What are the differences between SRT and LET

[set...@att.net]

The answer to this question is: not much.
SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
for all observations and experiments.
The differences is how they derive the math.
A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
properties of the preferred frame to derive the math. The result is
that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.

Both SRT and LET are incomplete.....why? because no observer in the
universe is in a state of absolute rest. This means that no observer
can claim the exclusive properties of the perferred frame. A new
theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT does not claim the
exclusive properies of the preferred frame. What IRT claim are as
follows:
1. A clock moving wrt an IRT observer can run slow by a factor of 1/
gamma or it can run faster by a factor of gamma compare to the IRT
observer's clock.
2. The light-path length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to
be the material length of his meter stick.
3. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be 1/
gamma meter long or gamma meters long compare to the light-path length
of the IRT observer's meter stick.

A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
> The answer to this question is: not much.
> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> for all observations and experiments.
> The differences is how they derive the math.
> A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> that he is at rest in this aether

Wrong. He assumes he is moving with respect to it.

> and thus he predicts all the clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.

He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame. He is aware
that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.

> In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.

By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
physics would be different from the rest. In that sense there is no
"preferred frame" in SR.

> The result is
> that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
> running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
> wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.

Close enough.

[snip]

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:29:31 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>> The answer to this question is: not much.
>> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
>> for all observations and experiments.
>> The differences is how they derive the math.
>> A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
>> that he is at rest in this aether
>
>Wrong. He assumes he is moving with respect to it.
>
>> and thus he predicts all the clocks
>> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
>> meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
>He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
>he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame. He is aware
>that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
>be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.

He also knows that due to the nature of things 'proper' length and
'proper' time are the length and tick rates of the aether frame.
His local values just 'look' the same, but are, in fact, shorter
and slower... The Lorentzian practioner also knows 'now' that
this background frame is where the CMBR has no significant
dirtectional Doppler shift.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/26/11 9:56 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Both SRT and LET are incomplete.....why? because no observer in the
> universe is in a state of absolute rest.

Special relativity effects are based on *relative* velocity between
observer and observed. *Seto has failed to understand this* concept
for more than a decade.

See: "Student understanding of time in special relativity:
simultaneity and reference frames".

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 26, 12:01 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:29:31 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
> >> The answer to this question is: not much.
> >> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> >> for all observations and experiments.
> >> The differences is how they derive the math.
> >> A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> >> that he is at rest in this aether
>
> >Wrong.  He assumes he is moving with respect to it.
>
> >> and thus he predicts all the clocks
> >> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> >> meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
> >he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame.  He is aware
> >that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
> >be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.
>
> He also knows that due to the nature of things 'proper' length and
> 'proper' time are the length and tick rates of the aether frame.
> His local values just 'look' the same, but are, in fact, shorter
> and slower...

I would never use 'proper' in that way. It is just begging to confuse
things with the use of the word in SR.

> The Lorentzian practioner also knows 'now' that
> this background frame is where the CMBR has no significant
> dirtectional Doppler shift.
>

He doesn't *know* that. It is a reasonable assumption but it is still
an assumption.

>
> >> In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> >> equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> >> properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.
>
> >By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
> >physics would be different from the rest.  In that sense there is no
> >"preferred frame" in SR.
>
> >> The result is
> >> that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
> >> running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
> >> wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >Close enough.
>

> >[snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Surfer]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:05:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The
> results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
> academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
> simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
> frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
> a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
> and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>

Since SR and LET make the same predictions, that seems appropriate.


>
> .... they reconcile statements of the relativity

> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
> confront the startling ideas of special relativity".
>

Well, there is a saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence".

Since SR makes extraordinary claims, most people would want to see
extraordinary evidence for SR, before choosing to believe SR rather
than LET.

But since SR and LET make the same predictions, there is no evidence
in favor of SR at all !

[Alfonso]

On 26/11/11 15:56, set...@att.net wrote:

> The answer to this question is: not much.

True

> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> for all observations and experiments.
> The differences is how they derive the math.
> A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.

Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming to and
from the aether FoR. As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.

In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR. In fact
the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would experience. Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR when
you change observer the aether FoR changes also.

Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR only
works as a steady state description. In LET, even if you chose the
observer's initial FoR as the pseudo aether frame then if the observer
changes his speed he is now moving w.r.t pseudo aether FoR and there is
then an explanation for Doppler shift. In SR when the observer changes
his speed the pseudo aether changes its speed to match his. The
frequency change of light already in transit cannot be explained. Its
wavelength is determined when it left the source so if it is already in
transit that cannot change and if the speed w.r.t the observer hasn't
changed then no change in wavelength + no change in speed = no change in
frequency at least until the new wavelengths generated propagate to the
observer i.e. there should be a delay before the change in frequency
arrives depending on the distance between source and observer.

Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the observer
it is in fact a series of steady state calculations which cannot cope
with change from one to the other.

[mpc755]

On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> In SR when the observer changes
> his speed the pseudo aether changes its speed to match his.
>

Incorrect. In SR, everything changes with respect to the state of the
aether in which it exists.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

The faster an observer and their clock moves with respect to the
aether the more aether the observer and the clock displace the greater
the pressure exerted toward the observer and the clock the slower the
clock ticks.

In SR it is not a pseudo aether moving with the observer it is a
physically real aether being physically displaced.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 26, 11:29 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > The answer to this question is: not much.
> > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> > for all observations and experiments.
> > The differences is how they derive the math.
> > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> > that he is at rest in this aether
>
> Wrong.  He assumes he is moving with respect to it.

But he uses it (the aether frame) to derive the math.....that is the
same as being at rest in the aether frame.

>
> > and thus he predicts all the clocks
> > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
> he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame.

Right....that rest coordinate system is the aether's rest frame

>He is aware
> that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
> be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.

No he assumes that his clock and ruler are the aether frame clock and
ruler.

>
> > In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> > equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> > properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.
>
> By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
> physics would be different from the rest.  In that sense there is no
> "preferred frame" in SR.

Then give us the special properties of your perferred frame. To me the
assertion that the observer's clock is fASTEST RUNNING CLOCK in the
universe means that it is a preferred clock.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/26/11 9:56 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Both SRT and LET are incomplete.....why? because no observer in the
> > universe is in a state of absolute rest.
>
>    Special relativity effects are based on *relative* velocity between
>    observer and observed. *Seto has failed to understand this* concept
>    for more than a decade.

No wormy it is you and your runt brothers who failed understand that
SR is incomplete....Every SR observer claims the exclusive properties
of the preferred frame and call it an inertial frame. Such claim
limits the predictability of SR to that of the preferred frame.
An IRT observer does not claim that he is at rest in the preferred
frame and thus his clock can run slow or fast compared to a clock
moving wrt him. This is the reason why IRT includes SR and LET as a
subset. Also that is the reason why IRT has an unlimited domain of
applicability.

A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

>

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:

> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > The answer to this question is: not much.
>
> True
>
> > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> > for all observations and experiments.
> > The differences is how they derive the math.
> > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> > that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
> > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming to and
> from the aether FoR. As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.

The end result is that an LET observer assumes that his clock and
ruler are at rest in the aether frame and thus use the aether frame
math to make predictions.

>
> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR. In fact
> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
> the aether would experience. Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.

The PoR of SR allows every SR observer to claim the exclusive
properties of the preferred frame and that's why every SR observer use
the preferred frame math to make predictions.
What this mean is that both SR and LET use the preferred frame math to
make predictions and that's why SR and LET have the same math.

> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf- Hide quoted text -

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:

> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > The answer to this question is: not much.
>
> True
>
> > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> > for all observations and experiments.
> > The differences is how they derive the math.
> > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> > that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
> > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming to and
> from the aether FoR.

Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena

> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.

Your understanding is wrong. The math of LET is the same as the math
of SR. If you think the aether frame enters into the calculations
please tell us where the ather frame coordinates show up in the
Lorentz transformation.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)#.C2.A7_6._The_Lorentz_transformation.

> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.

SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.

> In fact
> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
> the aether would experience.

It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would

experience.


> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.

There is no eather FoR in SR.

> Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR only
> works as a steady state description. In LET, even if you chose the
> observer's initial FoR as the pseudo aether frame then if the observer
> changes his speed he is now moving w.r.t pseudo aether FoR and there is
> then an explanation for Doppler shift. In SR when the observer changes
> his speed the pseudo aether changes its speed to match his. The
> frequency change of light already in transit cannot be explained. Its
> wavelength is determined when it left the source so if it is already in
> transit that cannot change and if the speed w.r.t the observer hasn't
> changed then no change in wavelength + no change in speed = no change in
> frequency at least until the new wavelengths generated propagate to the
> observer i.e. there should be a delay before the change in frequency
> arrives depending on the distance between source and observer.
>
> Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
> transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the observer
> it is in fact a series of steady state calculations which cannot cope
> with change from one to the other.

SR and LET use the same math so what works for one works exactly the
same way with the other. If you chose to do something differently
with one theory or the other and come up with a wrong answer I suggest
you look for *your* mistake.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/26/11 11/26/11 11:12 PM, Surfer wrote:
> Well, there is a saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence".

Yes.

> Since SR makes extraordinary claims,

This depends on one's knowledge and outlook. To me, SR makes no "extraordinary
claim", it is the aether advocates and doubters of SR who do so.

> most people would want to see extraordinary evidence for SR, before choosing
> to believe SR rather than LET.

But there is no possible "evidence", meaning EXPERIMENTAL evidence, that could
distinguish them. But there is lots of theoretical and historical evidence that
distinguishes them -- SR has become the foundation of all of modern physics, and
LET is an historical dead end. The underlying reason is obvious to those who
understand these theories: SR introduces local Lorentz invariance as a founding
principle, while LET does not obey it in a fundamental way (which is ironic, as
the L in LET stands for Lorentz). Local Lorentz invariance has led to all of our
fundamental theories of physics, and it is fairly clear that without invoking it
the range of possibilities is so enormous that the likelihood of finding a valid
theory would be slim indeed.

> But since SR and LET make the same predictions, there is no evidence in
> favor of SR at all !

You mean in distinction to LET. The experimental evidence for SR is
overwhelming. It is only ignorant and illiterate people who doubt the validity
of SR (within its domain of applicability). SR is as solidly established as is
Newtonian mechanics (within its smaller domain), the atomic theory of matter,
the theory of evolution, or the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Yes, the same can be said of LET. But as discussed above, LET
is irrelevant in modern physics.

Alfonso said:
> Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR only works as
> a steady state description.

This is just plain wrong. Elementary approaches to SR might well fail for
non-inertial coordinates, but the theory itself is not so limited.

> Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
> transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the observer it
> is in fact a series of steady state calculations which cannot cope with
> change from one to the other.

Again wrong. YOU might do that, but nobody familiar with SR would do so, and the
theory itself does not require that. Indeed, it's downright stupid to try to
change frames within a calculation, and is usually wrong.


Tom Roberts

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 27, 10:40 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:29 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > The answer to this question is: not much.
> > > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> > > for all observations and experiments.
> > > The differences is how they derive the math.
> > > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> > > that he is at rest in this aether
>
> > Wrong.  He assumes he is moving with respect to it.
>
> But he uses it (the aether frame) to derive the math.....that is the
> same as being at rest in the aether frame.
>

In your mind maybe, but not in reality.

>
> > > and thus he predicts all the clocks
> > > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> > > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
> > he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame.
>
> Right....that rest coordinate system is the aether's rest frame

No, there is only one aether in LET and we are not at rest with
respect to it. Deal with it.

> >He is aware
> > that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
> > be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.
>
> No he assumes that his clock and ruler are the aether frame clock and
> ruler.
>

Not if he understood Lorentz.

>
> > > In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> > > equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> > > properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.
>
> > By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
> > physics would be different from the rest.  In that sense there is no
> > "preferred frame" in SR.
>
> Then give us the special properties of your perferred frame. To me the
> assertion that the observer's clock is fASTEST RUNNING CLOCK in the
> universe means that it is a preferred clock.
>

Since every observer can claim that his clock is the fastest there is
nothing special about that clock.

>
>
>
> > > The result is
> > > that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
> > > running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
> > > wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > Close enough.
>

> > [snip]- Hide quoted text -

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> > The answer to this question is: not much.
>>
>> True
>>
>> > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
>> > for all observations and experiments.
>> > The differences is how they derive the math.
>> > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
>> > that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
>> > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
>> > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>>
>> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming to and
>> from the aether FoR.
>
>Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
>intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.
>
>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena

True, and just worry about the delta velocity. However, this is precisely
the same as implicitly pretending you're 'at rest' and there is only the
delta velocity. Thus he term, psuedo (as in false) rest frame.

>> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
>> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
>> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
>> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
>> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
>> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.
>
>Your understanding is wrong. The math of LET is the same as the math
>of SR. If you think the aether frame enters into the calculations
>please tell us where the ather frame coordinates show up in the
>Lorentz transformation.

The real question should be, "why is that"? The answer of course
is a result of system internal consistency which results in only
the delta velocity counting...

>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)#.C2.A7_6._The_Lorentz_transformation.
>
>> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
>> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.
>
>SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.

I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame OF
the aether.

>> In fact
>> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
>> the aether would experience.
>
>It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
>experience.

Yes, it does. But the real physics question again should be "how come"?

>> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
>> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.
>
>There is no eather FoR in SR.

There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...

>> Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR only
>> works as a steady state description. In LET, even if you chose the
>> observer's initial FoR as the pseudo aether frame then if the observer
>> changes his speed he is now moving w.r.t pseudo aether FoR and there is
>> then an explanation for Doppler shift. In SR when the observer changes
>> his speed the pseudo aether changes its speed to match his. The
>> frequency change of light already in transit cannot be explained. Its
>> wavelength is determined when it left the source so if it is already in
>> transit that cannot change and if the speed w.r.t the observer hasn't
>> changed then no change in wavelength + no change in speed = no change in
>> frequency at least until the new wavelengths generated propagate to the
>> observer i.e. there should be a delay before the change in frequency
>> arrives depending on the distance between source and observer.
>>
>> Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
>> transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the observer
>> it is in fact a series of steady state calculations which cannot cope
>> with change from one to the other.
>
>SR and LET use the same math so what works for one works exactly the
>same way with the other. If you chose to do something differently
>with one theory or the other and come up with a wrong answer I suggest
>you look for *your* mistake.

SR and LET are the same but SR has a more limited domain. The Lorentzian
model, by definition inherits all the physical properties of a physical
medium, SR only deals with measurements of time and distance.

[mpc755]

On Nov 27, 12:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Since SR makes extraordinary claims,
>
> This depends on one's knowledge and outlook. To me, SR makes no "extraordinary
> claim", it is the aether advocates and doubters of SR who do so.
>

Why would you consider something as simple as understanding the
following video represents the state of displacement of the aether to
be an "extraordinary claim"? It is no different then how you would
represent the interaction of any superfluid with particles of matter.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state
of the aether in neighboring places.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

[mpc755]

On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
> >experience.
>
> Yes, it does.  But the real physics question again should be "how come"?
>

Because everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which
it exists, which is the state of displacement of the aether.

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:23:56 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 11/26/11 11/26/11 11:12 PM, Surfer wrote:
>> Well, there is a saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> evidence".
>
>Yes.
>
>> Since SR makes extraordinary claims,
>
>This depends on one's knowledge and outlook. To me, SR makes no "extraordinary
>claim", it is the aether advocates and doubters of SR who do so.

If one reads Einstein's paper carefully then they realized that
what he is actually saying is the is a universal frame he termed
'empty space' and say light properties is fixed to it. He then
goes on to explain how changes in lengths and time 'determine'
what can be measured. Nowhere in that work do he say or insinuate
that these determined value are 'real'. In fact he acknowledges
the fact that without such distortions in measuring rod and clocks
things would 'look' quite different. Thus his comment early on:

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
only APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE with the former,
namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body"

and then saysr:

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether the
ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

We note the deliberate use of the word determined... He goes
to great lengths explain the distortions of length & time
caused by motion. It is true that there is no physical differences
between rest and motion. And from the actual physics there
never was for a physical medium.

>> most people would want to see extraordinary evidence for SR, before choosing
>> to believe SR rather than LET.
>
>But there is no possible "evidence", meaning EXPERIMENTAL evidence, that could
>distinguish them. But there is lots of theoretical and historical evidence that
>distinguishes them -- SR has become the foundation of all of modern physics, and
>LET is an historical dead end. The underlying reason is obvious to those who
>understand these theories: SR introduces local Lorentz invariance as a founding
>principle, while LET does not obey it in a fundamental way (which is ironic, as
>the L in LET stands for Lorentz). Local Lorentz invariance has led to all of our
>fundamental theories of physics, and it is fairly clear that without invoking it
>the range of possibilities is so enormous that the likelihood of finding a valid
>theory would be slim indeed.

