport does not give any method to measure the one-way speed of
light (such approaches always measure c, not the "true" one-way speed
of light). Indeed, _ALL_ one-way speeds are subject to this, and
rulers and clocks cannot measure the "true" one-way speed of
_anything_ in a natural way; this includes police radar guns and your
automobile on the highway; the redshifts of distant galaxies do not
correspond to their "true" velocities; etc. This is decidedly not
"common sense".

6) Ether theories require a new postulate for every new phenomenon that
is discovered, which basically states that the ether applies to it
in the same ways the ether applies to elecromagnetism. SR's symmetry
principles automatically apply to new phenomena, so SR has more
explanatory power than ether theory in this regard. Note that all
phenomena discovered since 1905 do indeed exhibit the local Lorentz
invariance of SR -- what is happenstance in ether theory was directly
predicted by SR. It seems surprising that the "gravitational ether"
has exactly the same underlying properties as the "lumeniferous
ether" and the "weak interaction ether" and the "strong interaction
ether", when these interactions differ so enormously in strength
(by a factor of more than 10^40), and differ so wildly in their
properties (e.g. gravitation and electrodynamics lack the rich
spectrum of particle and resonances characteristic of the others).
But SR naturally and correctly predicts the local Lorentz invariance
of these vastly different phenomena.


In summary, there are good reasons for the ether to be absent from modern
physics; virtually all modern physicists consider these reasons both
cogent and sufficient (at least those modern physicists who have actively
considered the issue), and no ether theory is part of modern physics.
While the viable ether theories are equivalent to SR in the sense that
they are experimentally indistinguishable, they are most definitely NOT
equivalent to SR in either mathematical elegance, explanatory power, or
suitability as a starting point for further theories. But it is these
latter properties which are most important for the basic theories of
physics.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

orton

unread,
Nov 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/21/99
to
any caveman can tell you a stone will chip particles off another rock
if thrown hard enough and he would tell you it makes waves when the
stone is thrown into water.

i hate to make waves and throw stones BUT there is no big deal here.

stones will cause both waves and particle functions depending upon
which you are doing.

dr. einstein knew this and simply taught other cavemen that the energy
was the controlling factor as is very very easy to see.

most of the folks posting messages here make us good ol farm boys laugh.

now tell me the pond that carries the waves isn't there. B A R F

thompson and rutherford said if the particles went any faster it would
be like they hit a brick wall. that stuff is nothing new.

if something is forced through water fast enough it will also compress
but you can put a banana in a canon and fire it through a big ol tree.

what is the big deal with these things? minkowski must have been an
enemy operative and/or those folks hid the manhattan project very well.

i think that was cool either way but the war is over now and we even
have fusion. weapons don't win wars, the money to acquire them does.

lets be friends and use our resources to accomplish good things. why
try to spoof each other.

dave orton


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


GLOBARR

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to
In <3838AA2A...@lucent.com>,
as **THE** important reason why the ether theory is not
acceptable, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

. . . none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry
as a fundamental part of the theory . . .

O'Barr comments:
But after Roberts said this, he then sneaks in the
`hidden' parenthetical statement:

`(LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
not a principle of the theory)'

O'Barr comments:
So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
doesn't it? Whether it is `accidental' or not might just
be prejudicial thinking on your part, doesn't it seem?
Let me ask you an important question: If this symmetry
really is important, wouldn't it also then be important to
explain why and how this symmetry exists? What we have is
this: we have SR, which does not explain why this symmetry
exists, and then we have the ether, that does explain why
and how it exists. Now which theory would be of greatest
value? Just having it, or understanding why and how it
exists? It seems clear to me that the ether is thus
superior. Thank you Roberts for showing us how important
the ether really is!


Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is

unobservable . . . .

O'Barr comments:
And how observable is SR spacetime continuum? It seems
that the only theory where `observability' is a problem is
the ether. Do you have a reason for this? In actual fact,
the ether is exactly as `observable' as is required by the
theory. Therefore, its `unobservableness' is totally
perfect in every way!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a
reductio ad absurdum in math, as the ether is assumed to be
unique, but its unobservability makes it merely one member
of the equivalence class of inertial frames -- _any_
inertial frame can be assumed to be the ether frame without
changing the predictions of any viable ether theory. And
since the ether frame is intrinsically unobservable,
assumptions and guesses are all the ether advocate has.

O'Barr comments:
And here you make a mistake by not separating out the
differences between what are physical concepts and what are
math concepts. The physical concepts that make up the
ether are firm and solid and cannot be affected by the
math. In fact, in the ether theory, the physical controls
the math, not the reverse! In SR, all you have is math,
and so you have the problem of not wanting math duplicating
math, but with the ether, the physical stands independent.
Roberts has therefore lost contact with reality! In the
ether, it is impossible for there to be any `reductio ad
absurdum'! The math that is present proves that the
physical assumptions of the ether work, and work perfectly,
with no `duplications' at any time! The `duplication' that
Roberts thinks he sees is actual proof that it works!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

3) The assumption of a unique ether frame is directly
analogous to the assumption that there is a preferred frame
in a Euclidean space. It is absurd to claim that there _is_
a preferred frame in Euclidean space but it is
unobservable. But that's essentially what the viable
ether theories do.

O'Barr comments:
And again Roberts mixes up the physical with the math.
The physical ether is not just a math base within Euclidean
space. It is a physical reality that has nothing to do
with math or geometry! Its reality stands independent of
all these non-material math concepts! Shame on you,
Roberts!


Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools
must change in an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt
the ether. This seems both counterintuitive and strange --
it's as if these effects were diabolically constructed
simply to make the viable ether theories indistinguishable
from SR. As ether theories are a clear attempt to
preserve an older, seemingly "common sense" approach to
physics, it seems unreasonable to have tools change,
because there is no precedent for such behavior in our
everyday lives, or in older physical theories -- this is
very much not "common sense".

O'Barr comments:
These changes are not `unobservable.' This is exactly
why the paradox of the twins exist, because change is
observed. And such changes are not unexpected. You have
been asked to consider the light clock, where its change in
rate with its velocity is clear and absolute! And it is
exactly what it is predicted to be! Therefore, it is
total common sense from start to finish!!!!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

5) In every viable ether theory except LET, the one-way
speed of light differs from c, but is unmeasurable. It
seems strange that slow clock transport does not give any
method to measure the one-way speed of light (such
approaches always measure c, not the "true" one-way speed
of light). Indeed, _ALL_ one-way speeds are subject to
this, and rulers and clocks cannot measure the "true" one-
way speed of _anything_ in a natural way; this includes
police radar guns and your automobile on the highway; the
redshifts of distant galaxies do not correspond to their
"true" velocities; etc. This is decidedly not "common
sense".

O'Barr comments:
You said above, `except LET....' Any comments you
make about ether theories that are not LET have little
importance. The physics in LET is simple, Newtonian
physics with additive velocities, simple 3-D space and
simple 1-D time. Thus, everything done in LET is nothing
but common sense from start to end!


Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

6) Ether theories require a new postulate for every new
phenomenon that is discovered, which basically states that
the ether applies to it in the same ways the ether applies
to elecromagnetism. SR's symmetry principles automatically
apply to new phenomena, so SR has more explanatory power
than ether theory in this regard. Note that all phenomena
discovered since 1905 do indeed exhibit the local Lorentz
invariance of SR -- what is happenstance in ether theory
was directly predicted by SR. It seems surprising that the
"gravitational ether" has exactly the same underlying
properties as the "lumeniferous ether" and the "weak
interaction ether" and the "strong interaction ether", when
these interactions differ so enormously in strength (by a
factor of more than 10^40), and differ so wildly in their
properties (e.g. gravitation and electrodynamics lack
the rich spectrum of particle and resonances characteristic
of the others). But SR naturally and correctly predicts
the local Lorentz invariance of these vastly different
phenomena.

O'Barr comments:
SR has no explanation powers what-so-ever, for anything!
Not at any time does SR explain a single thing as to
physical causes, nor does it provide any justifications.
It is true that one can apply SR symmetry to everything
that comes along, just as one could also apply the ether
effects to everything that comes along. It is the exact
same assumption in both cases. You are not being fair in
this, in that you allow the assumption to be automatic in
one case, and yet demand a specific point be made in the
other.
What we really have, is that in the ether, it is more
clear what is being done, and thus, in fact, being more
clear, gives the ether approach much more flexibility. The
ether thus ends up being the stronger approach, far
superior to SR, since we all can see and know what occurs
in every case.

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

In summary, there are good reasons for the ether to be
absent from modern physics; virtually all modern physicists
consider these reasons both cogent and sufficient (at least
those modern physicists who have actively considered the
issue), and no ether theory is part of modern physics.
While the viable ether theories are equivalent to SR in the
sense that they are experimentally indistinguishable, they
are most definitely NOT equivalent to SR in either
mathematical elegance, explanatory power, or suitability as
a starting point for further theories. But it is these
latter properties which are most important for the basic
theories of physics.

O'Barr comments:
In summary, you do not know the differences between
physical theories and math theories. And it takes a
physical theory to match up with other physical theories.
Such match-ups cannot normally happen with just a math
theory.
Your conclusion is correct in that no SR expert allows
the ether to be considered. The modern-day SR expert does
see the math elegance of SR, and they see SR, being math,
being easier than having to deal with physical realities.
But to do this, to ignore the ether, causes them to also be
unfair, and unscientific. Right here in your own article,
you did not show any fair consideration of the ether. The
ether is a perfect theory. It really has several points in
its favor. You were not willing to state one of these
points. This shows your unfairness and one-sided point of
view, which is totally unscientific. If I were you, I
would be ashamed that I wrote such an article!

Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

dmitr

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to


Aether is not a part of modern physics
because of iconoclasm on one side
and idolatry on the other.

1.
Michelson-Morley was designed for and compared with
the Lorentz-like aether theories only.
And these carry a fatal drawback -
they consider matter as an alien stuff immersed into aether.
Already in 1905 there was a correct aether model
that viewed particle as a vortex or dislocation
(historical word - figure of deformation) of the substratum.

2.
There can't be multi-component or exotic aether theory.
These are the theories of physical vacuum (euphemism!).
By definition, the word aether relates only to mechanical medium.

Not knowing continuum mechanics
and modern developments of the aether theory,
one has no right to draw any conclusions.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to
GLOBARR wrote:
> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
> doesn't it?

LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_ quantities; it does
not have any symmetry _principle_. That is, LET does NOT say "the
laws of physics are unchanged if one refers them to any inrtial
frame", it says "there is one unique frame in which the ether is at
rest, and oh yes, by the way, one's _measurements_ and LET's
predictions of them will not be affected by which frame one chooses
as the ether frame". These are not the same, and the LET version of
"symmetry" is much restricted compared to the SR symmetry principles.


> Whether it is `accidental' or not might just
> be prejudicial thinking on your part, doesn't it seem?

No. This has to do with how LET is formulated. LET is _DIFFERENT_
from SR, but is equivalent to SR (in both senses I defined -- they
are mathematically equivalent and are experimentally indistinguishable).
But they are not the same (identical).

A modern physical theory consists of:
1) a set of axioms (aka postulates)
2) a set of theorems derived from (1)
3) physical interpretations of the items appearing in (1) and (2)
LET differs from SR in both (1) and (3). "Mathematical equivalence"
depends only upon (2), which is identical for these two theories;
"experimental indistinguishability" is a direct consequence of their
mathematical equivalence. Note that the other theories of the larger
equivalence class of [1] have a different reason for their experimental
indistinguishability -- for them this is a mere algebraic cancellation,
which is far weaker than LET's mathematical equivalence.