Loving metaphysical philosophy doesn't make it science...

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> >> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> >> > The answer to this question is: not much.
>
> >> True
>
> >> > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> >> > for all observations and experiments.
> >> > The differences is how they derive the math.
> >> > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> >> > that he is at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
> >> > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> >> > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming to and
> >> from the aether FoR.
>
> >Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
> >intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.
>
> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
>
> True, and just worry about the delta velocity.  However, this is precisely
> the same as implicitly pretending you're 'at rest' and there is only the
> delta velocity.  Thus he term, psuedo (as in false) rest frame.

His claim was that the aether frame was involved in the calculation.
It is not. As for the term "rest frame", the observer is at rest in
his rest frame. There is no "psuedo" about it. As measured in the
coordinates of that frame he is at rest.

> >> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
> >> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
> >> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
> >> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
> >> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
> >> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.
>
> >Your understanding is wrong.  The math of LET is the same as the math
> >of SR.  If you think the aether frame enters into the calculations
> >please tell us where the ather frame coordinates show up in the
> >Lorentz transformation.
>
> The real question should be, "why is that"?  The answer of course
> is a result of system internal consistency which results in only
> the delta velocity counting...

I wasn't trying to reformulate his question, I was correcting his
missconception that you have to pick an aether FoR to use LET.

> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)....

>
> >> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
> >> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.
>
> >SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.
>
> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame OF
> the aether.

He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
aether FoR but not essential." The "pseudo aether FoR" he is refering
to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving frame, to
the aether, to a second moving frame. That isn't done in LET.

> >> In fact
> >> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
> >> the aether would experience.
>
> >It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
> >experience.
>
> Yes, it does.  But the real physics question again should be "how come"?

I think both SR and LET answer that question if you think about it.
It is all in how we measure things and what assumptions we make in the
process.

> >> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
> >> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.
>
> >There is no eather FoR in SR.
>
> There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...
>
>

It doesn't enter into any of the calculations.

>
>
> >> Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR only
> >> works as a steady state description. In LET, even if you chose the
> >> observer's initial FoR as the pseudo aether frame then if the observer
> >> changes his speed he is now moving w.r.t pseudo aether FoR and there is
> >> then an explanation for Doppler shift. In SR when the observer changes
> >> his speed the pseudo aether changes its speed to match his. The
> >> frequency change of light already in transit cannot be explained. Its
> >> wavelength is determined when it left the source so if it is already in
> >> transit that cannot change and if the speed w.r.t the observer hasn't
> >> changed then no change in wavelength + no change in speed = no change in
> >> frequency at least until the new wavelengths generated propagate to the
> >> observer i.e. there should be a delay before the change in frequency
> >> arrives depending on the distance between source and observer.
>
> >> Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
> >> transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the observer
> >> it is in fact a series of steady state calculations which cannot cope
> >> with change from one to the other.
>
> >SR and LET use the same math so what works for one works exactly the
> >same way with the other.  If you chose to do something differently
> >with one theory or the other and come up with a wrong answer I suggest
> >you look for *your* mistake.
>
> SR and LET are the same but SR has a more limited domain.  The Lorentzian
> model, by definition inherits all the physical properties of a physical

> medium, SR only deals with measurements of time and distance.- Hide quoted text -

There are some that would claim the opposit because LET only deals
with electrodynamic forces. Whatever.

[eric gisse]

Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote in news:6ff3d7dr5osgsbifcpmati40l6dhngjad8@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:05:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The
>> results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
>> academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
>> simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
>> frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
>> a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
>> and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>>
>
> Since SR and LET make the same predictions, that seems appropriate.

Who really cares what you think?

You've been doing this little dance for years and have convinced nobody
that your wrong opinion is anything but that.

[snip rest, unread]

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:20:54 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>> >> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> >> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming
>> >> to and from the aether FoR.
>>
>> >Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
>> >intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.
>>
>> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
>>
>> True, and just worry about the delta velocity.  However, this is precisely
>> the same as implicitly pretending you're 'at rest' and there is only the
>> delta velocity.  Thus he term, psuedo (as in false) rest frame.
>
>His claim was that the aether frame was involved in the calculation.
>It is not. As for the term "rest frame", the observer is at rest in
>his rest frame. There is no "psuedo" about it. As measured in the
>coordinates of that frame he is at rest.

What is the aether FOR? Is it not its rest frame? I read the above,
in context with the entire response to mean that you could assume
your rest frame as the aether rest frame, again why he uses the word
psuedo...

>> >> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
>> >> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
>> >> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
>> >> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
>> >> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose
>> >> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.
>>
>> >Your understanding is wrong.  The math of LET is the same as the math
>> >of SR.  If you think the aether frame enters into the calculations
>> >please tell us where the ather frame coordinates show up in the
>> >Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> The real question should be, "why is that"?  The answer of course
>> is a result of system internal consistency which results in only
>> the delta velocity counting...
>
>I wasn't trying to reformulate his question, I was correcting his
>missconception that you have to pick an aether FoR to use LET.

How did you get that? I got that you can, in LET, use your rest
frame as a pseudo aether rest frame.

>> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)....
>>
>> >> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
>> >> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.
>>
>> >SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.
>>
>> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame OF
>> the aether.
>
>He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
>aether FoR but not essential." The "pseudo aether FoR" he is refering
>to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving frame, to
>the aether, to a second moving frame. That isn't done in LET.

Yes, the aeter's 'Frame of Reference', a.k.a. rest frame. Are you
being pedantic just for sake of argument?

>
>> >> In fact
>> >> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
>> >> the aether would experience.
>>
>> >It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
>> >experience.
>>
>> Yes, it does.  But the real physics question again should be "how come"?
>
>I think both SR and LET answer that question if you think about it.
>It is all in how we measure things and what assumptions we make in the
>process.

OK, fine, how come time actually goes slower as velocity approaches c?
If you give me SR's physical basis for this I'll give you the physical
aether's.

>> >> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
>> >> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.
>>
>> >There is no eather FoR in SR.
>>
>> There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...
>>
>
>It doesn't enter into any of the calculations.

It actually does. If it didn't it would not be needed as a postulate
it too would be 'superfluous'...

Lorentz's 1904 paper covered exactly the same territory as Einstein's of
1905, in fact their titled are almost identical. Just because some do
not extend the same courtesy of extending our evolving knwledge equally
to LET is bigotry issue not a physics one.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Einstein reversed that himself. There is more truth to his aether
than there is to any relative motion.
Real motions create backward relative appearences.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 27, 9:23 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/26/11 11/26/11 11:12 PM, Surfer wrote:
>
> > Well, there is a saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary

> > evidence". Since SR makes extraordinary claims,

>
> This depends on one's knowledge and outlook. To me, SR makes no "extraordinary
> claim", it is the aether advocates and doubters of SR who do so.

In reality SR makes no claims, it as a model of the real world is in
fact dictated by what mathematics is presented it to be. <shrug>

> > most people would want to see extraordinary evidence for SR, before choosing
> > to believe SR rather than LET.
>
> But there is no possible "evidence", meaning EXPERIMENTAL evidence, that could
> distinguish them.

Yes, both SR and LET are interpretations to the Lorentz transform and
nothing more. <shrug>

> But there is lots of theoretical and historical evidence that
> distinguishes them -- SR has become the foundation of all of modern physics, and
> LET is an historical dead end.

This is nonsense. There is no and can never be any proof of favoring
SR over LET or vice versa. Preferring one over the other is not doing
science. <shrug>

> The underlying reason is obvious to those who
> understand these theories: SR introduces local Lorentz invariance as a founding
> principle, while LET does not obey it in a fundamental way (which is ironic, as
> the L in LET stands for Lorentz).

Why don’t you show mathematically that this is the case? Otherwise it
is all bullshit! <shrug>

> Local Lorentz invariance has led to all of our
> fundamental theories of physics, and it is fairly clear that without invoking it
> the range of possibilities is so enormous that the likelihood of finding a valid
> theory would be slim indeed.

More trash remarks and nonsense. After all, if the principle of
relativity is invalid for the general case but only so for low speeds,
all your physical models still apply. You are very welcome to
challenge this claim. <shrug>

> > But since SR and LET make the same predictions, there is no evidence in
> > favor of SR at all !
>
> You mean in distinction to LET. The experimental evidence for SR is
> overwhelming.

More bullshit! You are making Him puke. <shrug>

> It is only ignorant and illiterate people who doubt the validity
> of SR (within its domain of applicability). SR is as solidly established as is
> Newtonian mechanics (within its smaller domain), the atomic theory of matter,
> the theory of evolution, or the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
>
> Yes, the same can be said of LET. But as discussed above, LET
> is irrelevant in modern physics.

These words can only come from someone who is very RELIGIOUSLY BELIEVE
IN his religion. <shrug>

A better question to ask is:

** What are the differences between Larmor’s transform and the
Lorentz transform?

Larmor’s transform requires one of the two observers to be the
absolute frame of reference. In general, the principle of relativity
does not hold for Larmor’s transform. However, under a very special
circumstance when both observers are moving in parallel relative to
the absolute frame of reference, the principle of relativity holds,
and this special case can be represented by the Lorentz transform.
Thus, the Lorentz transform is not valid in general. Furthermore,
both came out of the Voigt type transforms that manifest the twins’
paradox. Both are just garbage and a dead end in science. <shrug>

[Alfonso]

LET assumes the existence of an aether Frame of reference. That was
Einstein's only objection to Lorentz's theory,

" Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by
assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the
theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." AE
1920

Essentially according to Lorentz the real speed of light is only c in
the Aether FoR although the measured speed of light appears to be c in
all FoR. In streamlining the maths one must not lose track of the theory
underpinning it.

The nature of the Lorentz transforms is such that you can use any FoR as
your reference frame as what you are interested in is what would be
measured.
What the reference frame represents is a FoR which has an unknown but
fixed relationship with the Aether FoR. That being the case one is
justified in using it for performing the transforms instead of the
aether Frame.

If you have say 3 observers A B & C you could choose A as your
reference frame for all 3 observers and in keeping with the underlying
theory it would be logical to do so. In practice it makes things simpler
if you do it the way SR does it, which is to do the maths using A's FoR
as the reference frame for A and B's FoR to do the maths for B and C's
reference frame to do the maths for C. That being the case it is
probably the way the maths came to be done and you may well be right in
saying LET maths is done exactly the same was as SR maths.

If one was teaching LET one would show ones students the first way of
doing it, selecting one FoR as the reference frame and sticking to it
because that fits with the underlying theory, you would then show them
that the second way gives the same results and is the standard approach
because it is simpler. In a similar way a maths teacher would (should)
show the students how to solve a quadratic equation by the completion of
squares before telling them to learn the formula.

The point about Doppler shift is this. According to LET the real speed
of light is only c in the aether FoR. If you change your speed then
according to LET you change your real speed relative to incoming light.
While the change in your ruler and your clock disguises the fact that
the speed has changed the fact that there is an immediate change in
frequency is a dead give away that you have actually changed your speed
w.r.t the light.

In one sense relativity is simply maths in which case the difference
between it and LET is nill. It is simply Lorentz aether theory without
the theory. If on the other hand you believe that it is something
different. That there is no Aether FoR. That there is no 'real' speed of
light but that it is always actually c then SR presents no explanation
of why if I change my speed there is an immediate change in frequency.

What the maths says is that before I changes speed (me stationary w.r.t
the source)

Me S

Light separates from the source at c w.r.t me (also c w.r.t the source)
and produces a given wavelength. After I change my speed

Me->v S

Light separates from the source at what is c w.r.t me which is a
separation speed of c-v from the source. The wavelength is shorter. The
wavecrest hasn't moved as far as it did before the next is generated as
it is now separating from the source at c-v rather than c. One can be
politically correct and describe the source moving in the FoR of Me and
between generating one wave crest and the next it is closer to Me so the
wavelength is shorter but it makes no odds.

These are two steady state solutions. The question is what happens just
after I have changed my speed? If S is 1 light year away there is a
years worth of light in transit generated when I was stationary w.r.t
the source which must have its original wavelength. There will be a
years delay before the new wavelength reaches me.

[mpc755]

On Nov 28, 7:06 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> " Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
> systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by
> assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the
> theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
> corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." AE
> 1920
>

The different between the aether of LET and GR is the aether of GR is
mobile.

Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.

The ether of general relativity is mobile.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."

The mobility of the aether of relativity is its displacement by
matter.

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is

[mpc755]

On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:

> The answer to this question is: not much.

The more correct question is what is the difference between LET and
GR.

The different between LET and GR is the aether of GR is mobile.

Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.

The ether of general relativity is mobile.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is
the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether of relativity is mobile because it is displaced by matter.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 27, 12:33 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:40 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 11:29 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > > The answer to this question is: not much.
> > > > SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> > > > for all observations and experiments.
> > > > The differences is how they derive the math.
> > > > A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> > > > that he is at rest in this aether
>
> > > Wrong.  He assumes he is moving with respect to it.
>
> > But he uses it (the aether frame) to derive the math.....that is the
> > same as being at rest in the aether frame.
>
> In your mind maybe, but not in reality.

Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their
math. That's why both theories predicts all clocks moving wrt to an SR
or a LET observer are running slower.
The SR observer call the aether frame as an inertial frame and the LET
observer simply asserts that he is att rest in the aether frame.

>
>
>
> > > > and thus he predicts all the clocks
> > > > moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> > > > meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > > He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
> > > he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame.
>
> > Right....that rest coordinate system is the aether's rest frame
>
> No, there is only one aether in LET and we are not at rest with

> respect to it.  Deal with it.every SR observer and every LET observer uses the aether frame to derive the math and that's why SR and LET have the same math.

Yes...There is only one aether in LET or SR and no SR observer or LET
observer is at rest in the aether frame. But everyy SR observer and
every LET observer uses the aether frame to derive the math and that's
why SR and LET have the same math.

>
> > >He is aware
> > > that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
> > > be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.
>
> > No he assumes that his clock and ruler are the aether frame clock and
> > ruler.
>
> Not if he understood Lorentz.

IN SR every SR observer's clock and rod are assumed to be the clock
and rod of the aether frame.

>
>
>
> > > > In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> > > > equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> > > > properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.
>
> > > By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
> > > physics would be different from the rest.  In that sense there is no
> > > "preferred frame" in SR.
>
> > Then give us the special properties of your perferred frame. To me the
> > assertion that the observer's clock is fASTEST RUNNING CLOCK in the
> > universe means that it is a preferred clock.
>
> Since every observer can claim that his clock is the fastest there is
> nothing special about that clock.

If the inertial observer's clock and rod are not the aether frame
clock and rod then what are the special properties of the aether frame
clock and rod?????

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The result is
> > > > that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
> > > > running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
> > > > wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > > Close enough.
>
> > > [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:0f667b22-815e-4609...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their
> math.

Liar .. there is no aether in the derivation of SR at all

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/28/11 9:41 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their

> math...

Special relativity gets along fine without any aether. Ken, you
should take the time to learn special relativity.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/index.html

[mpc755]

On Nov 28, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

General relativity does not get along without an aether. Sam, you
should take the time to learn general relativity.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

[Aetherist]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:06:12 +0000, Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:

>On 27/11/11 22:20, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist<TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Snip...]

>>> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame
>>> OF the aether.
>>
>> He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
>> aether FoR but not essential." The "pseudo aether FoR" he is
>> refering to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving
>> frame, to the aether, to a second moving frame. That isn't done in
>> LET.
>
>LET assumes the existence of an aether Frame of reference. That was
>Einstein's only objection to Lorentz's theory,
>
>" Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
>systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by
>assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the
>theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
>corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." AE
>1920
>
>Essentially according to Lorentz the real speed of light is only c in
>the Aether FoR although the measured speed of light appears to be c in
>all FoR. In streamlining the maths one must not lose track of the theory
>underpinning it.

While I totally agree you will not convince diehards like Roberts et al
since they simply do not care about any physical underpinnings. They
worship symmetry, isotropy, and homogenuity above AL ELSE. I think Bruce
is rational enough to at least understand your argument, others not so
much.

>The nature of the Lorentz transforms is such that you can use any FoR as
>your reference frame as what you are interested in is what would be
>measured.

Yes, and we know now that this comes from simple medium behavior.
Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
the time. It simply proved that their belief that 'ponderable
matter' wan't rigid and inpervious to aether's affect of movement.

Absolutely correct! If the net velocity of light did not 'actually' change
with speed Doppler would not exist...

[Dono.]