> If this symmetry
> really is important, wouldn't it also then be important to
> explain why and how this symmetry exists?

Yes, it would be highly desirable to understand how it arises. But
so far nobody has been able to come up with any explanation at all.
LET does not _EXPLAIN_ it, LET _ASSUMES_ it.

Similarly: please "explain" why space has Euclidean symmetry.


> Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is
> > unobservable . . . .

> And how observable is SR spacetime continuum?

Completely unobservable. In SR spacetime is not a "thing", it is a
_model_. But in ether theories, the ether is supposed to be a "thing"
(of some sort...).


> Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a

> > reductio ad absurdum in math, [...]


> And here you make a mistake by not separating out the
> differences between what are physical concepts and what are
> math concepts.

Not at all, I _explicitly_ kept track of them; in particular I did
not say this "is" a reductio ad absurdum. Physics is not math.

> Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools
> > must change in an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt

> > the ether. [...]


> These changes are not `unobservable.'

Sure they are. Have YOU ever observed a ruler lying on a moving
train to be physically shorter than an identical ruler lying on the
track?


> This is exactly
> why the paradox of the twins exist, because change is
> observed.

Sure. but that is not a change in clocks or rulers, it is due to
their different paths through spacetime.

Yes, I answered in the context of SR. In ether theories
this _IS_ a consequence of tools changing. I really meant
_directly_ observable, in that no direct, proper measurement
of a ruler or clock will observe such a change.

The changes in vocabulary between SR and ether theories is rather
difficult to keep track of. I tried my best, but clearly did not
always succeed. In any case, such changes are contrary to common
sense (which is supposedly the primary attraction of ether theories).


> You said above, `except LET....' Any comments you
> make about ether theories that are not LET have little
> importance.

Perhaps to you; I am discussing this larger equivalence class, and they
_are_ important within that class. What you don't seem to realize is that
LET is in the same boat with these other theories -- NONE of them contain
the symmetry principles of SR, and it is those symmetry principles which
have proven to be so important in theoretical physics.


> Thus, everything done in LET is nothing
> but common sense from start to end!

Except for the things which aren't common sense -- like tools changing
in ways never observed in our everyday lives (which is where "common
sense" arises).


> SR has no explanation powers what-so-ever, for anything!

Then either you don't understand SR, or you use words in a
significantly different way....


> Not at any time does SR explain a single thing as to
> physical causes, nor does it provide any justifications.

Sure it does: the things you want "explained" (length contracion, time
dilation, relativity of simultaneity) are basically due to the Lorentz
invariance of the universe. Just as the fact that a rod's length does
not vary with orientation is a consequence of the Euclidean invariance
of space.

In SR these phenomena are due to the same underlying symmetry
of the universe. Please describe what "ether" there is which
"causes" rods to not change length due to orientation in space.


The explanatory power I was referring to is SR's prediction that
gravitational, weak, and strong interaction would all be locally
Lorentz invariant. Ether theory cannot predict this, it can only
guess or assume it. The symmetry principles of SR predict it
naturally, and correctly (to within current experimental accuracies).


> It is true that one can apply SR symmetry to everything
> that comes along, just as one could also apply the ether
> effects to everything that comes along. It is the exact
> same assumption in both cases.

No, it is not. SR's symmetry principles inherently apply to all
phenomena. The lumeniferous ether only applies to electromagnetism,
and an ether advocate must _ASSUME_ some new ether for gravitational,
weak, and strong interactions, and _ASSUME_ that these new ethers
have the same properties (vis-a-vis inertial coordinate transforms).


> Your conclusion is correct in that no SR expert allows
> the ether to be considered.

These articles themselves are a clear counterexample to your claim.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to
dmitr wrote:
> Aether is not a part of modern physics
> because of iconoclasm on one side
> and idolatry on the other.

I can see no correspondence between those "reasons" and the ones I gave.
I think my reasons are more to the point than are your rantings.


> Michelson-Morley was designed for and compared with
> the Lorentz-like aether theories only.

Not really. The "Lorentz-like" aether theory predicts a null result for
the MMX, so why would Michelson have devoted so much of his career to it?
He was testing Maxwell's ether, not Lorentz's. Lorentz's ether is Lorentz
invariant (duh!), but Maxwell's ether was essentially mechanical; they
make very different predictions for the MMX.


> Already in 1905 there was a correct aether model
> that viewed particle as a vortex or dislocation
> (historical word - figure of deformation) of the substratum.

Hmmm.


> There can't be multi-component or exotic aether theory.
> These are the theories of physical vacuum (euphemism!).
> By definition, the word aether relates only to mechanical medium.

One of my points is that the word "aether" (or "ether") is not very
well defined at all. Practically everybody who uses it has a different
definition. There _IS_ no single definition of it.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

DJMenCk

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to
Roberts: >In the first two articles of this series I have shown that there is

an
>infinite class of ether theories each of which is equivalent to SR, in
>the sense that they are all experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
>Why then, are these theories not given equal weight with SR in the
>teaching of modern physics? Why are these ether theories, and indeed
>this entire equivalence class of theories, not well known and familiar
>to most physicists? What justification is there for the mainstream of
>physics to completely ignore these theories which are validated by
>experiments to _exactly_ the same extent as is SR?
>
>The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
>Symmetry.

Dennis: 1) The preference of a principle-based explanation over an explanation
involving mechanical explanations of those principles should have gone out with
the dark ages.
Sigh. Positivism is so tough to kill. Particularly, when people would prefer
to memorize and calculate....
2) LPET has the same symmetry SR has--and had it first.
3) Jan, in another thread, has to argue for an asymmetric rim for the SR
explanation of Sagnac.

Roberts: This article is devoted to discussing why the symmetry aspects

>of SR completely overshadow all of these ether theories in modern physics.
>
>
>Symmetry in SR is a rich and varied topic. The basic symmetry of SR is
>Lorentz invariance,

Dennis: As Lorentz wrote:

"For certain of the physical magnitudes which enter in the formulas I have not
indicated the transformation which suits best. This has been done by Poincare,
and later by Einstein and Minkowski...I have not established the principle of
relativity as rigorously and universally true. Poincare on the contrary, has
obtained a perfect invariance of the electromagnetic equations, and he has
formulated the “postulate of relativity,” terms which he was the first to
employ..... Let me add that in thus correcting the imperfections of my work,
he has never reproached me with them."
• Hendrick Lorentz, Deuz memoirs de Henre Poincare, Acte Mathematica 38:
293, 1914.

Roberts>And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as a fundamental


>part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz symmetry, but it is
>not a principle of the theory).

Dennis: LOL. And Roberts would prefer the prinicple just postulated rather
than explained. Wow.
Anyway, Poincare just postulated it--essentially. So LPET should win.

Roberts: > 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable
[2].

Dennis: Proved wrong by the fact that in LET one could perform a null
Sagnac--and so find the velocity of the ether.

Daryl McCullough

unread,
Nov 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/22/99
to
djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...

>Dennis: 1) The preference of a principle-based explanation over an explanation
>involving mechanical explanations of those principles should have gone out with
>the dark ages.

Yet all of your arguments against SR are principle-based.
I think that the difference is that you are basing your
arguments on a priori principles, while modern physics
is trying to let the developments in experiment and theory
suggest what principles are important.

Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY


dmitr

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to

Not knowing continuum mechanics,
one has no right to state any judgements
on aether theory and related topics.

GLOBARR

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
In <38399F29...@lucent.com>
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
> doesn't it?

Tom Roberts wrote:
LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_ quantities; ...

O'Barr comments:
Thank you!!!! It does! And it has exactly as much as
is needed!

Tom Roberts wrote:
. . . it does not have any symmetry _principle_.

O'Barr comments:
I wonder? Is the physics in the ether Newtonian
physics? Is there any symmetry in Newtonian physics?
Possibly we will find that the symmetry we need is even
deeper than SR! Have you really given any thought to any
of this????

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

That is, LET does NOT say "the laws of physics are

unchanged if one refers them to any inertial frame", it

says "there is one unique frame in which the ether is at
rest, and oh yes, by the way, one's _measurements_ and
LET's predictions of them will not be affected by which
frame one chooses as the ether frame". These are not the
same, and the LET version of "symmetry" is much restricted
compared to the SR symmetry principles.

O'Barr comments:
Be it as it may, but the scientific question should be
and must be, is it adequate? Does it account for all that
it has to account for? Somehow, Roberts, you are not
being very fair! And LET explains! What a great thing the
ether does for us, it explains all this!!!! (And just as a
warning, we are living in a world where we do see some
symmetries that are being broken. Maybe it might be wise
to have a theory that is not built on total symmetry?)

O'Barr wrote:
> Whether it is `accidental' or not might just
> be prejudicial thinking on your part, doesn't it seem?

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .


No. This has to do with how LET is formulated. LET is
_DIFFERENT_ from SR, but is equivalent to SR (in both
senses I defined -- they are mathematically equivalent and
are experimentally indistinguishable). But they are not
the same (identical).

O'Barr comments:
Yes, they are not the same. And because they are
different, the ether is superior!!!!!!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

A modern physical theory consists of:
1) a set of axioms (aka postulates)
2) a set of theorems derived from (1)
3) physical interpretations of the items appearing in (1)
and (2)

O'Barr comments:
Hog wash!!!!! All you have done is defined a math
theory. A physical theory begins with the physics, and
from the physics applies logic to obtain the math.

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

LET differs from SR in both (1) and (3). "Mathematical
equivalence" depends only upon (2), which is identical for
these two theories; "experimental indistinguishability" is
a direct consequence of their mathematical equivalence.
Note that the other theories of the larger equivalence
class of [1] have a different reason for their experimental
indistinguishability -- for them this is a mere algebraic
cancellation, which is far weaker than LET's mathematical
equivalence.

O'Barr wrote:
> If this symmetry
> really is important, wouldn't it also then be important
> to explain why and how this symmetry exists?

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

Yes, it would be highly desirable to understand how it
arises. But so far nobody has been able to come up with any
explanation at all. LET does not _EXPLAIN_ it, LET
_ASSUMES_ it.

O'Barr comments:
LET does assume several things. But if what it assumes
is true, then it fully and completely accounts for the
symmetry. You are wrong not to admit this!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
Similarly: please "explain" why space has Euclidean
symmetry.

O'Barr comments:
When Newtonian physics was `King,' no one demanded such
an explanation. The only time any explanation would be
needed or necessary would be if space was not Euclidean!
One does not have to explain something that is as simple as
possible. What one has to explain is if something is more
complicated than what would be expected or necessary.


Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is
> > unobservable . . . .

O'Barr wrote:
> And how observable is SR spacetime continuum?

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

Completely unobservable. In SR spacetime is not a "thing",
it is a _model_. But in ether theories, the ether is
supposed to be a "thing" (of some sort...).

O'Barr comments:
So again and again you accept SR as simple Voodoo!
What a sorry science!

> Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on
> > a reductio ad absurdum in math, [...]

O'Barr wrote:
> And here you make a mistake by not separating out the
> differences between what are physical concepts and what
> are math concepts.

Roberts wrote: . . .

Not at all, I _explicitly_ kept track of them; in
particular I did not say this "is" a reductio ad absurdum.
Physics is not math.

O'Barr comments:
Yes. I see you little catch-word. It only `borders on'
a reductio ad absurdum. So if it only `borders on' it,
then what is your complaint?



> Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
> > 4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement
> > tools must change in an unobservable manner if one is
> > moving wrt the ether. [...]