On Nov 28, 12:31 pm, Aetherist (Diehard Ibecile paul Stowe)

>
> Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
> just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
> the time.

Uou realize the enormity of your imbecilic ego, pau, don't you?

> It simply proved that their belief that 'ponderable
> matter' wan't rigid and inpervious to aether's affect of movement.
>

No, imbecile, it proved that one cannot detect motion wrt the
"aether". At leas, after all these years, try to learn the basics.

>
> Absolutely correct!  If the net velocity of light did not 'actually' change
> with speed Doppler would not exist...
>

You are growing a much bigger imbecile by the day, Paul. By the time
you reach 70 you will be a full blown idiot. You have been shown
repeatedly that what change are frequency and wavelength, not speed.It
is refreshing watching you suck up to extreme crank Alfonso.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 10:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:0f667b22-815e-4609...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>
> > Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their
> > math.
>
> Liar .. there is no aether in the derivation of SR at all

Every SR claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame....the
fact that you Runrts of the SRians call the aether frame as an
inertial frame does not mean that there is no aether in SR. Gee you
are fucking stupid.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/11 9:41 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their
> > math...
>
>    Special relativity gets along fine without any aether.

Hey wormy every inertial SR observer claims the exclusive properties
of the aether frame.....so the inertial frame in SR is the aether
frame. Gee you guys are stupid

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:m3k7d7dt31dc0s4p8...@4ax.com...

[snip for brevity]

>Yes, and we know now that this comes from simple medium behavior.
>Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
>just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
>the time.

You have an odd idea of proof. You do realise that in science there is only
refutation, or not. There is no proof. MMX did NOT at all prove aether
existed.

[snip for brevity]

> Absolutely correct! If the net velocity of light did not 'actually'
> change
> with speed Doppler would not exist...

What is this 'net velocity' .. you seem to be making up your own terms here
.. it sounds like you mean closing speed.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:44489bac-22ec-40fa...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 28, 10:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:0f667b22-815e-4609...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive their
>> > math.
>>
>> Liar .. there is no aether in the derivation of SR at all
>
>Every SR claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame....

Nope

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:56:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:m3k7d7dt31dc0s4p8...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip for brevity]
>
>>Yes, and we know now that this comes from simple medium behavior.
>>Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
>>just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
>>the time.
>
>You have an odd idea of proof. You do realise that in science there is only
>refutation, or not. There is no proof. MMX did NOT at all prove aether
>existed.

Perhaps I should have said the MMX behaved precisely as should
be expected from a physical aether medium. The only possible
way of getting the then expected results was to use something
that does not exist, instruments made of something that is rigid
and unaffected by the medium they we moving thru... Like steel
moving thru air. Try making measurements with just structures
consisting solely of air instead.

[Aetherist]

hmmm, does c^ = 1/uz Where u is permeability and z permittivity?

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:q878d7tnq4ui299ti...@4ax.com...

>
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:56:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:m3k7d7dt31dc0s4p8...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip for brevity]
>>
>>>Yes, and we know now that this comes from simple medium behavior.
>>>Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
>>>just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
>>>the time.
>>
>>You have an odd idea of proof. You do realise that in science there is
>>only
>>refutation, or not. There is no proof. MMX did NOT at all prove aether
>>existed.
>
> Perhaps I should have said the MMX behaved precisely as should
> be expected from a physical aether medium.

It depends on the medium .. the supposed aether has a weird set of ad-hoc
properties gradually attributed to it as each experiment to test it failed.

Certainly the results were NOT what was expected from the physical aether
medium at the time of MMX.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:bn78d790u5hitgous...@4ax.com...

Irrelevant. SR does not have any aether frame. So every inertial frame
cannot have the properties of such a frame if it doesn't exist in SR. And
further if every frame DID have whatever those exclusive properties are,
they would not be exclusive any more. His whole statement is just nonsense.

[Aetherist]

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is

only apparently irreconcilable with the former,

namely, that light is always propagated in empty

space with a definite velocity c which IS independent

of the state of motion of the emitting body"

Is this not a valid frame? Note the word IS...

He later says,

"Any ray of light moves in the �stationary� system of
co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
body."

Note the use of the word DETERMINED...

Einstein was smart enough to know the difference between

c = D/t

and

c = Dg/tg

Aren't you???

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:rh98d7lvn93bg1naf...@4ax.com...

Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

> Is this not a valid frame?

There was no mention of any frame

> Note the word IS...

Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

>He later says,
>
> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether
> the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
> body."
>
>Note the use of the word DETERMINED...

Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

>.Einstein was smart enough to know the difference between

>
>c = D/t
>
>and
>
>c = Dg/tg

Define your terms

>Aren't you???

Far smarter than you.

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:55:53 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:rh98d7lvn93bg1naf...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:21:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>>news:bn78d790u5hitgous...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:46:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>wrote in message
>>>>>news:44489bac-22ec-40fa...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Nov 28, 10:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> messagenews:0f667b22-815e-4609...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive
>>>>>>> > their math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar .. there is no aether in the derivation of SR at all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every SR claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame....
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope
>>>>
>>>>hmmm, does c^ = 1/uz Where u is permeability and z permittivity?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. SR does not have any aether frame. So every inertial frame
>>>cannot have the properties of such a frame if it doesn't exist in SR. And
>>>further if every frame DID have whatever those exclusive properties are,
>>>they would not be exclusive any more. His whole statement is just
>>>nonsense.

There are NO! exclusive properties in the aether for ANY 'frame'.
Nature does not have frames of reference.

>>"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
>> only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
>> namely, that light is always propagated in empty
>> space with a definite velocity c which IS independent
>> of the state of motion of the emitting body"
>
>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

Totally relevant to whether SR 'claims the properties' of an aether
or not. Seems that SR claims that empty space as its foundation.
Aether was alway so-called 'empty space'

>> Is this not a valid frame?
>
>There was no mention of any frame

No, there is not but, by the definition of FOR it is one if
one wants it to be...

>> Note the word IS...
>
>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

Not if one is to examine the question does SR, in fact, incorporates
the aether...

>>He later says,
>>
>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
>> co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether
>> the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
>> body."
>>
>>Note the use of the word DETERMINED...
>
>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing

Totally relevant to the question if SR is describing aether's
natural behavior. If so, then he's right and you're wrong, period.

>>.Einstein was smart enough to know the difference between
>>
>>c = D/t
>>
>>and
>>
>>c = Dg/tg
>
>Define your terms

Being ascine with pedantics is the last refuge for the loser
of an argument. D is distance, t is time, g is SR's gamma factor...

>>Aren't you???
>
>Far smarter than you.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that doesn't address the simple question,
does it?

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:mdc8d7d4o8u4f13au...@4ax.com...

But out models of nature do. And our measurements or nature use them.

>>>"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
>>> only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
>>> namely, that light is always propagated in empty
>>> space with a definite velocity c which IS independent
>>> of the state of motion of the emitting body"
>>
>>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing
>
>Totally relevant to whether SR 'claims the properties' of an aether
>or not.

Nope

> Seems that SR claims that empty space as its foundation.

Nope

>Aether was alway so-called 'empty space'

Empty space is simply space devoid of matter. You seem to think there is
some aether there .. think that if you want. SR doesn't make such a claim.
There is no aether or aether frame in SR.

>>> Is this not a valid frame?
>>
>>There was no mention of any frame
>
> No, there is not but, by the definition of FOR it is one if
> one wants it to be...

Nope

>>> Note the word IS...
>>
>>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing
>
>Not if one is to examine the question does SR, in fact, incorporates
>the aether...

It doesn't. And the word "IS" doesn't make it include one

>>>He later says,
>>>
>>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
>>> co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether
>>> the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
>>> body."
>>>
>>>Note the use of the word DETERMINED...
>>
>>Irrelevant to the claim I am discussing
>
>Totally relevant to the question if SR is describing aether's
> natural behavior.

It doesn't

> If so, then he's right and you're wrong, period.

But you are wrong. And a moron

>>>.Einstein was smart enough to know the difference between
>>>
>>>c = D/t
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>c = Dg/tg
>>
>>Define your terms
>
>Being ascine with pedantics is the last refuge for the loser
>of an argument.

Being vague and irrelevant is also

> D is distance, t is time, g is SR's gamma factor...

There is no difference in those expressions then. And they were not
relevant to the quote you referenced

>>>Aren't you???
>>
>>Far smarter than you.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not, but that doesn't address the simple question,
>does it?

You are an expert at not addressing the question, as is evidenced by your
ranting about aether in SR when there is none. If you want to talk about
LET, fine.. there is aether in that model .. but not in SR. You're fighting
a losing battle, little crackpot, deep down you know that don't you.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I while back, I finally recognized that you were probably correct
about the Lorentz transform, viz the Doppler eefects and
teh so-called Twins Paradox, because it is indeed quite
symmetrical with respect to the two observers
of the Doppler shifts, no matter which has accelerated
away & back to the other.

so, I won't shrug at you, as usual.

> Yes, both SR and LET are interpretations to the Lorentz transform and
> nothing more.

[Aetherist]

Look, Since this is Einstein theory I'll take his word over yours.

he says:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without

ether is unthinkable; FOR IN SUCH SPACE THERE NOT ONLY WONLD
BE NO PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, BUT ALSO NO POSSIBILITY OF
EXISTENCE FOR STANDARDS OF SPACE AND TIME (MEASURING-RODS
AND CLOCKS), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense."

and since GR incompasses SR go argue with the founder and author.
Oops, he's dead Jim, isn't he? Well, I'll still that his word over
yours...

[mpc755]

On Nov 28, 8:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> Empty space is simply space devoid of matter.  You seem to think there is
> some aether there .. think that if you want.  SR doesn't make such a claim.
> There is no aether or aether frame in SR.
>

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."

The aether of relativity is mobile. The mobility of the aether of

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:18e8d7pqa5hvkh65p...@4ax.com...

>Look, Since this is Einstein theory I'll take his word over yours.
>he says:
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without
> ether is unthinkable;

We are talking about SRT moron

[snip irrelevance]

[Sam Wormley]

Special relativity (derivation and application) makes no mention
or use of any special frames, aether frames or aether, Seto!

[Aetherist]

Sore loser I see...

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:rht8d71uih681c50v...@4ax.com...
>
> Sore loser I see...

I'm not sore .. I didn't lose (you did) .. and you don't see at all ..
you're blinded by your aether obsession.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:rht8d71uih681c50v...@4ax.com...
>

Its very simple. There is no aether, no aether frame, no preferred frame,
in SRT. That you don't understand that simple fact is quite sad. I guess
it just goes against the principles of your aether religion.

Of course, if you'd like to re-use the term aether to instead refer to
spacetime (as Einstein did later on) .. go ahead. But then it is no longer
the aether of LET and its predecessors .. its not really anything material
or ponderable at all .. just geometry.

[Alfonso]

This argument is a step too far. What physics text books (and
educators do) is to play down the role of Lorentz because they are
trying to sell the Einstein myth to the student. What Maxwell's theory
said was that a "field" maps the "altered state" (analogous to "stress")
in the aether. This 'stress' could propagate in the aether at c - which
is light.

It was the interaction of "stress" in the aether which transferred
"action at a distance force" between charges. What Lorentz did was to
suggest that matter (measuring rods, arms of the MMX apparatus) are made
up of a matrix of charged particles held together (or apart?) by action
at a distance force (note it pre-dates Bohr's atom by 21 years). As that
action at a distance force is transferred via the aether it is affected
if the aether is in motion. He showed mathematically that the
equilibrium distance between charged particles would be less by the LT
in the direction of a moving aether. The equivalent with the Bohr atom
is that the electron orbits become elliptical and I am told the maths
still works. Text books give the impression that shortening of measuring
rods was an ad-hoc assumption and it wasn't. (It might have been
originally when suggested by Fitzgerald)

In devising the MMX only the role of the aether as a medium to
propagate light was taken into account. Once the role of the aether in
mediating action at a distance force is taken into account the MMX is
shown to be *incapable* of detecting motion w.r.t. the aether by the
very theory it was intended to test.

However that does not justify your statement that the MMX proved the
existence of the aether. What you must realise is that The MMX was not
the only challenge to Maxwell's theory. It failed to predict black body
radiation and light was shown to be particulate which is totally
inconsistent with Maxwell's theory based upon continuous fields.
The null result of the MMX was as predicted by Newton's corpuscular
emission theory and light had been shown to consist of particles.

Newton 2 Maxwell 0

>
>> What the reference frame represents is a FoR which has an unknown
>> but fixed relationship with the Aether FoR. That being the case one
>> is justified in using it for performing the transforms instead of
>> the aether Frame.
>>

>> If you have say 3 observers A B& C you could choose A as your

I am glad that someone can see this obvious point. If I change my speed
and there is an *immediate* change in frequency then I must have changed
my speed w.r.t the wave.

However this too is perfectly consistent with emission theory.

Quite simply it shows either that the speed of light is constant w.r.t
the source or it shows the existence of Lorentz's aether.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:20:54 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> >> >> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming
> >> >> to and from the aether FoR.
>
> >> >Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
> >> >intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.
>
> >> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
>
> >> True, and just worry about the delta velocity.  However, this is precisely
> >> the same as implicitly pretending you're 'at rest' and there is only the
> >> delta velocity.  Thus he term, psuedo (as in false) rest frame.
>
> >His claim was that the aether frame was involved in the calculation.
> >It is not.  As for the term "rest frame", the observer is at rest in
> >his rest frame.  There is no "psuedo" about it.  As measured in the
> >coordinates of that frame he is at rest.
>
> What is the aether FOR?  Is it not its rest frame?

Yes, it is the frame where the aether is at rest, not the observer who
is moving relative to it.

> I read the above,
> in context with the entire response to mean that you could assume
> your rest frame as the aether rest frame, again why he uses the word
> psuedo...

If you understand LET you know you don't need to make that
assumption. Why assume something you know isn't true?


>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any
> >> >> other this might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
> >> >> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same answer. My
> >> >> understanding is that in LET - having selected which is ones "aether
> >> >> FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes. It is legitimate to chose

> >> >> the observer's FoR as the pseudo aether FoR but not essential.
>

> >> >Your understanding is wrong.  The math of LET is the same as the math
> >> >of SR.  If you think the aether frame enters into the calculations
> >> >please tell us where the ather frame coordinates show up in the
> >> >Lorentz transformation.
>
> >> The real question should be, "why is that"?  The answer of course
> >> is a result of system internal consistency which results in only
> >> the delta velocity counting...
>
> >I wasn't trying to reformulate his question, I was correcting his
> >missconception that you have to pick an aether FoR to use LET.
>
> How did you get that?  I got that you can, in LET, use your rest
> frame as a pseudo aether rest frame.

And you can pretend there are little pink faries carrying moon beams
around. If you want to understand LET you should consider what is
really happening, and in reality you are not at rest in the aether.

> >> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)....
>
> >> >> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
> >> >> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.
>
> >> >SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.

>
> >> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame OF
> >> the aether.
>
> >He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
> >aether FoR but not essential."  The "pseudo aether FoR" he is refering
> >to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving frame, to
> >the aether, to a second moving frame.  That isn't done in LET.
>

> Yes, the aeter's 'Frame of Reference', a.k.a. rest frame.  Are you
> being pedantic just for sake of argument?
>

Did you read what I wrote? In his 1904 paper it was shown how the
aether frame coordinates drop out of the calculation when going from
one moving frame to another. There are no values for aether frame
coordinates left in the transformation. Pretending you are at rest in
the aether will just hide what is really happening.

As an example, consider what happens when you shout at somebody across
a field when there is a cross wind. The expanding waves get carried
down wind and become excentric to subsequent waves emitted. Despite
this the receiver hears the sound come directly from the source and
with no change in pitch. It will, however, take longer for the sound
to reach him than it would if there were no wind. Drawing out the
wave patterns to see how all this happens is much more interesting
than assuming you are at rest w.r.t. the air.

>
> >> >> In fact
> >> >> the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
> >> >> the aether would experience.
>
> >> >It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
> >> >experience.
>
> >> Yes, it does.  But the real physics question again should be "how come"?
>
> >I think both SR and LET answer that question if you think about it.
> >It is all in how we measure things and what assumptions we make in the
> >process.
>

> OK, fine, how come time actually goes slower as velocity approaches c?
> If you give me SR's physical basis for this I'll give you the physical
> aether's.

In aether theory? It doesn't. Your clock runs slower because the
light pulses are traveling further for each tick. But that is just
local time, not time itself. In SR what you measure is your reality.
If I observe someone else moving I measure *his* clock to be running
slow, not mine.