O'Barr wrote:
> These changes are not `unobservable.'

Roberts wrote: . . .

Sure they are. Have YOU ever observed a ruler lying on a
moving train to be physically shorter than an identical
ruler lying on the track?

O'Barr comments:
This is what the MMX observed! It is what was measured.

O'Barr wrote:
> This is exactly
> why the paradox of the twins exist, because change is
> observed.

Roberts wrote: . . .

Sure. but that is not a change in clocks or rulers, it is
due to their different paths through spacetime.

O'Barr comments:
Not true, not even in SR. Set up any independent
reference frame and it will tell you that you are wrong!

Roberts wrote: . . .

Yes, I answered in the context of SR. In ether theories
this _IS_ a consequence of tools changing. I really meant
_directly_ observable, in that no direct, proper
measurement of a ruler or clock will observe such a change.

O'Barr comments:
And what logic. No one, absolutely no one, would expect
any tool to be measured against itself to show a change.
That is all that is being done in a `proper' measurement!
You are one sick person!!!!

Roberts wrote: . . .

The changes in vocabulary between SR and ether theories is
rather difficult to keep track of. I tried my best, but
clearly did not always succeed. In any case, such changes
are contrary to common sense (which is supposedly the
primary attraction of ether theories).

O'Barr comments:
Because the ether theory is common sense, then all
normal definitions and concepts remain valid. No new
definitions are necessary in terms of mass, or in
measurements, or in geometry, or in space, or in time, or
in simultaneity, or sync, or in any other thing.

O'Barr wrote:
> You said above, `except LET....' Any comments you
> make about ether theories that are not LET have little
> importance.

Roberts wrote: . . .

Perhaps to you; I am discussing this larger equivalence
class, and they _are_ important within that class. What you
don't seem to realize is that LET is in the same boat with
these other theories -- NONE of them contain the symmetry
principles of SR, and it is those symmetry principles which
have proven to be so important in theoretical physics.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry! The first thing we did above was to establish
the fact that LET has symmetry, and has all the symmetry
required.

O'Barr wrote:
> Thus, everything done in LET is nothing
> but common sense from start to end!

Roberts wrote: . . .

Except for the things which aren't common sense -- like
tools changing in ways never observed in our everyday lives
(which is where "common sense" arises).

O'Barr comments:
The changes in the clock rate for a light clock is as
common sense as it can be! Why do you seem to never
learn? Changes are natural in a medium, and in E&M, the
changes are even specific! Where do you think Lorentz got
his equations? Do you really believe that he just
guessed?

O'Barr comments:

> SR has no explanation powers what-so-ever, for
> anything!

Roberts wrote: . . .

Then either you don't understand SR, or you use words in a
significantly different way....

O'Barr comments:
As you noted before, we do use words differently within
the ether and SR. I could be more clear by saying it this
way: SR has no abilities to explain anything on a physical
level. It cannot offer causes, or even potential causes,
for anything physical. In fact, SR cannot even explain
what actually happens physically. If it cannot explain
what really happens physically, then certainly, it cannot
offer any causes to something if it cannot even explain
what is happening!

O'Barr wrote:
> Not at any time does SR explain a single thing as to
> physical causes, nor does it provide any justifications.

Roberts wrote: . . .

Sure it does: the things you want "explained" (length
contracion, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity) are
basically due to the Lorentz invariance of the universe.
Just as the fact that a rod's length does not vary with
orientation is a consequence of the Euclidean invariance
of space.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. In Euclidean space, the length of a bar is
not considered to be an action of space, or geometry, or
algebra, or math, or addition, or any other man made
subject. We do observe, and thus assume, that the length
of a bar is unchanged as we move it about, and so we pick a
geometry that properly mimics what we see and observe and
assume. It is not any more complicated than this. Since
no action is needed between the bar and space in order for
the bar to remain unchanged, then the space chosen is not
involved in any way with the bar. Sorry for your
confusion!

Roberts wrote: . . .

In SR these phenomena are due to the same underlying
symmetry of the universe. Please describe what "ether"
there is which "causes" rods to not change length due to
orientation in space.

O'Barr comments:
As explained above, the `underlying symmetry of the
universe' had nothing to do with it! Neither did pink
elephants. But in SR, you do assume that your spacetime
does have some kind of an effect on bars, and on clocks.
You cannot explain what the effect really is, but you know
that something is doing something, and thus your spacetime
cannot be nothing. And so you have a problem!

Roberts wrote: . . .

The explanatory power I was referring to is SR's prediction
that gravitational, weak, and strong interaction would all
be locally Lorentz invariant. Ether theory cannot predict
this, it can only guess or assume it. The symmetry
principles of SR predict it naturally, and correctly (to
within current experimental accuracies).

O'Barr comments:
And I can predict that the sun will rise in the morning.
Too bad that prediction does not provide explanations! SR
cannot explain anything, as was explained above! All it
can do is provide the results!



O'Barr wrote:
> It is true that one can apply SR symmetry to everything
> that comes along, just as one could also apply the ether
> effects to everything that comes along. It is the exact
> same assumption in both cases.

Roberts wrote: . . .

No, it is not. SR's symmetry principles inherently apply to
all phenomena. The lumeniferous ether only applies to
electromagnetism, and an ether advocate must _ASSUME_ some
new ether for gravitational, weak, and strong interactions,
and _ASSUME_ that these new ethers have the same properties
(vis-a-vis inertial coordinate transforms).

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, Roberts. Your logic is totally flawed. LET, as
defined today, is the same as SR. You cannot hold it back
to be only what you want it to be, as it was in the 1900's.
You are beginning to sound a lot like Carr.

O'Barr wrote:
> Your conclusion is correct in that no SR expert allows
> the ether to be considered.

Roberts wrote: . . .

These articles themselves are a clear counterexample to
your claim.

O'Barr comments:
You have me there! Thanks for helping to change things
for the better!

Paul Stowe

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
In <19991122225158...@ng-bj1.aol.com> glo...@aol.com

(GLOBARR) writes:
>
>In <38399F29...@lucent.com>
>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
>> doesn't it?
>
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_ quantities; ...
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Thank you!!!! It does! And it has exactly as much as
>is needed!

Sorry Gerald, LET is not symmetrical as classical defined. That is to
say, two co-moving objects at say, 0.1c (A) and 0.96c (B) relative to
the CMBR and 0.86c relative to each other will not appear the same to
observers on each object. Object A will be physically contracted much
more than B. This IS a direct consequence of Lorentz' postulate that
physical contraction IS a function of motion relative to the primal
frame!

Thus if A attempts to measure B by its shortened rulers, given that A &
B are, in the LET primal frame of equal dimensions, A will see a much
elongated B, not contracted, as would be predicted by symmetry
considerations.

Now why don't WE experimentally see this?

Paul Stowe

Ken H. Seto

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
On 23 Nov 1999 04:09:18 GMT, pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:

>>In <38399F29...@lucent.com>
>>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>>> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
>>> doesn't it?
>>
>>Tom Roberts wrote:
>>LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_ quantities; ...
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Thank you!!!! It does! And it has exactly as much as
>>is needed!
>

>Sorry Gerald, LET is not symmetrical as classical defined. That is to
>say, two co-moving objects at say, 0.1c (A) and 0.96c (B) relative to
>the CMBR and 0.86c relative to each other will not appear the same to
>observers on each object. Object A will be physically contracted much
>more than B.

I don't understand. Since A has a much lower velocity shouldn't it
contracted less than B?

Ken Seto

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
Paul Stowe wrote:
> LET is not symmetrical as classical defined.

True. At least as far as having a Lorentz symmetry principle is concerned.
Or as far as obeying the PoR is concerned.

One of Einstein's personal motivations was to bring the PoR back to
electrodynamics. Einstein succeeded in this, Lorentz did not (but wasn't
really trying to, either).


> That is to
> say, two co-moving objects at say, 0.1c (A) and 0.96c (B) relative to
> the CMBR and 0.86c relative to each other will not appear the same to
> observers on each object.

Your description is self-inconsistent -- how can they be "co-moving"
and also "0.86c relative to each other"???

I will comment, assuming your "co-moving" is omitted.

> Object A will be physically contracted much

> more than B. This IS a direct consequence of Lorentz' postulate that
> physical contraction IS a function of motion relative to the primal
> frame!

If A moves at 0.1c wrt the CMBR, and B moves at 0.96c wrt the CMBR, and
if one assumes the LET ether is at rest wrt the CMBR, then you got it
backwards: in LET B will be physically contracted more than A (B has a
larger speed wrt the ether).

But if one assumes that the LET ether moves at 0.96c wrt the
CMBR right along with B, then A will be physically contracted
more than B. The point is: you need to ASSUME where the LET
ether is, because it is unobservable. The "physical
contractions" of LET are likewise unobservable.

Also note that these two objects will NOT measure their relative speed
to be 0.86c as you claimed. That value would be obtained using Lorentz's
intermediate variables, but it is his "local" variables which they
actually use for measurements.

For example, using his "intermediate variables" there is no
limit on the speed of the particles in a pion beam. But we
observe that they DO obey a speed limit of c. If one uses
his "local" variables, then one finds there is a speed limit
of c for such particles, in agreement with experiment.

> Thus if A attempts to measure B by its shortened rulers, given that A &
> B are, in the LET primal frame of equal dimensions, A will see a much
> elongated B, not contracted, as would be predicted by symmetry
> considerations.

Not true. A will meaure B using "local" rulers and "local" clocks. When
A marks both ends of B on a "local" ruler at identical times on
collocated "local" clocks, then this measurement of B's length will be
contracted _EXACTLY_ as much as if A and B were interchanged in this
description. This is true even though A and B have wildly different
velocities wrt the ether.

Note that in order for A to consider this a measurement of the
length of B, since B is moving wrt A, A _must_ make two marks
on A's rulers at the same "local" time, using "local" clocks
collocated with the marks. Otherwise A would have no
justification in calling this measurement the length of B, it
would be the length of B plus some fraction of B's motion wrt A.

You have forgotten what in SR is called "relativity of simultaneity".
While LET does not call it that, exactly the same relationship exists
among the "local" times in LET of different frames as occur between the
time coordinates in SR of those same frames.


> Now why don't WE experimentally see this?

Because LET is equivalent to SR, in both senses I defined. And because
both LET and SR agree with the experiments.

Note that if you do not apply LET using "local" times and
rulers, you will not obtain agreement between your application
of LET and experiment. That is neither interesting nor useful,
nor what Lorentz intended in his 1904 paper.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Dennis: 1) The preference of a principle-based explanation over an explanation
> involving mechanical explanations of those principles should have gone out with
> the dark ages.

And you think your arguments and explanations are not "principle-based"?
You just have a different set of principles. A set which seems
inconsistent with modern physics -- that is with modern EXPERIMENTS.


> So LPET should win.

This is not about winning and losing, this is about the validity of
various physical theories.


> Roberts: > 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable
> [2].


> Dennis: Proved wrong by the fact that in LET one could perform a null
> Sagnac--and so find the velocity of the ether.

Nonsense -- you would find the _ROTATION_ of the ether. And golly gee,
such experiments have been done, and the rotation of the LET ether is
zero in any inertial frame (more precisely, any instantaneously-comoving
inertial frame of the lab performing the experiment). Just one more
example of LET being experimentally indistinguishable from SR.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

DJMenCk

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
>
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...

>
>>Dennis: 1) The preference of a principle-based explanation over an
>explanation
>>involving mechanical explanations of those principles should have gone out
>with
>>the dark ages.
>
McCullough: Yet all of your arguments against SR are principle-based.

Dennis: My arguments don't claim that principles knock magnets around. That's
the difference.

McCullough: >I think that the difference is that you are basing your


>arguments on a priori principles, while modern physics
>is trying to let the developments in experiment and theory
>suggest what principles are important.

Dennis: If that were the case, modern physicists should look at the billions of
phenomena that are being studied in **all** fields of science, and take note of
the very obvious materialistic pattern.


DJMenCk

unread,
Nov 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/23/99
to
>
>
>DJMenCk wrote:
>> Dennis: 1) The preference of a principle-based explanation over an
>explanation
>> involving mechanical explanations of those principles should have gone out
>with
>> the dark ages.
>
Roberts: >And you think your arguments and explanations are not
"principle-based"?

Dennis: I don't have any material effects without material causes.
Principles describe (or formulate logical rules.) You need matter to cause
something to occur.

Roberts: >You just have a different set of principles. A set which seems

>inconsistent with modern physics -- that is with modern EXPERIMENTS.

Dennis: LET is consistent with "EXPERIMENTS." And you should check the
"EXPERIMENTS" in the other fields of science. Materal causes, material causes,
and more material causes.

>> So LPET should win.
>
Roberts: >This is not about winning and losing, this is about the validity of
>various physical theories.

Dennis: I'll rephrase for the more leisurely paced: LPET should be preferred
to SR due to the theory criteria of prediction, simplicity, and material
consilience with other phenomena.


>> Roberts: > 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is
>unobservable
>> [2].
>> Dennis: Proved wrong by the fact that in LET one could perform a null
>> Sagnac--and so find the velocity of the ether.
>

Roberts: >Nonsense -- you would find the _ROTATION_ of the ether.

Dennis: You find angular velocity--so you find the local rest frame of the
ether.

Roberts: And golly gee,


>such experiments have been done, and the rotation of the LET ether is
>zero in any inertial frame

Dennis: On the tenth time, one must hit the all-cap:
CITATION OR PROOF!
CITATION OR PROOF!
Show a quote that says LET can't have ether vortices. And if you can't show a
quote, prove it from other quotes...


Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/24/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Show a quote that says LET can't have ether vortices.

I have answered in more detail in some thread or other.

Lorentz himself in his 1904 paper never considered non-inertial motions
of the ether.

Your "ether vortices" imply that real rulers would observe a non-
Euclidean geometry of space in the vicinity of one. They would also
imply that clocks at rest in an inertial frame would not remain
synchronized with each other near one.

Note that we do not observe such behavior for either rulers or
clocks.


Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com

Paul Stowe

unread,
Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to
In <383AB9D8...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> LET is not symmetrical as classical defined.
>
>True. At least as far as having a Lorentz symmetry principle is
>concerned. Or as far as obeying the PoR is concerned.
>
>One of Einstein's personal motivations was to bring the PoR back to
>electrodynamics. Einstein succeeded in this, Lorentz did not (but
>wasn't really trying to, either).

Nope, Lorentz had not such aesthetic agenda...

>> That is to say, two co-moving objects at say, 0.1c (A) and 0.96c (B)
>> relative to the CMBR and 0.86c relative to each other will not appear
>> the same to observers on each object.
>
>Your description is self-inconsistent -- how can they be "co-moving"
>and also "0.86c relative to each other"???

Co-moving, meaning they are both moving in the same direction, not the
same speed. If they were the same speed I would have said same frame
of reference.

> I will comment, assuming your "co-moving" is omitted.
>
>> Object A will be physically contracted much more than B. This IS a
>> direct consequence of Lorentz' postulate that physical contraction IS
>> a function of motion relative to the primal frame!
>
>If A moves at 0.1c wrt the CMBR, and B moves at 0.96c wrt the CMBR, and
>if one assumes the LET ether is at rest wrt the CMBR, then you got it
>backwards: in LET B will be physically contracted more than A (B has a
>larger speed wrt the ether).

Yes, I was lexdexic (dyslexic) and reversed A & B...

> But if one assumes that the LET ether moves at 0.96c wrt the
> CMBR right along with B, then A will be physically contracted
> more than B. The point is: you need to ASSUME where the LET
> ether is, because it is unobservable. The "physical
> contractions" of LET are likewise unobservable.

You really do appear NOT to get the fact that you cannot willy-nilly
assume the primal frame in LET. There IS only one, and motion relative
to it determines the local states. I find the CMBR Doppler to be fairly
convincing evidence of the location of this frame.

>Also note that these two objects will NOT measure their relative speed
>to be 0.86c as you claimed. That value would be obtained using
>Lorentz's intermediate variables, but it is his "local" variables which
>they actually use for measurements.

Ah, A sees B (yes I got them right this time) approaching by light being
reflected off the hull of B. What is the Doppler shift of this light?

nu = nu_o[Sqrt([1 + v/c]/[1 - v/c])]

Where v = 0.86

So, by assessing the spectral shift of B what speed does A think B is
closing at?

> For example, using his "intermediate variables" there is no
> limit on the speed of the particles in a pion beam. But we
> observe that they DO obey a speed limit of c. If one uses
> his "local" variables, then one finds there is a speed limit

> of c for such particles, in agreement with experiment.

Really? Have you every heard of a fluid structure like a vortex ring
going supersonic? Point is, if Maxwell's model is valid, c is a
natural limiting parameter, EVEN in the "intermediate" state. You
mathematicians seem to either have no comprehension of physical
processes, of simply love to ignore them.

>> Thus if A attempts to measure B by its shortened rulers, given that
>> A & B are, in the LET primal frame of equal dimensions, A will see
>> a much elongated B, not contracted, as would be predicted by symmetry
>> considerations.
>

>Not true. A will measure B using "local" rulers and "local" clocks.

OK, B sees A approaching 'head on'. B's rulers are 'physically' severely
contracted ONLY in the longitudinal direction (along its line of flight).
Since it is a head on approach, the solid angle of the approaching ship
is viewed purely from its transverse directions (uncontracted as is B's)
and the ship looks fine... If A were crossing B's path at 0.1c then B
sees A with its length contraction STILL only in its line of flight.
It will see the reflected light from A (as in a snapped picture) distorted
by only that which is caused by 0.1c. However, if B were crossing A's
path, A would see in its snapshot a much more contracted ship as is caused
by 0.96c. Of course the fun part is when the ships approach each other at
angle close to parallel.


> When A marks both ends of B on a "local" ruler at identical times on
> collocated "local" clocks, then this measurement of B's length will be
> contracted _EXACTLY_ as much as if A and B were interchanged in this
> description. This is true even though A and B have wildly different
> velocities wrt the ether.

What times are there in a snapshot?

> Note that in order for A to consider this a measurement of the
> length of B, since B is moving wrt A, A _must_ make two marks
> on A's rulers at the same "local" time, using "local" clocks
> collocated with the marks. Otherwise A would have no
> justification in calling this measurement the length of B, it
> would be the length of B plus some fraction of B's motion wrt A.
>
>You have forgotten what in SR is called "relativity of simultaneity".

No, I just accept that for what it really is, an ad hoc (as in 'by definition')
process of SR.

> While LET does not call it that, exactly the same relationship exists
> among the "local" times in LET of different frames as occur between
> the time coordinates in SR of those same frames.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there is no definition, specification, or
requirement to synchronize anything in LET. The concept of synchronization
is not ever mentioned.



>> Now why don't WE experimentally see this?
>
> Because LET is equivalent to SR, in both senses I defined. And because
> both LET and SR agree with the experiments.

No, its because we're always at the low end (can you say slow end) of any
state in which relativistic speeds are being observed...

> Note that if you do not apply LET using "local" times and
> rulers, you will not obtain agreement between your application
> of LET and experiment. That is neither interesting nor useful,
> nor what Lorentz intended in his 1904 paper.

The point is, there is a major process level difference between LET and SR.
LET is not, and was never intended to be, symmetrical. Maxwell's equations
aren't (no magnetic monopoles), time isn't (contrary the flights of fancy
that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time) and in general,
the processes of hydrodynamics aren't.

The goal is, as it always was, is to find the means of discriminating these
differences by actual experiments, that's science. Parroting endlessly that
one's belief in theory 'says' the can't be is ...

Paul Stowe


GLOBARR

unread,
Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to
In <383abb79$0$80...@news.voyager.net>
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:

Ref: <38399F29...@lucent.com>
<19991122225158...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
<81d41e$2k0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>

On 23 Nov 1999 04:09:18 GMT,
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>>
>>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>>> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
>>> doesn't it?
>>
>>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_
>> quantities; ...
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Thank you!!!! It does! And it has exactly as much as
>> is needed!
>

> Sorry Gerald, LET is not symmetrical as classical
> defined. That is to say, two co-moving objects at say,

> 0.1c (A) and 0.96c (B) relative to the CMBR and 0.86c
> relative to each other will not appear the same to

> observers on each object. Object A will be physically

> contracted much more than B.

Seto wrote:
I don't understand. Since A has a much lower velocity
shouldn't it contracted less than B?

O'Barr comments:
In the ether, you have both real physics, and you have
what is `observed' or measured. What is observed or
measured is exactly what SR provides us. This is what I
was calling symmetrical. Because of the changes that occur
in the tools we use, then object A, in its reference frame,
will measure the same as object B, in its reference frame.
The fact that the real physics results in A being different
than B does not change any of these results.
Now in the real physics of the ether, which is Newtonian
physics, there is important symmetry, just as there has
always been in Newtonian physics. We need not think that
the ether comes with no symmetry! But we must never
become confused between the differences between the
symmetry in the measurement math, and the symmetry in the
physics.

GLOBARR

unread,
Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to
In <81d41e$2k0$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:

Ref: <38399F29...@lucent.com>
<19991122225158...@ng-bj1.aol.com>



Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>
>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>> So which is it, Roberts? Does LET have symmetry or
>> doesn't it?
>

>Tom Roberts wrote:
>LET does have Lorentz symmetry for _OBSERVABLE_ >quantities; ...
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Thank you!!!! It does! And it has exactly as much as
>is needed!

Paul Stowe wrote:
Sorry Gerald, LET is not symmetrical as classical defined.
That is to say, two co-moving objects at say, 0.1c (A) and
0.96c (B) relative to the CMBR and 0.86c relative to each
other will not appear the same to observers on each object.
Object A will be physically contracted much more than B.

This IS a direct consequence of Lorentz' postulate that
physical contraction IS a function of motion relative to the
primal frame!

Thus if A attempts to measure B by its shortened rulers,


given that A & B are, in the LET primal frame of equal
dimensions, A will see a much elongated B, not
contracted, as would be predicted by symmetry
considerations.

Now why don't WE experimentally see this?

O'Barr comments:
See my answer to Seto. In our reality, a measurement
is much more complicated than we thought! The tools
we use, and we have to use tools, are not fixed tools, but
change. In every 24 hours, the length of rulers and the
rates of clocks are constantly changing as the earth spins
and moves through space. When we sync our clocks to
make a measurement, we really set up special 'time zones'
to fit our velocity so that we will get c. Once we set our
clocks to be perfect at one speed, then slow motion sync
will keep these clocks in sync as the velocity of the earth
changes. And as these simple things are done, we get
all the 'fun and games' that are seen in SR.

These 'fun and games' allow us to measure a short
tool to be long, or a long tool to be short, just because
of the way we have synced our clocks, etc. Any SR
expert can tell you how all these things occur, if they
only wanted to!