> >> >> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when
> >> >> you change observer the aether FoR changes also.
>
> >> >There is no eather FoR in SR.
>
> >> There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...
>
> >It doesn't enter into any of the calculations.
>

> It actually does.  If it didn't it would not be needed as a postulate
> it too would be 'superfluous'...
>

It didn't register with me what you were talking about since SR only
has two postulates and neither is called the 'empty space' postulate.
Try using the same terminology as everyone else and you will cause
less confusion. The 'empty space' is not a frame of reference.

> Lorentz's 1904 paper covered exactly the same territory as Einstein's of
> 1905, in fact their titled are almost identical.  Just because some do
> not extend the same courtesy of extending our evolving knwledge equally
> to LET is bigotry issue not a physics one.- Hide quoted text -

I am well aware of that and agree with you. That is why I wrote
"There are some".


> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 7:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "Aetherist"  wrote in message
>
> news:bn78d790u5hitgous...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:46:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>wrote in message
> >>news:44489bac-22ec-40fa...@o5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>On Nov 28, 10:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >>>> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:0f667b22-815e-4609...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> > Not in my mind....both SR and LET use the aether frame to derive
> >>>> > their
> >>>> > math.
>
> >>>> Liar .. there is no aether in the derivation of SR at all
>
> >>>Every SR claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame....
>
> >>Nope
>
> >hmmm, does c^ = 1/uz Where u is permeability and z permittivity?
>
> Irrelevant.  SR does not have any aether frame.

Yes it does.....every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of
the aether frame.

>So every inertial frame
> cannot have the properties of such a frame if it doesn't exist in SR.

Assertion is not a valid arguement. Calling the aether frame as an
inertial frame does not eliminate the existence of the aether frame.

>And
> further if every frame DID have whatever those exclusive properties are,
> they would not be exclusive any more.  His whole statement is just nonsense.

You are really naive....the properties of the aether frame are the
reason why SR is able to give limited correct predictions that agree
with experiments and observations. However physicists failed to
realize that the solutions of the aether frame is incomplete. Why?
Because no SR observer is in a state of absolute rest in the aether
frame....he is moving within the aether. That means that his clock
cannot be the fastest running clock in the universe.
The correct interpretation is that the SR observer's clock can run
slow or fast compare to any observed clock. This concept is included
in a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments including gravity. A paper on IRT is available in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto

[mpc755]

If aether exists in GR, which it does, then it exists in SR.

[mpc755]

On Nov 29, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is

unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

In physical reality, if aether exists in GR, which it does, then it
exists in SR.

[mpc755]

There is no aether frame. Everything is with respect to the state of
the aether in which it exists. Including the rate at which clocks tick
which are used to determined the speed of light.

[mpc755]

Aether is not geometry. Geometry is mathematics. How did physics get
so screwed up as to mistake mathematics for physical reality? How did
physics get so screwed up to forget mathematics is used to represent
physical reality?

Aether physically exists, physically occupies three dimensional space,
and is physically displaced by matter.

There is no aether frame because everything is with respect to the
state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which
clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit and
it is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits
both. This is what is really happening physically in nature. Stop
being delusional. Deal with it.

[mpc755]

You place a mesh bag of marbles into a tank consisting of a superfluid
and spin the mesh bag of marbles. The state of the superfluid as
determined by its connections with the mesh bag of marbles and the
state of the superfluid in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the superfluid.

You would not say the mesh bag of marbles is in the superfluid frame.

The earth exists in and spins in the aether. The state of the aether
as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the
aether.

The Earth is not in an aether frame.

A satellite moves through the aether displaced by the Earth. The rate
at which the atomic clock on the satellite ticks is determined by the
state of the aether in which it exists. The state of the aether which
is determined by its displacement by the Earth and its displacement by
the motion of the satellite which moves through it.

The satellite is not in an aether frame.

The rate at which the atomic clock on the satellite ticks is
determined by the state of displacement of the aether in which it
exists.

[Aetherist]

Two things,

1. Maxwell's model is Lorentz invsriant as penned/ It was others,
not Maxwell that later applied the Gallilean transforms to it.
If you look, Maxwell just dealt with relative motion and his
theory did not predict such things as Trouton-Noble.

2. Maxwell's theory does not deal with Black Body radiation issue,
period. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution profile matches
observation and the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe was alway
based on an invalid assumption and never a valid physic issue.

Yes, the aether is corpuscular in nature, a.k.a. granular. BUT!
like all such mediums made up of corpuscular entities Continum
Mechanics is the natural resultant.

[mpc755]

On Nov 29, 10:16 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, the aether is corpuscular in nature, a.k.a. granular.
>

You don't know that. There is zero evidence of that.

[eric gisse]

Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in
news:jYGdnUkdqLfyIknT...@bt.com:

[...]

> This argument is a step too far. What physics text books (and
> educators do) is to play down the role of Lorentz because they are
> trying to sell the Einstein myth to the student.

[...]

Please name some commonly used textbooks which do what you claim. Don't
forget to provide page numbers as well.

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:24:28 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:rht8d71uih681c50v...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>Its very simple. There is no aether, no aether frame, no preferred frame,
>in SRT.

Yes there is an aether that gives SRT its properties. I am just
flabergasted that you this SR is not part and parcel of GR. That
you don't seem to understand this fact is sad also. Einstein manned
up and admitted it why can't you?

>That you don't understand that simple fact is quite sad. I guess
>it just goes against the principles of your aether religion.

If matching observations to their best explanation is what you
want call religion, yup, throw me into that briar patch...

>Of course, if you'd like to re-use the term aether to instead refer
>to spacetime (as Einstein did later on) .. go ahead.

The 'fabric' OF spacetime is the aether medium and yes, Einstein
WAS honorable enough to acdknowledge this 'fact'.

>But then it is no longer the aether of LET and its predecessors ..

Yes, it is, we've just have learned more about it since then
thankfully science isn't static.

>its not really anything material >or ponderable at all ..
>just geometry.

Nope, but it is the building blocks of material & ponderable
matter.

[Aetherist]

Sure there is,that 'you' can't understand this speaks volumes!

[mpc755]

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the aether is the aether
does not consist of individual particles which can be separately
tracked through time.

I interpret this to mean it can't be known if aether consists of
particles or not.

Provide the evidence.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:ef911b2a-07c0-44fa...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>
> Yes it does.....every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of
> the aether frame.

No .. they don't. Because there are no such properties in SR for them to
claim

All you are doing is (for not valid reason) using the term 'aether' to mean
'inertial' .. which is just totally misleading and dishonest.

>>So every inertial frame
>> cannot have the properties of such a frame if it doesn't exist in SR.
>
>Assertion is not a valid arguement.

That wasn't an assertion .. it was a valid logical argument. Don't you know
the difference?

> Calling the aether frame as an
> inertial frame does not eliminate the existence of the aether frame.

But SR does not do that,

>> And
>> further if every frame DID have whatever those exclusive properties are,
>> they would not be exclusive any more. His whole statement is just
>> nonsense.
>
> You are really naive....

No .. you just made a self-contradictory statement. You lose straight away.

> the properties of the aether frame

There is no aether frame in SR and so no aether frame properties.

> are the
> reason why SR is able to give limited correct predictions that agree
> with experiments and observations. However physicists failed to
> realize that the solutions of the aether frame is incomplete. Why?
> Because no SR observer is in a state of absolute rest in the aether
> frame....

There is no aether frame in SR

> he is moving within the aether.

There is no aether in SR

> That means that his clock
> cannot be the fastest running clock in the universe.

He doesn't say it is. It only appears that way to him.

> The correct interpretation is

.. something you will never know

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:rj0bd79dlidnthhh9...@4ax.com...

>
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:24:28 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:rht8d71uih681c50v...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>
>>Its very simple. There is no aether, no aether frame, no preferred frame,
>>in SRT.
>
>Yes there is an aether that gives SRT its properties.

Its very simple. There is no aether, no aether frame, no preferred frame,

in SRT. You are talking about LET, which has the same measured results as
SRT but has an aether. Anyone talking about SRT with an aether giving it
properties is really talking about LET and NOT talking about SRT.

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:27:12 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 8:23 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:32:58 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 29, 10:16 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, the aether is corpuscular in nature, a.k.a. granular.
>>
>> >You don't know that. There is zero evidence of that.
>>
>> Sure there is,that 'you' can't understand this speaks volumes!
>
>Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the aether is the aether
>does not consist of individual particles which can be separately
>tracked through time.

Tell you what, identify, mark & track a single individual molecule
of of air, I don't care which part and track it through time. When
you can, we'll have something to debate...