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/25/99
to
Paul Stowe wrote:
> You really do appear NOT to get the fact that you cannot willy-nilly
> assume the primal frame in LET. There IS only one, and motion relative
> to it determines the local states.

Sure. It's just that there is no possible experiment to measure where
this ether frame is. So all _YOU_ can do is guess, just like the rest
of us. Mother nature "knows" where it is, but she's not telling. You
are not mother nature.


> I find the CMBR Doppler to be fairly
> convincing evidence of the location of this frame.

That's not an unreasonable guess, but it is still just a _GUESS_. And it
is experimentally indistinguishable from my guess that the ether is at
rest wrt my chair (neglecting any non-inertial motions of both chair and
CMBR).


> Ah, A sees B (yes I got them right this time) approaching by light being
> reflected off the hull of B. What is the Doppler shift of this light?
> nu = nu_o[Sqrt([1 + v/c]/[1 - v/c])]
> Where v = 0.86

Not true. You need to use the Lorentz velocity-addition formula, because
you originally gave both velocities wrt a single inertial frame (the
ether). The "v" which appears in the Doppler formula is the relative
velocity of the source and observer, not wrt the ether. In both LET
and SR (in LET, velocity wrt the ether _always_ drops out when computing
an observable quantity like this). Also I believe you omitted a factor
of 2 (reflection, not emission).


> OK, B sees A approaching 'head on'. [...]

That's hopelessly confused, and does not describe how measurements are
made.


> > When A marks both ends of B on a "local" ruler at identical times on
> > collocated "local" clocks, then this measurement of B's length will be
> > contracted _EXACTLY_ as much as if A and B were interchanged in this
> > description. This is true even though A and B have wildly different
> > velocities wrt the ether.
> What times are there in a snapshot?

When a snapshot is made, all parts of it must be made simultaneously.
Note that A and B see different events as simultaneous in their respective
"local" times.


> Again, for the umpteenth time, there is no definition, specification, or
> requirement to synchronize anything in LET. The concept of synchronization
> is not ever mentioned.

Perhaps not by Lorentz. But one still needs the concept of simultaneity,
and the local variables of LET behave exactly like the coordinates of SR.

> >> Now why don't WE experimentally see this?
> > Because LET is equivalent to SR, in both senses I defined. And because
> > both LET and SR agree with the experiments.
> No, its because we're always at the low end (can you say slow end) of any
> state in which relativistic speeds are being observed...

Not true in the GPS.


> The point is, there is a major process level difference between LET and SR.

Sure. But they still obtain the same predictions/computations for
measurements of observable quantities.


> LET is not, and was never intended to be, symmetrical. Maxwell's equations
> aren't (no magnetic monopoles),

You just aren't looking at the Maxwell's equations in the right way to
see their symmetry. In some sense there are no magnetic monopolse because
a vortex cannot be a point (but that's really only a rather loose sense;
it's not a strong argument because pointlike particles like the electron
do have magnetic moments).


> time isn't (contrary the flights of fancy
> that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time) and in general,
> the processes of hydrodynamics aren't.

Except, of course, that the _EQUATIONS_ of hydrodynamics are invariant over
time reversal (as is all of classical physics).


> The goal is, as it always was, is to find the means of discriminating these
> differences by actual experiments, that's science. Parroting endlessly that
> one's belief in theory 'says' the can't be is ...

Sure. But one must look to measure things which are measurable. And to
"measure" things indirectly, you need a theory to relate the actual
measurements to what you really want to measure (e.g. to convert fringe
shifts or time differences into a velocity). But much of what you want
to measure is, however, unmeasurable. Like one's velocity wrt the ether.

Note that that last statement is NOT a theoretical one. It is
firmly based upon existing experiments, as is my entire set of
articles here.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,
Nov 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/26/99
to
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
> The answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single word:
> Symmetry.

No, the answer to all these questions can be summed up in a single
word: positivism.

The symmetry group (named, BTW, Lorentz group or Poincare group) is
part of LET as well as of SR.

> Symmetry principles are a very powerful (nay indispensable) tool in
> modern theoretical physics.

So what?

> And none of the ether theories contain such a symmetry as a
> fundamental part of the theory (LET has an "accidental" Lorentz
> symmetry, but it is not a principle of the theory).

So what? This does not forbid to use the symmetry. Poincare has found
and used this symmetry before SR.

> It is highly doubtful that any of the modern theories of physics
> would have been discovered without the symmetry principles of SR
> leading the way -- modern gauge theories are direct descendants of
> the geometrical description of SR; this includes both GR and the
> Standard Model.

I see no support for this claim.

> Such a geometrical description is not possible in any ether theory
> (geometry is inherently coordinate independent, but the ether is
> not).

ROTFL. Distorted measurements are measurements too, and geometry is
the theory of measurements (of the Earth): geo-metr.

> 1) In every viable ether theory, the ether itself is unobservable [2].

If we decide to name a very particular, unimportant property "the
ether itself".

> Quantum theory and the experiments related to it have repeatedly
> pounded home the lesson that one must not attempt to describe
> things which have not been observed or measured. This is a
> second powerful argument against the believability of ether
> theories.

You mingle the recommendations of some theoreticians with a physical
theory.

> 2) This unobservability of the ether frame borders on a reductio ad
> absurdum in math, as the ether is assumed to be unique, but its
> unobservability makes it merely one member of the equivalence class
> of inertial frames -- _any_ inertial frame can be assumed to be the
> ether frame without changing the predictions of any viable ether
> theory. And since the ether frame is intrinsically unobservable,
> assumptions and guesses are all the ether advocate has.

No idea about methodology of science. All scientific theories are
assumptions and guesses. You blame ether theory to be a scientific
theory?

It is certainly not reductio ad absurdum if a theory predicts what is
observable, even if it predicts that not all parameters of the theory
are observable.

> 3) The assumption of a unique ether frame is directly analogous to the
> assumption that there is a preferred frame in a Euclidean space. It
> is absurd to claim that there _is_ a preferred frame in Euclidean
> space but it is unobservable.

It is not absurd, simply there is not much reason for making such an
assumption. Ockham's razor.

> But that's essentially what the viable ether theories do.

If you ignore the fact that there are obvious differences between
space and time.

> 4) In every viable ether theory one's measurement tools must change in
> an unobservable manner if one is moving wrt the ether. This seems
> both counterintuitive and strange -- it's as if these effects were
> diabolically constructed simply to make the viable ether theories
> indistinguishable from SR.

Of course, you have to look into the ether theory if it has an
explanation for this. But I recommend you to look a little bit
careful what modern condensed matter theory has to say about such
things. Lorentz symmetry appears there in a natural way.

> As ether theories are a clear attempt to
> preserve an older, seemingly "common sense" approach to physics, it
> seems unreasonable to have tools change, because there is no
> precedent for such behavior in our everyday lives, or in older
> physical theories -- this is very much not "common sense".

That you ignore the sound analogon of Lorentz symmetry in usual matter
it does not mean that there is none.

> 5) In every viable ether theory except LET, the one-way speed of light
> differs from c, but is unmeasurable. It seems strange that slow clock
> transport does not give any method to measure the one-way speed of
> light (such approaches always measure c, not the "true" one-way speed
> of light).

A simple, easy to understand effect in LET is "strange"?

> 6) Ether theories require a new postulate for every new phenomenon that
> is discovered, which basically states that the ether applies to it
> in the same ways the ether applies to elecromagnetism.

Funny trick. It is one postulate: universality of clock time
dilation.

> It seems surprising that the "gravitational ether"
> has exactly the same underlying properties as the "lumeniferous
> ether" and the "weak interaction ether" and the "strong interaction
> ether"

Only for people who don't believe into the unity of physical law.

> In summary, there are good reasons for the ether to be absent from modern
> physics;

Note: all of them have been purely metaphysical. The only interesting
physical argument - the absence of a theory of gravity - has not been
presented.

> virtually all modern physicists consider these reasons both cogent
> and sufficient

I doubt. There was no ether theory of gravity. Point. This was a
decisive argument. Once there was a decisive physical argument, it is
unreasonable to use the fact that the majority has rejected ether
theory as support for your unimportant metaphysical arguments.

I prefer to think that scientist behave in agreement with the standard
methodology, that means, ether theory was dead as long as there was no
ether-theoretical competitor of GR. This sufficiently explains that
the ether was not part of physics over this century.

> While the viable ether theories are equivalent to SR in the sense that
> they are experimentally indistinguishable, they are most definitely NOT
> equivalent to SR in either mathematical elegance, explanatory power, or
> suitability as a starting point for further theories.

Wrong.

Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer

DJMenCk

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> You really do appear NOT to get the fact that you cannot willy-nilly
>> assume the primal frame in LET. There IS only one, and motion relative
>> to it determines the local states.
>
Roberts: Sure. It's just that there is no possible experiment to measure where
>this ether frame is.

Dennis: Still as wrong as ever. A Sagnac experiment around an ether vortex
could do it....


John F

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <19991129214319...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> John F: And I've already done it, as described in the
Michelson_Morley posts a few months ago. It is all very easy, but no-
one will listen, let alone try it for themselves.
Regards, John F

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Dennis: A Sagnac experiment around an ether vortex
> could do it....

Aparently you never saw my response to this claim before.
Certainly I have never seen any response to my response.
Here it is again (slightly augmented):


In LET the ether is at rest in an inertial frame, so an "ether vortex" is
not possible. For a citation, see Lorentz's 1904 paper. All of his
formulas are intrinsically assuming inertial frames/coordinates.

I've thought for about 3 minutes about what an "ether vortex" would
be in LET, and my first conclusion is that the existence of such a thing
would imply that real rulers in an inertial frame would observe a non-
Euclidean geometry in the vicinity of such a vortex. Somehow I don't
think you are expecting that....

Assume that the ether is rotating wrt inertial frame I, but that the
center of rotation is at rest in I, with the axis of rotation along the
Z axis. Imagine a circle in the X-Y plane of I centered on the origin,
and lay out small rulers around it, at rest in I. Because they are
moving wrt the ether they will shrink, and the circumference of this
circle will be measured to be larger than 2pi times the radius (more
rulers will fit around the circle). Moreover, the difference between
2piR and the measured circumference will increase with radius (because
at larger radius the rulers are moving faster wrt the ether and will
shrink more; radial rulers of course never shrink). There are many
other consequences of this observed non-Euclidean geometry....

Of course our actual observations do not behave this way at all.
No such "ether vortex" has been observed. But of course there
are vast regious of the universe which have not been searched;
perhaps we should send DJMenCk out on a quest....

Note that this is directly analogous to the spatial curvature
of a rotating system in SR, except in this case it is the
INERTIAL FRAMES which appear to be curved when measured with
real rulers, even in the absence of gravitation or rotation.


Another consequence of such a vortex is that multiple clocks at rest in
a given inertial frame would not remain in synch with each other in the
vicinity of such a vortex. Different clocks would be moving at different
velocities wrt the ether, and would experience different slowings.


Loosely, linear motion wrt the ether is unobservable, because the
infinite spatial extent of an inertial frame permits one to shrink
objects along the direction of motion and not notice it (there's no
boundary to reach). Rotation wrt the ether does not permit this because
there is a periodic "boundary" in angle to reach; the rotation would
be directly observable. None of Lorentz's equations or discussions in
his 1904 paper consider a non-inertial ether, and this is merely one
reason why.

Rotation wrt the (inertial) ether is observable in LET; it is also
rotation wrt the inertial frame in which the ether is at rest. And
this latter property also makes computations of such observations
identical in SR and LET -- the two theories _are_ equivalent in both
senses I discussed.


If you insist on vortexes, you can have them as long as their size is
significantly smaller than a proton (perhaps on the order of the
Planck length, say). Or you could have one much larger than the size
of the observable universe (because that would be indistinguishable
from linear motion wrt the ether). But in between they are ruled out
by observations, and by the non-Euclidean metric relationships which
real rulers would exhibit IN INERTIAL FRAMES.


Oh yes, one last thought: if you assume there is a single, global "ether
vortex", and the inertial frames rotate with it, then you haven't done
anything. Presumably the distant stars and galaxies rotate with it. In
this paragraph the word "rotate" is used with an unusual meaning (:-)).


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Stephen

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <384451B5...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts

If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict... I'm pretty sure that
the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
this out but it would be a fun exercise.
Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes in with
'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)

--
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Virgil.

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
>
>
>DJMenCk wrote:
>> Dennis: A Sagnac experiment around an ether vortex
>> could do it....
>
> Aparently you never saw my response to this claim before.
> Certainly I have never seen any response to my response.
> Here it is again (slightly augmented):
>
>In LET the ether is at rest in an inertial frame, so an "ether vortex" is
>not possible. For a citation, see Lorentz's 1904 paper. All of his >formulas
are intrinsically assuming inertial frames/coordinates.

Dennis: Wrong. The formulas assume motion that is uniform wrt the ether.
Again, I want any citation anywhere that shows an ether vortex is impossible
according to Lorentz. Indeed, at the time, ether vortex theories were in
vogue.

Roberts: >I've thought for about 3 minutes about what an "ether vortex" would


>be in LET, and my first conclusion is that the existence of such a thing
>would imply that real rulers in an inertial frame would observe a non-
>Euclidean geometry in the vicinity of such a vortex. Somehow I don't
>think you are expecting that....
>
>Assume that the ether is rotating wrt inertial frame I, but that the
>center of rotation is at rest in I, with the axis of rotation along the
>Z axis. Imagine a circle in the X-Y plane of I centered on the origin,
>and lay out small rulers around it, at rest in I. Because they are
>moving wrt the ether they will shrink, and the circumference of this
>circle will be measured to be larger than 2pi times the radius

Dennis: It will be "measured" to be so. That doesn't mean it is so.
Lorentzians don't have a difficult time in distinguishing between reality and
what is measured by contracted rulers.

Roberts: (more


>rulers will fit around the circle). Moreover, the difference between
>2piR and the measured circumference will increase with radius (because
>at larger radius the rulers are moving faster wrt the ether and will
>shrink more; radial rulers of course never shrink). There are many
>other consequences of this observed non-Euclidean geometry....

Dennis: At v<<c, this would all be unnoticeable.

Roberts: > Of course our actual observations do not behave this way at
all.

Dennis: How would you know? At v<<c, this would all be unnoticeable.

Roberts: > No such "ether vortex" has been observed.

Dennis: I formally predict right here and now that if we conduct a Sagnac
experiment in the orbit of the moon, with all reflectors and source moving at
the orbital velocity of the moon, that

dt < 4Aw/c^2.

Roberts:

>Another consequence of such a vortex is that multiple clocks at rest in
>a given inertial frame would not remain in synch with each other in the
>vicinity of such a vortex. Different clocks would be moving at different
>velocities wrt the ether, and would experience different slowings.

Dennis: That's right. So there's yet another way.

Roberts:

>If you insist on vortexes, you can have them as long as their size is
>significantly smaller than a proton (perhaps on the order of the
>Planck length, say). Or you could have one much larger than the size
>of the observable universe (because that would be indistinguishable
>from linear motion wrt the ether). But in between they are ruled out
>by observations,

Dennis: Huh? What observations rule them out?

Stephen

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <19991201073923...@ng-ca1.aol.com>, djm...@aol.com
(DJMenCk) wrote:

> >
> >
> >DJMenCk wrote:
> >> Dennis: A Sagnac experiment around an ether vortex
> >> could do it....
> >
> > Aparently you never saw my response to this claim before.
> > Certainly I have never seen any response to my response.
> > Here it is again (slightly augmented):
> >
> >In LET the ether is at rest in an inertial frame, so an "ether vortex" is
> >not possible. For a citation, see Lorentz's 1904 paper. All of his >formulas
> are intrinsically assuming inertial frames/coordinates.
>
> Dennis: Wrong. The formulas assume motion that is uniform wrt the ether.


And Lorentz's ether is at rest in some inertial frame, so if you are in
uniform motion wrt it than your rest frame is an inertial frame. Exactly
as Tom pointed out.
I'll never understand the enthusiasm with which you prove your critics
right.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Dennis: The formulas [in Lorentz's 1904 paper] assume motion that is
> uniform wrt the ether.

_And_ wrt the inertial frame in which it is at rest. Did you actually
read his paper? He starts out with a Galilean transform, and the only
possible justification for that is that he is considering inertial
frames. As has been said many times around here.


> Again, I want any citation anywhere that shows an ether vortex is impossible
> according to Lorentz.

Again, as I said, _read_ his 1904 paper (the one reprinted in _The_
_Principle_of_Relativity_ by Dover). Any "ether vortex" is ruled out
by his use of the Galilean transform. And also by subsequent discussion
and developments.

You do need to read his paper with the historical context in
mind. Even though he never presents the Lorentz transform
as we know and love them today, AFAIK this is the paper on
which their name rests (it predated Einstein's 1905 paper).


> [about non-Euclidean geometry measured by rulers and clocks at
> rest in an inertial frmae]


> Dennis: It will be "measured" to be so.

Yes, that's what I said. But golly gee, no such measurements have been
observed.


> That doesn't mean it is so.

Of course not. But golly gee, we humans seem to be limited to our senses
and what we can measure with them -- unknowable "truths" like you refer
to are not accessible to us.


> Lorentzians don't have a difficult time in distinguishing between reality and
> what is measured by contracted rulers.

Neither do I. But somehow you seem unable to realize that if real
measurements do not observe this non-Euclidean geometry, then your
theory of "ether vortices" is refuted. Unless, as I said, those
vortices are of a scale far removed from experiments....


> Dennis: At v<<c, this would all be unnoticeable.

Please go back and look at what we are discussing. We are discussing
_EXPERIMENTAL_DISTINGUISHABILITY_. If this was "unnoticeable" then it
is experimentally indistinguishable.


> Dennis: Huh? What observations rule them out?

The fact that we use Newtonian mechanics accurately everyday on earth,
and use SR and GR with much higher accuracy in other contexts.

Yes indeed, you could assume that such vortices exist all around us
but are so slow that they are unmeasurable. But this whole discussion
was about _EXPERIMENTAL_DISTINGUISHABILITY_ and such a claim merely
supports the experimental indistinguishability of these theories.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
>
>
>In article <19991201073923...@ng-ca1.aol.com>, djm...@aol.com
>(DJMenCk) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >DJMenCk wrote:
>> >> Dennis: A Sagnac experiment around an ether vortex
>> >> could do it....
>> >
>> > Aparently you never saw my response to this claim before.
>> > Certainly I have never seen any response to my response.
>> > Here it is again (slightly augmented):
>> >
>> >In LET the ether is at rest in an inertial frame, so an "ether vortex" is
>> >not possible. For a citation, see Lorentz's 1904 paper. All of his
>>formulas
>> are intrinsically assuming inertial frames/coordinates.
>>
>> Dennis: Wrong. The formulas assume motion that is uniform wrt the ether.
>
>
Wells: And Lorentz's ether is at rest in some inertial frame, so if you are

in
>uniform motion wrt it than your rest frame is an inertial frame.

Dennis: Citation, citation, citation....
Please give me a citation in any language from any work which shows that LET or
Lorentz argues that ether vortices are impossible.

Exactly
>as Tom pointed out.
> I'll never understand the enthusiasm with which you prove your critics
>right.

Dennis: I think you may be misinterpreting my posts....


DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
>
>DJMenCk wrote:
>> Dennis: The formulas [in Lorentz's 1904 paper] assume motion that is
>> uniform wrt the ether.
>

>_And_ wrt the inertial frame in which it is at rest.

Dennis: Citation, citation, citation. Please give me a citation in which
Lorentz states (or implies) that ether vortices are impossible.

Roberts: Did you actually


>read his paper? He starts out with a Galilean transform, and the only
>possible justification for that is that he is considering inertial
>frames.

Dennis: Um, Galilean transforms work on this planet, don't they? Well, we're
moving in a circle, right?
Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
impossible?
Wow.
Now, could you please give me a citation in which Lorentz states (or implies)


that ether vortices are impossible.

Roberts: As has been said many times around here.

Dennis: I can't help it if you like repeating mistakes

>> Again, I want any citation anywhere that shows an ether vortex is
>impossible
>> according to Lorentz.
>

Roberts: >Again, as I said, _read_ his 1904 paper (the one reprinted in _The_


>_Principle_of_Relativity_ by Dover). Any "ether vortex" is ruled out
>by his use of the Galilean transform.

Dennis: Sigh. Lorentz would have also used Galilean transforms for sound
velocity. Do you think he thought atmospheric vortices are impossible?
Wow.


DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
Wells:
> If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
>Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
>hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
>Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict...

Dennis: This is good, good, good....Good stuff.. That's could be the
theory....I hope you don't mind if I email this to you as well.

Wells: I'm pretty sure that


>the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
>this out but it would be a fun exercise.

Dennis: That was my original inclination as well.

Wells: > Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes in


with
>'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
>might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)

Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view. IMO, it's
exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an ether inflow
model. Ether condenses at the core of gravitational systems, creating the
larger building blocks of matter. The condensation of ether creates a low
pressure system that causes a radial inflow. The radial inflow eventually
forms a vortex. This explains not only gravity, but the tangential velocities
of rotations and orbits--and is consistent with all the EM, relativistic and
ECI experiments. I believe it survives easily the energy problem, and I believe
it predicts an inverse square law (though there's still argument on this.)
After defending it from various intelligent and creative attacks in another
venue, I'm about ready to endorse it (not that that means anything.)
In any case, there's an easy way to imagine or even test this: Imagine we have
a giant aquarium of hydrogen gas and tiny ball bearings in zero gravity
conditions. In the middle of the aquarium is a pump that is surrounded by a
large perforated globe. The pump is attached to a long thin pipe that sucks
hydrogen from the aquarium.
This creates a radial wind toward the globe--and eventually the gas would
form a vortex.
Now, obviously, you would be able to control the pump so that the tiny
lead ball bearings that are floating near the globe (remember it's zero gravity
conditions so the only force in the aquarium is the hydrogen gas wind) would be
pushed at the perforated globe that surrounds the pump at approximately the
same force as gravity.
The question is could we create Keplerian orbits. Rado's mathematical
analysis suggests you can--but the analysis (which relies heavily on
Bernoulli), while mathematically simple, is conceptually intricate. Though I
believe it's hard to declare any particular notion wrong, it's easy to argue
he's pushing the Kelplerian analysis. (Naturally, I find Rado to be extremely
clever as he is precisely as Materialistic as I am. ;-) )
Anyay, the issue should be decided by experiment--and I'm even considering
trying the experiment myself.
All you need is an aquarium, a suction pump, and some ingenuity. The thing to
test is the "attractive" force on objects in the aquarium that the pump exerts
once the vortex has formed-- and so determine whether the force decreases as
the square of the distance.
Do you have access to a nice lab and an aquarium?
I should email this to Roberts too. Roberts is very thorough and
knowledgeable about experimental set ups--and often spots technical problems..
Indeed, Roberts, Throop, Bennett, Nobes, Anderson, Andersen, Jan, Bourhis, a
little help here? I need your comments......
--Dennis McCarthy


Stephen

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
In article <19991201211942...@ng-fx1.aol.com>, djm...@aol.com
(DJMenCk) wrote:

> Wells:
> > If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
> >Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
> >hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
> >Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict...
>
> Dennis: This is good, good, good....Good stuff.. That's could be the
> theory....I hope you don't mind if I email this to you as well.
>
> Wells: I'm pretty sure that
> >the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
> >this out but it would be a fun exercise.
>
> Dennis: That was my original inclination as well.

You seem to have skipped right over the bit about it already being
ruled out by experiment, but never mind.

>
> Wells: > Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes in
> with
> >'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
> >might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)
>
> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view. IMO, it's
> exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an ether inflow
> model.

And hence quite irrelevant to the case under discussion, since I was
thinking of putting a Lorentz ether into a Cartesian vortex model.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Dennis: Um, Galilean transforms work on this planet, don't they?

No.


> Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
> transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
> impossible?

No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform INSIDE
A HURRICANE.


> Dennis: Sigh. Lorentz would have also used Galilean transforms for sound
> velocity. Do you think he thought atmospheric vortices are impossible?

No, but I think he knew better than to attempt to use a Galilean
transform inside such a vortex, and expect it to be valid everywhere.

The point is, all of Lorentz's equations of his 1904 paper are invalid
in such a vortex, AND YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LET when you consider
such an "ether vortex".


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Matthew Nobes

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
Hello Dennis,

I've mangled the order of this somewhat.

On 2 Dec 1999, DJMenCk wrote:

> I should email this to Roberts too. Roberts is very thorough and
> knowledgeable about experimental set ups--and often spots technical
> problems..
> Indeed, Roberts, Throop, Bennett, Nobes, Anderson, Andersen, Jan,
> Bourhis, a little help here? I need your comments......

Well, I will give you some comments on the techical theory part. You
_do_not_ want my comments on any proposed experiment, since my laboratory
skills are (to be very generous) limited.

> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view.

Well, these comments will have to be sight unseen, since getting this book
will prove to be difficult. Neither of the two university libraies here
in Vancouver have it.

> IMO, it's exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an

> ether inflow model. Ether condenses at the core of gravitational


> systems, creating the larger building blocks of matter. The
> condensation of ether creates a low pressure system that causes a
> radial inflow. The radial inflow eventually forms a vortex.

Okay here's my first question. How do you get a vortex to form? To do
thi, I would assume one needs some inital angular momentum, where does
that come from?

If I simpley assume a whole whack of particles are streaming radially
inward without perturbation then the system will never develop angular
momentum. Of course the slightest perturbation will change that.

The other natural question is of course what exactly causes the ether
inflow in the first place?

> This explains not only gravity, but the tangential velocities
> of rotations and orbits--and is consistent with all the EM, relativistic and
> ECI experiments. I believe it survives easily the energy problem, and I believe
> it predicts an inverse square law (though there's still argument on this.)
> After defending it from various intelligent and creative attacks in another
> venue, I'm about ready to endorse it (not that that means anything.)

Okay, on the subect of predictions, I would ask a few questions, mostly
quantitive, and one more on principle.

The first is that you mention that there is still arguement on whether the
thing even predicts the inverse square law. You also seem to suggest
below that the analysis of Keplerian orbits is complicated. THe question
of principle is why would I want this theory when I can derive the inverse
square law and solve the Kepler problem in a few pages of math starting
from GR? It's a matter of practical importence since if people don't use
the model because it's too complex it is unlikely to gain widespread
acceptence.

The other questions are more quantitiave

1) does the model account for the three classic tests of GR? Equivalently
what are it's predictions for the PPN parameters (see Misner Thorne and
Wheeler for what these are and Will's book or lectures for the current
measured values) which parametrize theories of gravity. These parameters
are fairly well measured, and it would be importent for the model not to
disagree with any of them.

2) does the model account for all current cosmological observations?

3) the most stringent test of the model would likely be the Hulse-Taylor
binary pulsar measurments. Does the model account for these extremly well
measured quantities.

THere are of course lot's more comparisions one could do, but many would
be quickly dispatched by a definative demonstration of the inverse sqare
law.

That's about all I could comment upon without seeing the text. Perhaps
you could post an excerpt (say with the derivation of the inverse square
law).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Matthew Nobes
|c/o Physics Dept.
|Simon Fraser University
|8888 University Drive
|Burnaby, B.C.
|Canada
www.geocities.com/CollegePark/campus/1098 |


DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
>
>In article <19991201211942...@ng-fx1.aol.com>, djm...@aol.com
>(DJMenCk) wrote:
>
>> Wells:
>> > If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
>> >Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
>> >hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
>> >Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict...
>>
>> Dennis: This is good, good, good....Good stuff.. That's could be the
>> theory....I hope you don't mind if I email this to you as well.
>>
>> Wells: I'm pretty sure that
>> >the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
>> >this out but it would be a fun exercise.
>>
>> Dennis: That was my original inclination as well.
>
Wells: You seem to have skipped right over the bit about it already being

>ruled out by experiment, but never mind.

Dennis: No, it still fits.

>>
>> Wells: > Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes
>in
>> with
>> >'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
>> >might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)
>>

>> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view. IMO, it's


>> exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an ether inflow
>> model.
>

Wells: > And hence quite irrelevant to the case under discussion, since I was


>thinking of putting a Lorentz ether into a Cartesian vortex model.

Dennis: That's almost exactly what this is. The Cartesian model is a circular
vortex which doesn't give you gravitational force


DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/2/99
to
>
>In article <19991201211942...@ng-fx1.aol.com>, djm...@aol.com
>(DJMenCk) wrote:
>
>> Wells:
>> > If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
>> >Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
>> >hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
>> >Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict...
>>
>> Dennis: This is good, good, good....Good stuff.. That's could be the
>> theory....I hope you don't mind if I email this to you as well.
>>
>> Wells: I'm pretty sure that
>> >the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
>> >this out but it would be a fun exercise.
>>
>> Dennis: That was my original inclination as well.
>
> You seem to have skipped right over the bit about it already being
>ruled out by experiment, but never mind.
>
>>
>> Wells: > Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes
>in
>> with
>> >'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
>> >might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)
>>
>> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view. IMO, it's
>> exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an ether inflow
>> model.
>
Wells: And hence quite irrelevant to the case under discussion, since I was
>thinking of putting a Lorentz ether into a Cartesian vortex model.

Dennis: Whoops, I posted the other too soon. Anyway, that's almost exactly what
this is. The Cartesian model was a circular vortex--which was meant to
describe the motion of the planets. But circular vortices obviously don't
coincide with gravitational force. For one, objects wouldn't be pushed
directly against the Earth or planets--and two, the velocities disagree with
Kepler.
However, spiral vortices, which combine radial inflow with some tangential
motion, seem to reproduce both EM *and* gravitational results.
Perhaps, this is not what you originally had in mind, but I think it's
intriguing none-the-less.
--Dennis

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/3/99
to
>
>> Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
>> transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
>> impossible?
>
Roberts: >No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
INSIDE
>A HURRICANE.

Dennis: 1) The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. So if he would
have used the Galilean transform at all, he would be using it with an
atmospheric vortex.
Obviously, and I mean obviously, simply because some one uses a Galilean
transform for a media wave does not preclude the existence of vortices in the
medium.
2) Galilean transform still works in the hurricane situation. If the linear
velocity of the winds at the outer edge of the hurricane is v, then sound
velocity in the hurricane at the outer edge (moving in the direction of the
hurricane) is c+v

>
>> Dennis: Sigh. Lorentz would have also used Galilean transforms for sound
>> velocity. Do you think he thought atmospheric vortices are impossible?
>

Roberts: >No, but I think he knew better than to attempt to use a Galilean

>transform inside such a vortex, and expect it to be valid everywhere.

Dennis: Again, the entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. Yet,
classical physicists used Galilean transform for sound velocity. Obviously, and
I mean obviously, simply because some one uses a Galilean transform for a media
wave does not preclude the existence of vortices in the medium.

Roberts: >The point is, all of Lorentz's equations of his 1904 paper are


invalid
>in such a vortex, AND YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LET when you consider
>such an "ether vortex".

Dennis: Um, Roberts, for the sake of argument, let's say we found such a vortex

moving with the Earth around the sun--and we also experimentally confirmed that
rulers Lorentz contracted due to their motion wrt this ether--and that clocks
retarded to the Lorentz factor when moving wrt this ether.
What type of ether theory would we use?
What would you call this ether theory?

--Dennis McCarthy

Tom Roberts

unread,
Dec 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/3/99
to
DJMenCk wrote:
> Roberts: >No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
> INSIDE
> >A HURRICANE.
> Dennis: 1) The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. [...]

Yes, this is the local vs global distinction which I did not mention in
this statement, but did in the next.

Look in Lorentz's 1904 paper and show us where he mentioned this in any
way shape or form. He was clearly using the usual inertial frames of
Newton et al (though in keeping with his historical context he did not
call them that or even explicitly mention it at all).


> Roberts: >No, but I think he knew better than to attempt to use a Galilean
> >transform inside such a vortex, and expect it to be valid everywhere.
> Dennis: Again, the entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. Yet,
> classical physicists used Galilean transform for sound velocity.

Locally. They are _clearly_ not valid _everywhere_.

You are attempting to re-interpret Lorentz's theory in the context of
modern knowledge of differential geometry and its application to
physics. Or something.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Steve Carlip

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:

> On 2 Dec 1999, DJMenCk wrote:

>> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view.

> Well, these comments will have to be sight unseen, since getting this book


> will prove to be difficult.

Don't bother. Dennis sent me Rado's "proof" of the inverse square law,
and it's nonsense. Rado starts with a fluid that has a constant density
(he doesn't say so, but he passes density freely through derivatives) and
a velocity with two components, one circular and one radial. He
correctly derives that the circular component leads to a Bernoulli
force that goes as 1/z^3, where z is the distance from the axis of
circulation, and incorrectly derives that the radial component leads to
a Bernoulli force that goes as 1/r^3. (He makes the mistake of using
a two-dimensional model for his three-dimensional radial flow.)

He then claims that his two 1/r^3 forces somehow add up to give a
1/r^2 force! To get this, he drops any real pretense at a mathematical
analysis, and makes some silly mistakes. For instance, he derives
streamlines that are equiangular spirals, but then uses the formula
for centripetal acceleration for circular motion, throwing away the
radial component of the motion.

In fact, it's easy to plug Rado's velocity and sink assumptions into
the Navier-Stokes equation and see what comes out. If you keep
his assumption of constant densty, you get a 1/z^3 + 1/r^5 force,
which is obviously not gravity. If you drop the assumption of
constant density and try to force out a 1/r^2 component to the force,
you end up either needing negative densities or getting a force that
depends strongly both on r and on the azimuthal angle.

Steve Carlip

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
>
>
>Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>>> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view.
>
>> Well, these comments will have to be sight unseen, since getting this book
>> will prove to be difficult.
>
>Don't bother. Dennis sent me Rado's "proof" of the inverse square law,
>and it's nonsense. Rado starts with a fluid that has a constant density
>(he doesn't say so, but he passes density freely through derivatives) and
>a velocity with two components, one circular and one radial. He
>correctly derives that the circular component leads to a Bernoulli
>force that goes as 1/z^3, where z is the distance from the axis of
>circulation, and incorrectly derives that the radial component leads to
>a Bernoulli force that goes as 1/r^3. (He makes the mistake of using
>a two-dimensional model for his three-dimensional radial flow.)
>
>He then claims that his two 1/r^3 forces somehow add up to give a
>1/r^2 force!

Dennis: Not exactly. There's an extra force and factor that has to be taken
into acount--and this "somehow" adds to a 1/r^2 force has been explained in
what I think is a reasonable manner. Dr. Carlip and I have had a very
interesting, long, and mostly polite discussion about this. He also rejected
the model for various energy reasons, but perhaps we have come to an agreement
there. Rado's model at the very least can't be rejected due to the amount of
energy absorbed at the Earth's surface--and whatever the view of the amount of
energy absorbed at the core, this can be explained by Rado's contention of the
conversion of ether energy (particle inflow) to matter.
Rado argues that the material of the Earth (and planets and stars) was
produced by this process--and that the planets and stars are still steadily
increasing in mass at their cores. This is how and why the solar system
evolved and what creates the evolution of stars to red giants etc...
Now, concerning the inverse cube law, apparently, however, Dr. Carlip and I
still disagree.
What Rado takes into account has been explained to Dr. Carlip, but I think Dr.
Carlip just disagrees that this extra factor will occur or needs to be taken
into account.

Rado's analysis involves a combiniation of circular vortex **and** a linear
sink.

Dr. Carlip believes (and hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong):

FP + FR = FC

Where FP is the external pressure of the medium, FR is the Radial force of the
sink, and FC is the **total** centripetal force exerted upon the object in a
spiral vortex flowing into a sink. If Carlip's assumption is correct, then
the math indeed shows that FC in this case is an "inverse cube" force.

I and Rado believe that there is an extra factor that must be taken into
account when combining these two systems to find the total centripetal force
(FC). The summation of both forces on a gas system increases the velocity of
the winds wrt the gravitating object. This creates what may be described as a
Bernoulli transverse sucking force. The winds nearest the gravitating object
are flowing faster than the winds on the outside. Thus, due to Bernoulli's
principle the faster moving winds between the gravitating object and a particle
also adds suction in the direction of the sink. This is due to a decrease in
transverse pressure that occurs with an increase in velocity. Moreover, these
winds become denser (for the same reason)--and this also increases the force of
the winds.
Thus, besides the radial pull of the sink, the increased velocity of the
spiraling streams decreases the pressure transverse to their motion, and so
also adds a Bernoulli transverse pulling force to the system. This transverse
force (Bernoulli decrease in pressure) of all the stream tubes between the
gravitating sink and an outer object at a certain radius must be combined. This
increases the velocity of the vortex, the density of the stream tubes, and
ensures that there is a greater centripetal force at each radius than what is
computed just be adding FP and FR.
The disagreement between Dr. Carlip and me here seems simple. I contend
that there's an extra force that occurs---and which he has not put in his
mathematical analysis. If you don't believe in this extra force and don't take
it into account, then you get an inverse cube force. If you do include it, you
get an inverse square force.
This seems a relatively easy do-it-yourself, garage-based experiment to
conduct--using perhaps an aquarium and a vacuum cleaner?
Perhaps, people would like to offer suggestions about how to do this.
--Dennis McCarthy

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99
to
>
>
>DJMenCk wrote:
>> Roberts: >No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
>> INSIDE
>> >A HURRICANE.
>> Dennis: 1) The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth. [...]
>
Roberts: >Yes, this is the local vs global distinction which I did not mention

in
>this statement, but did in the next.

Dennis: So what? Let's reduce this to basics:
1) Lorentz or classical physicists used inertial frames and Galilean transforms
to describe sound waves.
2) The atomoshpere still moves in vortices.

Thus, the use of Galilean transforms or inertial frames for a wave does not
preclude the possibility of vortices.
QED.
--Dennis McCarthy

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99
to
} DJMenCk wrote:
} > Dennis: The formulas [in Lorentz's 1904 paper] assume motion that is
} > uniform wrt the ether.
}
} _And_ wrt the inertial frame in which it is at rest.

In article <19991201190349...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>
>Citation, citation, citation.

You ask for citations but you don't even credit the person you
quoted above?

>Please give me a citation in which
>Lorentz states (or implies) that ether vortices are impossible.

Why do you seek a citation for a statement irrelevant to the
issue under discussion up above, which is whether Lorentz
assumed a rest-frame for the ether and did not include any
fictitious forces when doing electrodynamics in it.

>Um, Galilean transforms work on this planet, don't they?

No, they do not. See classic example of the battle in the
Falklands during WW I. They are only an approximation when
used in a non-inertial system, and can be a bad one.

--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.

MadToM

unread,
Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99
to
All you need is a vacuum cleaner a funnel and a ping pong ball.
MadTom

DJMenCk wrote:
>
> Wells:
> > If I can ever shake off this hideous cold which afflicts all of
> >Cambridge at this time of year, I might try to put together a sort of
> >hybrid Descartes/Lorentz solar system model- vortices, a la Descartes, of
> >Lorentz ether- just to see what it would predict...
>
> Dennis: This is good, good, good....Good stuff.. That's could be the
> theory....I hope you don't mind if I email this to you as well.
>
> Wells: I'm pretty sure that
> >the combination of Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration already rules
> >this out but it would be a fun exercise.
>
> Dennis: That was my original inclination as well.
>

> Wells: > Also because it's only a matter of time before _someone_ chimes in
> with
> >'gravitation is due to ether vortices, bring back the 17th century', so it
> >might as well be me- I have the right immunities already :)
>
> Dennis: Rado's "Aethrokinematics" already supports this view. IMO, it's
> exceedingly well developed--and very quantitative. It is an ether inflow

> model. Ether condenses at the core of gravitational systems, creating the
> larger building blocks of matter. The condensation of ether creates a low
> pressure system that causes a radial inflow. The radial inflow eventually

> forms a vortex. This explains not only gravity, but the tangential velocities


> of rotations and orbits--and is consistent with all the EM, relativistic and
> ECI experiments. I believe it survives easily the energy problem, and I believe
> it predicts an inverse square law (though there's still argument on this.)
> After defending it from various intelligent and creative attacks in another
> venue, I'm about ready to endorse it (not that that means anything.)

> I should email this to Roberts too. Roberts is very thorough and
> knowledgeable about experimental set ups--and often spots technical problems..
> Indeed, Roberts, Throop, Bennett, Nobes, Anderson, Andersen, Jan, Bourhis, a
> little help here? I need your comments......

> --Dennis McCarthy

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99
to
>
>>Please give me a citation in which
>>Lorentz states (or implies) that ether vortices are impossible.
>
Carr: Why do you seek a citation for a statement irrelevant to the
> issue under discussion up above,

Dennis: So, so strange. Please read the thread. Roberts and I are discussing
possibility of ether vortices in LET. This becomes even more obvious later on.
Please cure the obsession.
--Dennis

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99
to
Roberts apparently observed in <3846858A...@lucent.com>:

}
} > Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
} > transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
} > impossible?
}
} No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
} INSIDE A HURRICANE.

In article <19991202195955...@ng-ft1.aol.com>

djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>
>The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth.

Wrong again, DJMenCK. Not even close.

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99
to
>
>Roberts apparently observed in <3846858A...@lucent.com>:
>}
>} > Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
>} > transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
>} > impossible?
>}
>} No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
>} INSIDE A HURRICANE.
>
>In article <19991202195955...@ng-ft1.aol.com>
>djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>>
>>The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth.
>
Carr: > Wrong again, DJMenCK. Not even close.

Dennis: Bizarre, late, single focused, obsessive. Takes a line out of context.
Confuses it. Um, the atmosphere essentially rotates with the Earth. If not,
we would have 1000 MPH winds everyday at the equator. Please cure the
obsession.

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/21/99
to
DJMenCK's revised version of <82v2hh$jtp$1...@news.fsu.edu> says:
|
| >Please give me a citation in which
| >Lorentz states (or implies) that ether vortices are impossible.
|
| Why do you seek a citation for a statement irrelevant to the
| issue under discussion up above,
<... snip of rest of sentence by DJMenCK ...>

In article <19991212111252...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>
>So, so strange.

It is a true statement, clearly supported by the material you
deleted -- probably hoping the naive reader will think you did
not alter my article when quoting it.

>Please read the thread.

That was my advice to you, placing particular emphasis on
the parts you delete when composing your replies.

If you do so, you will notice that your irrelevant diversionary
question _evaded_ the issue in _this_ thread so you can talk about
your latest troll instead. You discredit yourself when you do so.

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/22/99
to
>
>
>
>DJMenCK's revised version of <82v2hh$jtp$1...@news.fsu.edu> says:
>|
>| >Please give me a citation in which
>| >Lorentz states (or implies) that ether vortices are impossible.
>|
>| Why do you seek a citation for a statement irrelevant to the
>| issue under discussion up above,
> <... snip of rest of sentence by DJMenCK ...>
>
>In article <19991212111252...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
>djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>>
>>So, so strange.
>
> It is a true statement, clearly supported by the material you
> deleted

Dennis: Can't provide an answer, huh?

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/23/99
to
"Carr" wrote in article <831hpp$n5h$1...@news.fsu.edu>:

|
| Roberts apparently observed in <3846858A...@lucent.com>:
| }
| } > Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
| } > transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices are
| } > impossible?
| }
| } No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
| } INSIDE A HURRICANE.
|
| In article <19991202195955...@ng-ft1.aol.com>
| djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
| >The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth.
|
| Wrong again, DJMenCK. Not even close.

In article <19991212211438...@ng-ca1.aol.com>

djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>
>Bizarre, late, single focused, obsessive.

You forgot "correct". And you are also wrong here.

>Takes a line out of context.

Nope. The context is up above.

>Confuses it.

You are the one who is confused if you have forgotten the threats
you made that force me to take your words literally, as written.

>Um, the atmosphere essentially rotates with the Earth.

Better. Try getting it right the first time.

>If not,
>we would have 1000 MPH winds everyday at the equator.

Yet we do have the jet stream.

DJMenCk

unread,
Dec 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/24/99
to
>
>"Carr" wrote in article <831hpp$n5h$1...@news.fsu.edu>:
>|
>| Roberts apparently observed in <3846858A...@lucent.com>:
>| }
>| } > Also, you realize Lorentz (and all classical physicists) used Galilean
>| } > transforms for sound velocity. So do you think atmospheric vortices
>are
>| } > impossible?
>| }
>| } No. But nobody in their right mind applies a Galilean transform
>| } INSIDE A HURRICANE.
>|
>| In article <19991202195955...@ng-ft1.aol.com>
>| djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>| >The entire atmosphere is rotating with the Earth.
>|
>| Wrong again, DJMenCK. Not even close.
>
>In article <19991212211438...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
>djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) writes:
>>
>>Bizarre, late, single focused, obsessive.
>
> You forgot "correct". And you are also wrong here.
>
>>Takes a line out of context.
>
> Nope. The context is up above.
>
>>Confuses it.
>
> You are the one who is confused if you have forgotten the threats
> you made that force me to take your words literally, as written.
>
>>Um, the atmosphere essentially rotates with the Earth.
>
Carr: > Better. Try getting it right the first time.

Dennis: How many posts are focused on me this time, Carr? How many posts
where you "correct" that the atmosphere rotates with the Earth--and want the
term "essentially" put in there?
Do you have any rational dignity in you at all?


0 new messages