>I interpret this to mean it can't be known if aether consists of
>particles or not.

A little branch of science & math called Continuum Mechanics

>Provide the evidence.

[mpc755]

Provide evidence aether consists of particles.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 28, 7:06 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/11 22:20, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist<TheAether...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> >> Richmond<bsr3...@my-deja.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Nov 27, 5:59 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com>  wrote:
> >>>> On 26/11/11 15:56, seto...@att.net wrote:
>

> >>>>> The answer to this question is: not much.
>
> >>>> True
>
> >>>>> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same
> >>>>> predictions for all observations and experiments. The
> >>>>> differences is how they derive the math. A LET observer says
> >>>>> that the aether exists and he just simply assumes that he is
> >>>>> at rest in this aether and thus he predicts all the clocks
> >>>>> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and
> >>>>> all the meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a
> >>>>> factor of 1/gamma.

>
> >>>> Not quite. When doing LET maths one is in theory transforming
> >>>> to and from the aether FoR.
>
> >>> Nope, Lorentz showed in his 1904 paper that you can skip the
> >>> intermediate step of transforming to the aether FoR.
>
> >>>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
>
> >> True, and just worry about the delta velocity.  However, this is
> >> precisely the same as implicitly pretending you're 'at rest' and
> >> there is only the delta velocity.  Thus he term, psuedo (as in
> >> false) rest frame.
>
> > His claim was that the aether frame was involved in the calculation.
> > It is not.  As for the term "rest frame", the observer is at rest in
> > his rest frame.  There is no "psuedo" about it.  As measured in the
> > coordinates of that frame he is at rest.
>

> >>>> As The aether frame is indistinguishable from any other this
> >>>> might seem a problem but the transforms are such that one can
> >>>> select any frame as the pseudo aether FoR and get the same
> >>>> answer. My understanding is that in LET - having selected which
> >>>> is ones "aether FoR" on sticks to it for calculation purposes.

> >>>> It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
> >>>> aether FoR but not essential.
>

> >>> Your understanding is wrong.  The math of LET is the same as the
> >>> math of SR.  If you think the aether frame enters into the
> >>> calculations please tell us where the ather frame coordinates
> >>> show up in the Lorentz transformation.
>
> >> The real question should be, "why is that"?  The answer of course
> >> is a result of system internal consistency which results in only
> >> the delta velocity counting...
>
> > I wasn't trying to reformulate his question, I was correcting his
> > missconception that you have to pick an aether FoR to use LET.
>

> >>>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity_(Laue_1913)....
>
> In a sense all that SR is, is a specific way of doing LET maths such
>
> >>>> that one always selects the observer's FoR as the aether FoR.
>
> >>> SR does not use an aether and LET does not use a pseudo aether.
>

> >> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame
> >> OF the aether.
>
> > He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
> > aether FoR but not essential."  The "pseudo aether FoR" he is
> > refering to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving
> > frame, to the aether, to a second moving frame.  That isn't done in
> > LET.
>
> LET assumes the existence of an aether Frame of reference. That was
> Einstein's only objection to Lorentz's theory,
>
> " Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
> systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by
> assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the
> theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
> corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." AE
> 1920

I was reading this book today

http://www.amazon.com/mc2-David-Bodanis/dp/0330391658/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322625199&sr=1-10

and it had a quote that said essentially the same thing. On page 261
it gives what I consider to be one of the best explainations of what
SR involves. It mentions that for Maxwell both a stationary observer
and a moving driver would have to see a headlight beam shoot out at
c. "To Newton that was impossible. To Maxwell it was indespensable."

"What Einstein did to resolve the dilemma of how Newton contradicted
Maxwell was to take one of those right angle jumps of the sort Faraday
and Roemer had been so successful with before. He questioned the very
terms in which the dilemma was posed! The definitions of length and
time and simultaneity had been around so long - they'd been codified
at least since Newton - that they seemed 'basic' to common sense. But
Einstein realized they all contained loaded assumptions about how
measurements had to be made."

In this group there have been some discussions about synchronizing
clocks and the posters couldn't see when they were including an
assumption that light traveled at isotropic c. Or if they did notice
it they didn't think there was anything wrong with it since we knew it
was true!

> Essentially according to Lorentz the real speed of light is only c in
> the Aether FoR although the measured speed of light appears to be c in
> all FoR. In streamlining the maths one must not lose track of the theory
> underpinning it.

And you are doing the same thing by advocating that they consider
themselves to be at rest in a pseudo aether FoR.

> The nature of the Lorentz transforms is such that you can use any FoR as
> your reference frame as what you are interested in is what would be
> measured.

> What the reference frame represents is a FoR which has an unknown but
> fixed relationship with the Aether FoR. That being the case one is
> justified in using it for performing the transforms instead of the
> aether Frame.

And since you understand that you don't have to pretend you are at
rest in the aether frame.

>   If you have say 3 observers A B & C  you could choose A as your

> reference frame for all 3 observers and in keeping with the underlying
> theory it would be logical to do so. In practice it makes things simpler
> if you do it the way SR does it, which is to do the maths using A's FoR
> as the reference frame for A and B's FoR to do the maths for B and C's
> reference frame to do the maths for C. That being the case it is
> probably the way the maths came to be done and you may well be right in
> saying LET maths is done exactly the same was as SR maths.
>
> If one was teaching LET one would show ones students the first way of
> doing it, selecting one FoR as the reference frame and sticking to it
> because that fits with the underlying theory, you would then show them
> that the second way gives the same results and is the standard approach
> because it is simpler. In a similar way a maths teacher would (should)
> show the students how to solve a quadratic equation by the completion of
> squares before telling them to learn the formula.
>
> The point about Doppler shift is this. According to LET the real speed
> of light is only c in the aether FoR. If you change your speed then
> according to LET you change your real speed relative to incoming light.
> While the change in your ruler and your clock disguises the fact that
> the speed has changed the fact that there is an immediate change in
> frequency is a dead give away that you have actually changed your speed
> w.r.t the light.

Both LET and SR acknowledge that it takes time for light to get from A
to B and that there must be light in transit between them during that
time. That is true whether light is a wave or a particle traveling at
c or a ballistic particle traveling at c+v. So it is to be expected
that if the observer changes his state of motion the perceived change
will be instantaneous. What you are overlooking here is that when you
change you speed you are also changing coordinate systems. In the
coordinates of your new frame the speed of light will still be
measured to be c, whether you are talking SR or LET.

> In one sense relativity is simply maths in which case the difference
> between it and LET is nill. It is simply Lorentz aether theory without
> the theory. If on the other hand you believe that it is something
> different. That there is no Aether FoR. That there is no 'real' speed of
> light but that it is always actually c then SR presents no explanation
> of why if I change my speed there is an immediate change in frequency.

Sure it does. You will see a change in frequency even if light is
particles. SR leaves the question of what light is for later.

> What the maths says is that before I changes speed (me stationary w.r.t
> the source)
>
>        Me                                   S
>
> Light separates from the source at c w.r.t me (also c w.r.t the source)
> and produces a given wavelength. After I change my speed
>
>        Me->v                                S
>
> Light separates from the source at what is c w.r.t me which is a
> separation speed of c-v from the source. The wavelength is shorter. The
> wavecrest hasn't moved as far as it did before the next is generated as
> it is now separating from the source at c-v rather than c. One can be
> politically correct and describe the source moving in the FoR of Me and
> between generating one wave crest and the next it is closer to Me so the
> wavelength is shorter but it makes no odds.
>
> These are two steady state solutions. The question is what happens just
> after I have changed my speed? If S is 1 light year away there is a
> years worth of light in transit generated when I was stationary w.r.t
> the source which must have its original wavelength. There will be a
> years delay before the new wavelength reaches me.
>
>

You changed coordinate systems. An observer that was already in the
new frame noticed no change when you came to rest in his frame.

>
>
> >>>> In fact the second postulate simply describes what an observer
> >>>> stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.
>
> >>> It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
> >>> experience.
>
> >> Yes, it does.  But the real physics question again should be "how
> >> come"?
>
> > I think both SR and LET answer that question if you think about it.
> > It is all in how we measure things and what assumptions we make in
> > the process.
>

> >>>> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR  when you change observer
> >>>> the aether FoR changes also.
>
> >>> There is no eather FoR in SR.
>
> >> There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...
>
> > It doesn't enter into any of the calculations.
>

> >> properties of a physical medium, SR only- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »