Let's Experiment and put an end to the bickering, once and for all.
Phil Glasgow
to sci.physice.relativity. In the beginning, I held SR in almost total
disregard, and in the process I said a lot of things which I would like to
take back, but alas, the record of my wrong thinking is there for anyone
with the desire to research. In any event, though I insulted some
well-meaning people, they always seemed to give me a second chance to _get
it_ The relativity experts really have been more than patient with the
etherists on this group and even now, though still tenuously clinging to
Lorentz ether, I feel a genuine gratitude, to Tom, Dirk, Bilge, Stephen, and
others for teaching me the fundamentals of space-time. The enlightenment of
knowing what it is and what it means for space, time, and coordinate systems
leaves me overwhelmingly sympathetic with the SRians as they, day by day,
endure a barrage of _attacks_, all of which are inconsistent with SR's
logical system.
The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR without
ether". I also, am guilty of saying this. In truth, "You can't have SR and
ether in the same world" They have completed different constructions of
space and time. These different underlying or fundamental constructions in
turn _require_ laboratory constructions of space and time to be
fundamentally different, indeed, different enough that one can predict the
outcomes of experiments which would differentiate the two theories. Yes,
our the constructions of time and space in the laboratory can tell us
whether the real world is inconsistent with Lorentz' ether or Minkowski
space-time. We just need to do an experiment.
Perhaps, another experiment wouldn't be necessary if us etherists would be
reasonable. I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING Lorentz
ether. To me, it is just an adhoc postulate, which is, in my opinion,
inconsistent with the first principles of LET. To me, invariance of one way
tests of light speed utilizing clocks synchronized by slow transport fully
support Minkowski 4-space but are inconsistent with the first principles of
LET. But I sit here really not knowing to what degree one-way invariance is
supported by tests using this synchronization method. Now, I have been
trying. I went to the FAQ to seek papers on the subject, only to find, that
I would first need to join the APS and then suscribe to all of their
periodicals if I was to have easy access. The little town I live in doesn't
have these periodicals at the public library, so I'll have to find time to
make the drive to the city, or, fork out about hundred dollars per paper I
have keen interest in reading. (Suggestion: why doesn't the faq discuss
each experiment in more detail, the mathematical derivations of the
predictions, etc.)
In any event, lets suppose (tounge in cheek), that the etherists are correct
about slow clock transport. Does that make SR and LET indistinguishable?
The answer to this question is an emphatic NO! The postulate of slow clock
transport desynchronization still requires the laboratory constructions of
space and time to be fundamentally different, particularly, in the synchrony
of spatially separated clocks. So we could empirically find laboratory
constructions of time inconsistent with Lorentz' ether simply by determining
whether spatially separated clocks resting in one's inertial frame are
indeed in synchrony.
I first proposed this experiment to my brother, and he didn't like the
notion of empirically testing theoretical foundations. Predictions, the
consequent theorems of founding assumptions, are appropriate, in his mind,
for empirical tests. But then, if one can conceive an experiement, what
prevents one from performing it? Why can't one perform an experiment if the
outcome can clearly and unambiguously be predicted? If it can be
unambiguously predicted, then in my mind, lest we die of curiosity itself,
the experiment should and must be conducted.
Minkowski 4-space is a wonderful geometry. It did take me some time to get
the hang of it, but now I see it for what it really is to SR. First, it is
an object where inertial coordinate systems are dimensionally equivalent to
the underlying construction of space and time. This is mouth-full but it is
so very important. We know this, for one thing, because intervals are
invariant under rotations. But this equivalence is necessary for the second
postulate to hold true fundamentally. So in Minkowski 4-space, light speed
truly is invariant and isotropic completely independent of your choice of
inertial coordinate system. OWLS=TWLS=constant. Its fundamentally true and
it is consistent with the construction of space and time. Furthermore,
given the synchronization procedure, no inertial system's construction of
simultaneity (synchrony) is invalid or has priority over another's. In
essence, in Minkowski 4-space, an infinity of inertial coordinates systems
wherein their respective grid of clocks have been synchronized, find their
synchronized clocks in true synchrony.
Such is not the case in Lorentz ether. Underlying inertial coordinate
systems, is a construction of absolute space and absolute time wholly
inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space. And every system in inertial motion
wrt the ether rest frame, is without doubt, constructing simultaneity in his
lab inconsistent with the underlying simultaneity. Its now time to test
for it.
We begin by establishing a spatial interval in our inertial lab.
C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
At each endpoint of this interval let us place clocks.
Now, lets construct a rod which is approximately the length of the spatial
interval. Each end of the rod has a whisker which may contact a register on
their respective nearest clock. Let's calibrate the whiskers until we are
satisfied they are touching but after a very small displacement, neither is
touching.
C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
: :
===========================
Lets now synchronize the clocks according to Einstein's synchronization
procedure.
In Minkowski 4-space, at any time slice, the interval separating the clocks
is equal to the length of rod, a space like interval. While no single point
object can find itself at C1 and C2 simultaneously, the whiskers on the rod
can and will find themselves simultaneously at C1 and C2 (conditional to one
being at its respective clock). This is because, no matter what frame of
reference the lab rests in, light speed is fundamentally invariant and its
own simulataneity is perfectly valid in Minkowski 4-space.
Now _slowly_ move the rod until the whiskers touch the registers of their
respective clocks.
C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
: :
=========================== <---
If the synchronzation of C1 and C2 is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, one
should expect to find that the laboratory time coordinates for the events at
C1 and C2 are simultaneous. If one rotates the apparatus 180 degrees,
resynchronizes the clocks, and reconducts the experiment, the same result
will be evident, that is, if and only if, the underlying space and time is
consistent with Minkowski 4-space.
But for the sake of maybe, lets discuss, if only for a moment, what the
results would be if the underlying time and space is consistent with the
absolute space and time of Lorentz' ether. Imagine the words of this
posting are at rest with respect to the ether rest frame and that the lab
and its apparatus are moving inertially to the right. To be consistent with
the Lorentzian ether, the event C2 must have a time coordinate which lags
the time coordinate of C1. If one rotates the apparatus 180 degrees,
resynchronizes the clocks, and reconducts the experiment, the _opposite_
result would be evident, that is, if and only if, the underlying space and
time is consistent with absolute time and absolute space.
We spend alot of time here arguing why we like this or that theory. But why
we like or dislike either is of little importance. Experience should drive
our preference, which is _really_ empirically consistent with our laboratory
constructions of space and time? We will never know which is consistent
unless we do experiments. We should stop hiding behind this facade of
equivalency and do the real science.
Regards, Phil
Minor Crank
I've watched the gradual evolution of your thought on this group with great
interest.
As Tom Roberts has pointed out on many occasions, there are wide classes of
viable aether theories which are mathematically and/or experimentally
indistinguishable from relativity. (Ilja Schmelzer's aether theory may be an
exception, but the conditions under which one might distinguish his theory
from GR are currently inaccessible to experiment and observation.)
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3838A801.AB5B6568%40lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
If we grant that aether theories exist that are mathematically and/or
indistinguishable from SR, what drives the vast majority of modern
physicists to prefer SR over aether theories is the mathematical elegance,
explanatory power, and inherent heuristic value of the relativistic
approach.
But mathematical elegance is an aesthetic concept, and there -is- room for
the nonconformist who, while understanding the basis for SR, nevertheless
has a different sense of aesthetics and prefers thinking in terms of, say,
LET.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be in this stage in your development.
Bravo!
Experiment, not elegance, is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Someday an
experiment may be performed which strikes at the foundations of relativity.
Indeed, we -know- that SR and GR have limits at which they must fail, and
who knows...maybe, just maybe, what replaces relativity may be an
aether-like theory, although most physicists would doubt that. But until
such limits are established, relativity stands with QM as one of the two
pillars of modern physics.
Minor Crank
Robert J. Kolker
Minor Crank wrote:
> Experiment, not elegance, is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Someday an
> experiment may be performed which strikes at the foundations of relativity.
> Indeed, we -know- that SR and GR have limits at which they must fail, and
> who knows...maybe, just maybe, what replaces relativity may be an
> aether-like theory, although most physicists would doubt that.
What comes out may be aether-like but it will not be the gelatinous
Space Goo of Maxwell and his contemporaries.
Bob Kolker
Tom Roberts
> The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR without
> ether".
This is, of course, false. SR is purely geometrical, and ether is
inherently some sort of substance (perhaps wildly different from any
substance known to man, but nevertheless someTHING).
> [...] Yes,
> our the constructions of time and space in the laboratory can tell us
> whether the real world is inconsistent with Lorentz' ether or Minkowski
> space-time. We just need to do an experiment.
It is utterly impossible to distinguish LET from SR. Because the ONLY
difference between them is in LET there is some (unknown) inertial frame
labelled "the ether frame", and SR has no such label on any inertial
frame. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
transforms form a group. The LABEL of course has no physical
consequences, and LET itself predicts that no measurement can identify
the ether frame.
> I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
> invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING Lorentz
> ether.
Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
isotropically c.
> To me, it is just an adhoc postulate, which is, in my opinion,
> inconsistent with the first principles of LET.
No. It is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transform, which is one of
the postulates ("first principles") of LET.
> To me, invariance of one way
> tests of light speed utilizing clocks synchronized by slow transport fully
> support Minkowski 4-space but are inconsistent with the first principles of
> LET.
You got it backwards. LET _PREDICTS_ that for clocks synchronized by
slow clock transport the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
isotropically c in any inertial frame. Yes, in LET it may be "unnatural"
to use slow clock transport, but so what? One must apply the theory to
the way the measurement is carried out, and in practice slow clock
transport is the only method of clock synchronization that is not based
upon light signals -- if one uses light to synchronize clocks then it is
quite clear that measuring the speed of light to be c is is a tautology
(because the method of synchronization essentially puts it in by hand).
> In any event, lets suppose (tounge in cheek), that the etherists are correct
> about slow clock transport. Does that make SR and LET indistinguishable?
It does not matter -- SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable
because of their shared mathematical structure. Remember how one tests a
theory experimentally: one devises some physical situation in which
measurement(s) can be made, one applies the theorems of the theory to
compute what the theory predicts those measurements will be, and one
compares to the actual measurements. But SR and LET share the same set
of theorems, so necessarily the comparison between SR and experiment
will be EXACTLY the same as the comparison between LET and experiment.
This is as mathematically certain as 1+1=2.
> I first proposed this experiment to my brother, and he didn't like the
> notion of empirically testing theoretical foundations.
That's silly -- the postulates of a theory are TRIVIALLY theorems. So
the "foundations" are also "predictions".
> So in Minkowski 4-space, light speed
> truly is invariant and isotropic completely independent of your choice of
> inertial coordinate system. OWLS=TWLS=constant.
Yes.
> Such is not the case in Lorentz ether. Underlying inertial coordinate
> systems, is a construction of absolute space and absolute time wholly
> inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space.
While LET does indeed include an absolute space and time, it is NOT
insonsistent with Minkowski spacetime. The Lorentz Ether Theory was in
essence carefully crafted so "it just happens" that all MEASUREMENTS
agree with those predicted by SR and its Minkowski spacetime (this was
not happenstance -- Lorentz specifically came up with the Lorentz
transform in order to make Maxwell's equations valid in any moving
frame, and that is essentially what Einstein did also, but in a very
different way).
> And every system in inertial motion
> wrt the ether rest frame, is without doubt, constructing simultaneity in his
> lab inconsistent with the underlying simultaneity. Its now time to test
> for it.
While simultaneity in moving frames is different from that in the ether
frame, in LET it is IMPOSSIBLE to "test for it".
> [... more of the same]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Minor Crank
news:3EEF2AD6...@attbi.com...
Absolutely agree!
Minor Crank
Martin Hogbin
Nor the crackpot non-theory of Rado and the like.
Martin Hogbin
Bill Hobba
Problem is this. Where do we draw the line? As I have said many times I
can construct Newtonian mechanics by hypothesizing that an angel causes all
forces. Prove me wrong - it passes all experimental tests. The aether is
like the angel. We preclude it on grounds of simplicity not experiment.
There are and always have been grounds other than experiment to judge
theories. Again as I have said we reject the creationists dinosaur theory
of God creating the world with dinosaur bones because it has no predictive
power.
Thanks
Bill
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Phil Glasgow wrote:
A classic example of duelling relativist straw men!
> > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
without
> > ether".
>
> This is, of course, false.
The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
would make such a statement. This is called setting up a "straw man"
argument. That is, an false argument made by the opponent solely to
discredit a position.
> SR is purely geometrical,
There is no "geometry" in Einstein's SR. (1905). There are velocities
(physical), times (physical) and distances (physical).
> and ether is inherently some sort of substance
By definition.
> (perhaps wildly different from any
> substance known to man, but nevertheless someTHING).
Another straw man. For example, Maxwell's aether is a superfluid. Unusual
in day-to-day life, but not "wildly different from any substance known to
man."
> > [...] Yes,
> > our the constructions of time and space in the laboratory can tell us
> > whether the real world is inconsistent with Lorentz' ether or Minkowski
> > space-time. We just need to do an experiment.
>
> It is utterly impossible to distinguish LET from SR.
Another repeat of the Roberts Catechism. Sorry, Tom, LET (Lorentz, 1904)
still contains the equation
t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2)
that identifies the EM field "rest" -- which is different than SR. You
claim they are the same because you also claim that LET must use Einstein's
synchronization procedure (which eliminates the above equation from LET).
Hence, you are requiring SR from the get-go.
> Because the ONLY
> difference between them is in LET there is some (unknown) inertial frame
> labelled "the ether frame",
Here you are just wrong. See above. t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2) It can be found.
UNLESS one requires E-synching (as you do).
> and SR has no such label on any inertial
> frame. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
> transforms form a group.
No, it is a direct result of your arbitrary and incorrect belief that
Lorentz transforms include e-synching -- which LET doesn't.
> The LABEL of course has no physical
> consequences,
Just as the agglomeration of Lorentz transforms have no physical
consequences.
> and LET itself predicts that no measurement can identify
> the ether frame.
The above statement is completely in error. LET contains
t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2).
> > I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> > desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
> > invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING
Lorentz
> > ether.
>
> Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
> desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> isotropically c.
Not in Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET). Perhaps in your straw-man
version of L*E*T -- which you have stated is NOT from Lorentz, but is some
farcial agglomeration of comments you have gleaned from multitudes of
posters in this N.G.
> > To me, it is just an adhoc postulate, which is, in my opinion,
> > inconsistent with the first principles of LET.
>
> No. It is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transform, which is one of
> the postulates ("first principles") of LET.
LOL!!!! Now we move to the bold-faced lies. The Lorentz transform is
DERIVED in LET (Lorentz, 1904). It is NOT a "principle." EINSTEIN dealt in
"principles." Not Lorentz.
> > To me, invariance of one way
> > tests of light speed utilizing clocks synchronized by slow transport
fully
> > support Minkowski 4-space but are inconsistent with the first principles
of
> > LET.
>
> You got it backwards. LET _PREDICTS_ that for clocks synchronized by
> slow clock transport the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> isotropically c in any inertial frame.
No, Tom -- YOU are incorrect. YOU made up your own straw-man theory, and
continue to call it "LET". Even though you know it is not Lorentz
Electrodynamic Theory.
> Yes, in LET it may be "unnatural"
> to use slow clock transport, but so what? One must apply the theory to
> the way the measurement is carried out, and in practice slow clock
> transport is the only method of clock synchronization that is not based
> upon light signals -- if one uses light to synchronize clocks then it is
> quite clear that measuring the speed of light to be c is is a tautology
> (because the method of synchronization essentially puts it in by hand).
And here you admit that you are requiring your bastardized L*E*T to use
e-synching. Which LET (from Lorentz) does not require.
> > In any event, lets suppose (tounge in cheek), that the etherists are
correct
> > about slow clock transport. Does that make SR and LET
indistinguishable?
Now the attempt to cash in on the straw man argument made at the top. Very
few (if any) aetherists would ever make such a silly claim.
> It does not matter -- SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable
> because of their shared mathematical structure.
Again the Roberts catechism. LET and SR differ in their mathematics.
{t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2)}
They are experimentally distinguishable -- but NOT if you artificially
impose e-synching on L*E*T.
> Remember how one tests a
> theory experimentally: one devises some physical situation in which
> measurement(s) can be made, one applies the theorems of the theory to
> compute what the theory predicts those measurements will be, and one
> compares to the actual measurements. But SR and LET share the same set
> of theorems, so necessarily the comparison between SR and experiment
> will be EXACTLY the same as the comparison between LET and experiment.
> This is as mathematically certain as 1+1=2.
And this needless repetition demonstrates that fouling up the starting
postulate invalidates the logic!
> > I first proposed this experiment to my brother, and he didn't like the
> > notion of empirically testing theoretical foundations.
>
> That's silly -- the postulates of a theory are TRIVIALLY theorems.
ROTFLMAO!!!! Tom -- by definition -- postulates of a theory CANNOT be
theorems. Theorems can be derived from postulates. NOT vice versa.
> So the "foundations" are also "predictions".
They could be -- if the postulates are themselves observables (which is not
necessarily the case).
> > So in Minkowski 4-space, light speed
> > truly is invariant and isotropic completely independent of your choice
of
> > inertial coordinate system. OWLS=TWLS=constant.
>
> Yes.
???? This is not a conclusion of any of the foregoing.
In SR (and Minkowski 4-space), it is ASSUMED that OWLS is truly invariant.
This is not the same as "truly is invariant and isotropic." But e-synching
is the method used to ensure that measurments always come out in accordance
with the postulate.
> > Such is not the case in Lorentz ether. Underlying inertial coordinate
> > systems, is a construction of absolute space and absolute time wholly
> > inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space.
>
> While LET does indeed include an absolute space and time, it is NOT
> insonsistent with Minkowski spacetime. The Lorentz Ether Theory was in
> essence carefully crafted so "it just happens" that all MEASUREMENTS
> agree with those predicted by SR
LOL! But, Tom, this is YOUR L*E*T that YOU have "carefully crafted".
Lorentz' Electrodynamic Theory (1904) -- obviously -- was NOT "carefully
crafted" to match a theory written a year later (1905).
> and its Minkowski spacetime (this was
> not happenstance -- Lorentz specifically came up with the Lorentz
> transform in order to make Maxwell's equations valid in any moving
> frame, and that is essentially what Einstein did also, but in a very
> different way).
There is no "Minkowski spacetime" in LET -- because LET (not your
bastardized L*E*T) does not include e-synching, and OWLS is not constant and
isotropic.
> > And every system in inertial motion
> > wrt the ether rest frame, is without doubt, constructing simultaneity in
his
> > lab inconsistent with the underlying simultaneity. Its now time to
test
> > for it.
>
> While simultaneity in moving frames is different from that in the ether
> frame, in LET it is IMPOSSIBLE to "test for it".
Another completely false statement. It is only "impossible" in your
bastardized, straw-man L*E*T -- and only because you include e-synching.
Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904) has the ability to test for the aether
frame (the EM field rest frame).
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Phil Glasgow
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef06...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Minor Crank correctly wrote:
> >
> > Experiment, not elegance, is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Someday an
> > experiment may be performed which strikes at the foundations of
> relativity.
> > Indeed, we -know- that SR and GR have limits at which they must fail,
and
> > who knows...maybe, just maybe, what replaces relativity may be an
> > aether-like theory, although most physicists would doubt that. But until
> > such limits are established, relativity stands with QM as one of the two
> > pillars of modern physics.
>
> Problem is this. Where do we draw the line? As I have said many times I
> can construct Newtonian mechanics by hypothesizing that an angel causes
all
> forces. Prove me wrong - it passes all experimental tests. The aether is
> like the angel. We preclude it on grounds of simplicity not experiment.
> There are and always have been grounds other than experiment to judge
> theories. Again as I have said we reject the creationists dinosaur theory
> of God creating the world with dinosaur bones because it has no predictive
> power.
There is no doubt about, the Lorentzian ether is _ugly_, lacks the
fundamental symmetry of Minkowski space, and raises far more questions than
it models the answers for. This may sound crazy, but I want to know which
construction of space and time is really consistent with our laboratory
constructions. If for no other reason, just for the sake of knowing. I'm
curious. I can't help that.
For a moment, we may ponder just what it may mean for physics if we were to
find our laboratory constructions of space and time inconsistent with
Minkowski 4-space. I am sure many etherists would demand a complete
revamping of the doctrine (as they call it) to suit their desires. I'm not
that terse. Minkowski 4-space is a wonderful object which has utilitarian
value which shouldn't be tossed out with the bath water, even if we were to
find it empirically inconsistent. It is just we will have to use it with
the knowledge that it is inconsistent with our laboratory constructions of
space and time.
Phil
Minor Crank
news:3ef06...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Problem is this. Where do we draw the line? As I have said many times I
> can construct Newtonian mechanics by hypothesizing that an angel causes
all
> forces. Prove me wrong - it passes all experimental tests. The aether is
> like the angel. We preclude it on grounds of simplicity not experiment.
Exactly. Since experiment cannot distinguish between SR and, say, LET, most
physicists' sense of aesthetics leads them to choose SR. But we cannot
"prove" that the (extremely) RARE intelligent aetherist with a surrealist
sense of aesthetics who prefers LET is "wrong."
In high school, I knew a guy who loved Salvador Dali, and who argued that
Dali was the greatest artist who ever lived...Yeech! To me, Dali's paintings
are ugly, and Dali's films were just plain SICK. But do you think that I was
able to "prove" my friend wrong?
> There are and always have been grounds other than experiment to judge
> theories. Again as I have said we reject the creationists dinosaur theory
> of God creating the world with dinosaur bones because it has no predictive
> power.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
news:nP1Ia.53746$Io.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> There is no doubt about, the Lorentzian ether is _ugly_, lacks the
> fundamental symmetry of Minkowski space, and raises far more questions
than
> it models the answers for. This may sound crazy, but I want to know
which
> construction of space and time is really consistent with our laboratory
> constructions. If for no other reason, just for the sake of knowing. I'm
> curious. I can't help that.
Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET. In the
end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power, and
heuristic value.
Minor Crank
Old Physics
Dr. Roberts,
If contraction and time (mass) dilation were real, as Lorentz
believed, than the side of the earth moving away from the center of
the BB would be time dilated by about 90 nanoseconds over a six hour
period relative to the other side. If six nanoseconds over a 36 hr
period could be resolved the airliner experiment would be a suitable
test of SR versus LET.
2000 mph is about three millionths the SoL, square this and take
half to get 4.5 (4.76) parts per trillion, which represents the width
of a hair relative to 6000 miles or half a gram relative to an
aircraft carrier.
If these changes could be measured and shown to be null it would
disprove a prefered aether frame.
What would happen if a marble of neutrons with a mass of 3 billion
tons were traveling at a velocity where the neutrons neared the plank
length, giving the marble a relitivistic mass equal to the sun.
From the marble's FoR the sun would have a mass 10^36 times
greater and the marble should move toward the sun by that proportion
as it passes. From the sun's FoR it would move equaly toward the
marble. How would you resolve this paradox?
With highest regards,
stephen kearney
Bilge
>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> Phil Glasgow wrote:
>
>A classic example of duelling relativist straw men!
>
>> > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
>without
>> > ether".
>>
>> This is, of course, false.
>
>The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
>would make such a statement. This is called setting up a "straw man"
>argument. That is, an false argument made by the opponent solely to
>discredit a position.
>
>> SR is purely geometrical,
>
>There is no "geometry" in Einstein's SR. (1905).
Are really this stupid?
>There are velocities (physical), times (physical) and distances
>(physical).
There are also equations, words, paragraphs and punctuation.
So what?
>> (perhaps wildly different from any
>> substance known to man, but nevertheless someTHING).
>
>Another straw man. For example, Maxwell's aether is a superfluid.
You've already been given an explanation of why that can't be
true. No frictional forces => no vortices. Find a single superfluid
that can support a vortex without the presence of the normal component
of the fluid.
[*crap snipped*]
Phil Glasgow
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Phil Glasgow wrote:
>
> > our the constructions of time and space in the laboratory can tell us
> > whether the real world is inconsistent with Lorentz' ether or Minkowski
> > space-time. We just need to do an experiment.
>
> It is utterly impossible to distinguish LET from SR. Because the ONLY
> difference between them is in LET there is some (unknown) inertial frame
> labelled "the ether frame", and SR has no such label on any inertial
> frame. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
> transforms form a group. The LABEL of course has no physical
> consequences, and LET itself predicts that no measurement can identify
> the ether frame.
Tom, at least hear me out. If we are going to predict the outcome of
experiments by the application of any law of physics, both theories predict
the same and the law will be universal, independent of frame of reference.
Light speed is coordinate invariant, independent of frame of reference. But
for BOTH theories' to do that, the time in their laboratories _must_ be
constructed differently. The experiment I proposed does not test for
consistency with the principle of relativity, such tests are undoubtedly
indistinguishable, I am proposing a test of the underlying space and time by
performing an experiment on a laboratory coordinate construction. The idea
is to determine what underlying construction of space and time may be
empirically consistent with our laboratory constructions, NOT whether
Lorentz transforms are consistent with both theories.
> > I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> > desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
> > invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING
Lorentz
> > ether.
>
> Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
> desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> isotropically c.
This is not a derivable theorem in LET, at least, in my experience.
Asynchrony is a derivable theorem, and ultimately leads to LT's in LET, that
is, if the synchronization method Einstein's method. I think the
foundations of this theorem are in conflict with slow transport
desynchronization, and have publicly requested for a mathematical
derivation of slow clock transport desynchronization from first principles
of Lorentz' ether. Until I am able to relate them mathematically, I will
always _suspect_ the concept "ad-hoc" AND inconsistent with the foundations
of Lorentz' ether.
> > To me, it is just an adhoc postulate, which is, in my opinion,
> > inconsistent with the first principles of LET.
>
> No. It is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transform, which is one of
> the postulates ("first principles") of LET.
The LT's need not be a first principle of a theory using the ether of
Lorentz'. They may be derived from the construction of space and time,
light speed isotropy, and the foreshortening of rods. Since these
principles found the Lorentzian ether, the LT's are truly theorems and not
postulates of the ether of Lorentz, irregardless whether Lorentz
("postulated") LT's or not.
It's important _not_ to get the cart before the horse here. If the opposite
were true, that is, by theorem the LT's require the ether construction of
Lorentz, then it would not be possible for Minkowski 4-space to be
consistent with LT's, but it clearly is.
LT's are theorems of either constructions and are not _fundamental_
(postulated) in either system.
> > To me, invariance of one way
> > tests of light speed utilizing clocks synchronized by slow transport
fully
> > support Minkowski 4-space but are inconsistent with the first principles
of
> > LET.
>
> You got it backwards. LET _PREDICTS_ that for clocks synchronized by
> slow clock transport the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> isotropically c in any inertial frame.
I would like to know what you mean by _PREDICTS_. Do you mean that it is
ASSUMED that clocks synchronized by slow clock consistent are consistent
with Einstein's method. OR that it is a theorem of LET because you
understand Lorentz to have postulated LT's?
>Yes, in LET it may be "unnatural"
> to use slow clock transport, but so what?
It seems that you are defending what may well be the ad-hoc postulation that
clocks synchronized by slow transport are synchronized consistent with
clocks synchronized by Einstein's method. You know, I not going to argue
about whether its OK to postulate this. The experiment I proposed isn't
using slow transport as a synchronization method anyway. I was merely
saying I don't consider the postulate consistent with the space and time
construction of LET while I do consider it consistent with SR _where it is a
theorem_.
> > In any event, lets suppose (tounge in cheek), that the etherists are
correct
> > about slow clock transport. Does that make SR and LET
indistinguishable?
>
> It does not matter -- SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable
> because of their shared mathematical structure. Remember how one tests a
> theory experimentally: one devises some physical situation in which
> measurement(s) can be made, one applies the theorems of the theory to
> compute what the theory predicts those measurements will be, and one
> compares to the actual measurements. But SR and LET share the same set
> of theorems, so necessarily the comparison between SR and experiment
> will be EXACTLY the same as the comparison between LET and experiment.
> This is as mathematically certain as 1+1=2.
Yes, this is why the laws of physics are universal (independent of frame of
reference), in either theory. Tom, you once told me that LET is an ugly
theory. It's ugly to you, if for no other reason, because there exists no
fundamental correspondence between inertial coordinate systems and the
underlying space and time wherein the symmetries of SR are related. The
laboratory constructions of space and time are not identical in both
theories, (in truth they don't have to be in order to relate coordinates by
LTs). I am proposing a test of laboratory coordinate simultaneity. The two
theories _PREDICT_ different outcomes.
> > I first proposed this experiment to my brother, and he didn't like the
> > notion of empirically testing theoretical foundations.
>
> That's silly --
I am glad to see we agree on this.
> > Such is not the case in Lorentz ether. Underlying inertial coordinate
> > systems, is a construction of absolute space and absolute time wholly
> > inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space.
>
> While LET does indeed include an absolute space and time, it is NOT
> insonsistent with Minkowski spacetime. The Lorentz Ether Theory was in
> essence carefully crafted
It is this "craft" which I propose should be tested. The space and time of
Lorentz lack the symmetries of Minkowski spacetime. Lets just consider one
of the symmetries. Synchrony of spatially separated clocks. In Minkowski
space-time, spatially separated clocks, sychronized according to Einstein's
procedure, must be in synchrony. It's a symmetry which is true for any
inertial frame of reference. In the proposed experiment, this symmetry
results in the whiskers touching the clock registers _at identical time
coordinates_.
But in Lorentz' ether, this can only happen _if_ the lab rests wrt the ether
rest frame.
>so "it just happens" that all MEASUREMENTS
> agree with those predicted by SR and its Minkowski spacetime (this was
> not happenstance -- Lorentz specifically came up with the Lorentz
> transform in order to make Maxwell's equations valid in any moving
> frame, and that is essentially what Einstein did also, but in a very
> different way).
Yes, very different. Why not discover which way is consistent with
laboratory constructions of space and time empirically?
> > And every system in inertial motion
> > wrt the ether rest frame, is without doubt, constructing simultaneity in
his
> > lab inconsistent with the underlying simultaneity. Its now time to
test
> > for it.
>
> While simultaneity in moving frames is different from that in the ether
> frame, in LET it is IMPOSSIBLE to "test for it".
I _know_ this to be false. Frankly, I don't care one iota what Lorentz may
have thought about the impossibility. Mathematically, this the statement
above is inconsistent with the space and time constructions of Lorentz and
theorems _prove_ it wrong. So just saying "it's impossible" isn't going to
work with me. Take another look at the experiment, and work out the theorems
which will actually _predict_ the outcomes for both theories. You will find
the _predictions_ differ.
Start with the _actual_ postulates, definitions, and empirical practices.
Space is homogeneous, isotropic, Euclidean object which rests wrt to an
ether object.
Time is absolute.
Light propogates isotropically wrt the local ether rest frame.
Every inertial system shall synchronize clocks by Einstein's method.
Just do the math, the outcome of the experiment can not be coordinate
synchrony if it is to be consistent with Lorentz ether, _no matter what one
may think Lorentz thought about the "impossibility" of testing it.
Coordinate syncrony would be consistent only with Minkowski space.
Phil
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vf17tfr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Phil Glasgow wrote:
>
> A classic example of duelling relativist straw men!
>
> > > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
> without
> > > ether".
> >
> > This is, of course, false.
>
> The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
> would make such a statement.
> The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
> would make such a statement.
Of course. Etherists like Mingst and Stowe seem to prefer
quoting statements not understood by themselves, from a
book, containing more "typos" than sentences, written by a
dead man who wrote about, but never really understood the
work of another dead man.
See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Abhi" <Abhijit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bcsq6m$n1ac8$1...@ID-195116.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:2ulIa.59459$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
Thanks for reminding :-)
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Minor Crank <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tR7Ia.23473$hz1.33945@sccrnsc01...
> "Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nP1Ia.53746$Io.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > There is no doubt about, the Lorentzian ether is _ugly_, lacks the
> > fundamental symmetry of Minkowski space, and raises far more questions
> than
> > it models the answers for. This may sound crazy, but I want to know
> which
> > construction of space and time is really consistent with our laboratory
> > constructions. If for no other reason, just for the sake of knowing.
I'm
> > curious. I can't help that.
>
> Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET.
Sure it can. So long as you use "real" clocks and don't constantly reset
them to eliminate the evidence.
> In the
> end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power, and
> heuristic value.
Wrong again. Mathematical elegance is pure aethetics. Go count angels on
pinheads. That's also "elegant."
greywolf42
Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbf2d4q....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> greywolf42:
> >
> >Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> >news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >> Phil Glasgow wrote:
> >
> >A classic example of duelling relativist straw men!
> >
> >> > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
> >without
> >> > ether".
> >>
> >> This is, of course, false.
> >
> >The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
> >would make such a statement. This is called setting up a "straw man"
> >argument. That is, an false argument made by the opponent solely to
> >discredit a position.
> >
> >> SR is purely geometrical,
> >
> >There is no "geometry" in Einstein's SR. (1905).
>
> Are really this stupid?
The usual Bilge zero content insult.
> >There are velocities (physical), times (physical) and distances
> >(physical).
>
> There are also equations, words, paragraphs and punctuation.
> So what?
The usual Bilge zero content insult.
My statement dealt with theoretical content. Yours deals with page
markings.
> >> (perhaps wildly different from any
> >> substance known to man, but nevertheless someTHING).
> >
> >Another straw man. For example, Maxwell's aether is a superfluid.
>
> You've already been given an explanation of why that can't be
> true. No frictional forces => no vortices.
Your own theoretical shortcomings do not affect Nature. What is this, David
Semon, your fifth failed attempt to make up a "failing" of superfluids?
Still can't find a reference that agrees with your personal definintions of
superfluid?
> Find a single superfluid
> that can support a vortex without the presence of the normal component
> of the fluid.
Maxwell's aether.
[*crap snipped*]
The usual Bilge zero content insult.
Peter K.
> without
> > > ether".
> >
Shall they argue forever on a Sun orbiting the Earth. Ether, No Ether
it's a Coppernicus relativity factor.
The "so-called" ether is the reminant energy of the Big Bang.
The total Energy produced by the Big Bang has regulated this so-called
"free space" which has set a specific value to Maxwell's Permittivity
constant.
Maxwell's Permittivity constant = Kepler's Gravitational constant =
Time factor
Permittivity is also know as a Permittivity factor.
A Permittivity factor is a Time factor
Therefore unfortunate as it may seem Time dilation is pure Science
Fiction for in truth since Maxwell's permitttivity is constant than as
well time is constant and both being one and the same regulate light's
maximum velocity and NOT Vice-versa (No time dilation).
In fact knowing Maxwell's permittivity and Kepler's Constant not only
can we know a planet's orbit but as well these same constants can be
used to DETERMINE the total Energy produced by the Big Bang, and the
total dimension(extremity's of Space. Perhaps even it's spatial
location and the rate at which Big Bang's Energy is being converted to
Mass.
Old Physics
>
> If contraction and time (mass) dilation were real, as Lorentz
> believed, than the side of the earth moving away from the center of
> the BB would be time dilated by about 90 nanoseconds over a six hour
> period relative to the other side. If six nanoseconds over a 36 hr
> period could be resolved the airliner experiment would be a suitable
> test of SR versus LET.
> 2000 mph is about three millionths the SoL, square this and take
> half to get 4.5 (4.76) parts per trillion, which represents the width
> of a hair relative to 6000 miles or half a gram relative to an
> aircraft carrier.
> If these changes could be measured and shown to be null it would
> disprove a prefered aether frame.
>
> What would happen if a marble of neutrons with a mass of 3 billion
> tons were traveling at a velocity where the neutrons neared the plank
> length, giving the marble a relitivistic mass equal to the sun.
> From the marble's FoR the sun would have a mass 10^36 times
> greater and the marble should move toward the sun by that proportion
> as it passes. From the sun's FoR it would move equaly toward the
> marble. How would you resolve this paradox?
>
> With highest regards,
> stephen kearney
You are one of the giants of this NG, Tom, can you help me with this one? sk
Bill Hobba
> Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET. In
the
> end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power, and
> heuristic value.
>
True. However another point that is often overlooked is the power of LET to
allow it adherents to confirm to a pre conceived view of nature. If you
believe velocities are additive and the Galelaien transformations hold a
priori LET allows you to believe that nature, at its heart, still works that
way. It is a physiological crutch rather than anything real. The same is
true for the rationalists. If you choose to literally believe exactly what
the bible says then God creating the world that way allows them to still
save their beliefs.
That is what I believe the adherents of aether theories true agenda is -
they want a world that conforms to their preconceived ideas. To be fair
however I must stress as always the only gold coin of science is experiment,
so they can still lay claim to scientific truth; but truth of a kind that
flies in the face of other accepted criteria we usually apply to scientific
theories.
Thanks
Bill
Bruce Richmond
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Phil Glasgow wrote:
[snip]
> > > I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> > > desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
> > > invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING
> Lorentz
> > > ether.
> >
> > Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
> > desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> > isotropically c.
>
> This is not a derivable theorem in LET, at least, in my experience.
> Asynchrony is a derivable theorem, and ultimately leads to LT's in LET, that
> is, if the synchronization method Einstein's method. I think the
> foundations of this theorem are in conflict with slow transport
> desynchronization, and have publicly requested for a mathematical
> derivation of slow clock transport desynchronization from first principles
> of Lorentz' ether. Until I am able to relate them mathematically, I will
> always _suspect_ the concept "ad-hoc" AND inconsistent with the foundations
> of Lorentz' ether.
Take a simple light clock, a tube with a mirror at each end. Position
the tube so that a photon follows a vertical path between the mirrors.
When the clock is moved with respect to the aether the photon travels
in a zig zag path, taking longer to travel between the mirrors.
Let's say the clock is on a moving train car and you reposition it
from the back of the car to the front of the car. While it is being
moved forward the zig zags are elongated, slowing the clock down from
what it would read if left at the back of the car. When it is set
down at the front of the train it will resume the same frequency it
had before, but it will be out of sync.
When moved back to its starting position, the photon's path becomes
more vertical than when it is moving at the train's speed. That
causes the path to be shorter, so the clock runs fast, regaining most
of the time it lost in the move forward. The slight discrepancy when
the clock is returned to its starting position is in perfect agreement
with SR (the traveling twin).
Given the above I think you're smart enough to figure out the math on
your own.
Bill Hobba
> > Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET.
>
greywolf42 replied:
> Sure it can. So long as you use "real" clocks and don't constantly reset
> them to eliminate the evidence.
>
I have no idea what your talking about here. Maybe the one way light speed
problem. Yes that is a genuine issue. But please usnderstand SR does not
depend on that. SR depends on one axiom only - the POR. This axion alone
implies the existance of a velocity that is the same in all inertial
reference frames. There are many more ways of showing this speed is the
speed of light than the measurment of one way light speed. Unless you can
show they ALL have problems then you must accept experimental fact - to a
very high degree of accuracy the speed of light is the same im all inertial
reference frames.
Minor Crank correctly wrote:
> > In the end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power,
and
> > heuristic value.
greywolf42 replied:
> Wrong again. Mathematical elegance is pure aethetics. Go count angels on
> pinheads. That's also "elegant."
No it is you who are incorrect. All the evidence we have shows that when a
physical theory is viewed correctly it shows striking mathematical elegance.
It is almost like a law of nature. SR depends on one main axiom only - the
POR. I challenge you to detail one physical theory that can't be expressed
in a mathematical way whose elegance is not striking. I am not asking you
to show me ugly theories that conform to experiment; I am asking you to show
me an ugly theory that can't be expressed in an elegant way.
All I can think of is the standard model which has elements of dazzling
beauty (which is what motivates me to study it) and elements of ugliness (eg
the number of constants it requires is quite large). Physicists strongly
suspect there is a deeper more elegant theory lurking about. All the
evidence we have of theories that work points to it.
As an example consider classical mechanics. As usually expressed through
Newton's laws the reason momentum and energy is conserved is a mystery.
However rewrite it in Langrangian form and the answer is it has to do with
symmetry properties. That is what I mean by a more elegant theory and that
is what I believe physics is the quest for - what is the most elegant way of
expressing the laws of nature. All the evidence we have is it is possible
to express physical laws in elegant mathematical language.
Thanks
Bill
Tom Roberts
> If we are going to predict the outcome of
> experiments by the application of any law of physics, both theories predict
> the same and the law will be universal, independent of frame of reference.
> Light speed is coordinate invariant, independent of frame of reference.
For inertial coordinates in situations within the domain of
applicability of SR and LET, yes.
> But
> for BOTH theories' to do that, the time in their laboratories _must_ be
> constructed differently.
Not true. The time in the laboratory is INDISTINGUISHABLE BY EXPERIMENT
for these two theories.
> The experiment I proposed does not test for
> consistency with the principle of relativity, such tests are undoubtedly
> indistinguishable,
These two theories are indistinguishable by ANY experiment whatsoever.
Because they are in a very real sense THE SAME THEORY -- they differ
only in their initial sets of postulates and an unobservable
characteristic (the label "ether frame" on some unknown frame in LET).
The postulates of one are theorems in the other, and vice-versa. Yes,
this is an equivalence relation. A very strong one.
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
>>desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
>>isotropically c.
> This is not a derivable theorem in LET, at least, in my experience.
Then you need more experience. The phrase "desynchronize" was yours, not
mine. But LET indisputibly predicts that the speed of light will be
measured to be isotropically c in any inertial frame.
> Asynchrony is a derivable theorem, and ultimately leads to LT's in LET,
In the "local coordinates" of LET it is true that the local coordinate
t' is not synchronous with the ether frame coordinate t. And seen from
the ether frame the clocks in a moving frame will not be synchronized
either with each other or with clocks at rest in the ether frame. But
when one measures the one-way speed of light one uses a pair of clocks
at rest in the moving frame, and a set of rulers at rest in the moving
frame, and the clocks are synchronzied in the moving frame[#]; all these
conspire in LET to make the meaurement obtain the value c.
[#] Equivalently, each (moving) clock displays the moving time
coordinate t'.
> that
> is, if the synchronization method Einstein's method.
One can use slow clock transport also to obtain the same result, c. In
the limit slow->0.
> I think the
> foundations of this theorem are in conflict with slow transport
> desynchronization, and have publicly requested for a mathematical
> derivation of slow clock transport desynchronization from first principles
> of Lorentz' ether.
You are wrong. The derivation of slow clock transport in LET is
identical to the derivation in SR. This is so becuase both LET and SR
use a Lorentz transform from the ether frame to the moving frame (any
moving frame, including ones moving slowly wrt the original "moving frame")
In SR one can use a LT between any pair of inertial frames
due to Einstein's first postulate; in LET one can also, but
that is a conclusion not a postulate. The LET postulate used
a LT from the ether frame to the moving frame only. But
because the Lorentz transforms form a group, one can also
use a LT between two moving frames.
> The LT's need not be a first principle of a theory using the ether of
> Lorentz'.
But the LT _IS_ a postulate of Lorentz' 1904 paper, which is the basis
for the theory now known as LET around here. greywolf42 to the contrary,
Lorentz did indeed ASSUME the Lorentz transform in that paper, and it is
the basis for LET.
> the LT's are truly theorems and not
> postulates of the ether of Lorentz, irregardless whether Lorentz
> ("postulated") LT's or not.
Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper. He _ASSUMED_ the Lorentz transform (he
pulled it out of thin air, with no justification at all), and that
essentially makes it a postulate of LET. Note that this is a physical
theory, and the theory consists of the theorems derivable from its
postulates, not the verbal embroidery surrounding them. This is ALWAYS
so, because the essence of a physical theory is that it is testable, and
to test the theory one uses its theorems, not its verbiage.
>>You got it backwards. LET _PREDICTS_ that for clocks synchronized by
>>slow clock transport the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
>>isotropically c in any inertial frame.
> I would like to know what you mean by _PREDICTS_.
The usual meaning in physics: when one specifies a physical measurement
the theory makes a prediction of the result, and that prediction is
obtained by applying the theorems of the theory to the specific physical
situation of the measurement. Note that words are not used in such a
test, only theorems are.
> Do you mean that it is
> ASSUMED that clocks synchronized by slow clock consistent are consistent
> with Einstein's method. OR that it is a theorem of LET because you
> understand Lorentz to have postulated LT's?
None of the above. In specifying the physical measurement, one must
specify how the experimenters synchronize their clocks. One must apply
the theorems of LET to that as well as to the mesurement itself. For any
reasonable synchronizaion method, what I said holds. Or for round-trip
measurements, for which no synchronization is required.
> I am proposing a test of laboratory coordinate simultaneity. The two
> theories _PREDICT_ different outcomes.
Wrong. See above for why this cannot be true.
>>While simultaneity in moving frames is different from that in the ether
>>frame, in LET it is IMPOSSIBLE to "test for it".
> I _know_ this to be false.
You are wrong. See above.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
>> If contraction and time (mass) dilation were real, as Lorentz
>>believed, than the side of the earth moving away from the center of
>>the BB would be time dilated by about 90 nanoseconds over a six hour
>>period relative to the other side. If six nanoseconds over a 36 hr
>>period could be resolved the airliner experiment would be a suitable
>>test of SR versus LET.
This is one of those cases where the effect is unobservable because no
matter how you attempt to observe it the apparatus you use will be
affected in EXACTLY the same way, and will cancel the effect you attempt
to measure.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Minor Crank
> Minor Crank wrote:
> > Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET. In
> the
> > end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power, and
> > heuristic value.
> >
>
> True. However another point that is often overlooked is the power of LET
to
> allow it adherents to confirm to a pre conceived view of nature. If you
> believe velocities are additive and the Galelaien transformations hold a
> priori LET allows you to believe that nature, at its heart, still works
that
> way. It is a physiological crutch rather than anything real. The same is
> true for the rationalists. If you choose to literally believe exactly
what
> the bible says then God creating the world that way allows them to still
> save their beliefs.
This post is a keeper. I never thought of LET that way!
Minor Crank
Phil Glasgow
>
> That is what I believe the adherents of aether theories true agenda is -
> they want a world that conforms to their preconceived ideas.
I think that is what nearly every etherist AND SRian wants. Even the
insistence that LET and SR are indistinguishible, is a pre-conceived idea.
The whole essence of this statement and the one preceding is that neither
poster really cares about experiments and empirical findings. They have
turned that which I intended to be a discussion of the _experiment_ only,
into a polemic. Greywolf has done the same for the etherists.
>To be fair
> however I must stress as always the only gold coin of science is
experiment,
> so they can still lay claim to scientific truth; but truth of a kind that
> flies in the face of other accepted criteria we usually apply to
scientific
> theories.
In science, one must really conceive truth in two types. Empirical truth
which assigns the values(truth) of the places and times of objects in the
coordinate systems we have created. Even this knowledge is subject to _our_
definitions and to _our_ constructions of space and time. Empirical
knowledge must be viewed as truth only in the context of the subjectivity of
our definitions, AND space and time constructions.
The other truth, is theoretical truth, where the _how_ of the relationships
of empirical truths are described. Again, consistency of theories with
empirical truth is only a confirmation of compatibility with our laboratory
constructions and definitions.
The question of which theory is consistent with the laboratory construction
of space and time can be answered. If only anyone really cared about
experience and experiment we could answer the question. But I sense that
the _holding on_ to pre-conceived notions is all that really matters to
anyone who posted in this thread aside from myself. That is truly what
religion is. It is no coincidence that _lig_ is the base of the word. Just
as LIGaments hold together our bones, reLIGion holds together our beliefs.
So I have inspired in no one present in this thread a desire to experiment,
rather, I have observed a knee-jerk reaction which intends to diminuate
experiment and experience and perpertate pre-conceived notions in a polemic
environment.
Why am I different? I am willing to accept the outcome of the experiment.
Phil.
Phil Glasgow
> > But
> > for BOTH theories' to do that, the time in their laboratories _must_ be
> > constructed differently.
>
> Not true. The time in the laboratory is INDISTINGUISHABLE BY EXPERIMENT
> for these two theories.
This is FALSE. The physical situation which is described in the experiment
of my original post seeks the coordinates of events which are SIMULTANEOUS
in the underlying time of Lorentz Ether. AS SUCH, if the experiment is
conducted in ANY FRAME which is moving wrt to the ether rest frame, the
coordinates MUST DISAGREE WITH THE COORDINATE SIMULTANEITY OF THE ETHER REST
FRAME.
This same physical situation, in the context of SR, must be distinguishable
from coordinate systems of LET because the experiment must yield identical
time coordinates for the events specified without regard to the frame of
reference in which the experiment is conducted.
What Tom is failing to comprehend is that in LET, as practice (method), one
assumes that every inertial frame is at rest in the ether. One literally
assumes that events which have the same time coordinate value are
simultaneous. This practice, violates the foundations of LET, BUT is
necessary in order to develop an invariant model.
The experiment tests a physical situation wherein the events bounding the
interval _MUST_ be simulataneous in the ether rest frame. As such, Lorentz
transformations require differing coordinate time values for these events
for any frame moving inertially wrt the ether rest frame.
Phil
greywolf42
Peter K. <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f35df4b.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message >
Peter, please refrain from savaging the post in such a cavalier manner.
This implies that the carated statement is mine. It isn't. Please link to
the post(er) that made the statement.
{snip}
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:2ulIa.59459$1u5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
news:vf17tfr...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > Phil Glasgow wrote:
> >
> > A classic example of duelling relativist straw men!
> >
> > > > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
> > without
> > > > ether".
> > >
> > > This is, of course, false.
> >
> > The quote may certainly be false -- but I don't know any aetherists that
> > would make such a statement.
> Of course. Etherists like Mingst and Stowe seem to prefer
> quoting statements not understood by themselves, from a
> book, containing more "typos" than sentences, written by a
> dead man who wrote about, but never really understood the
> work of another dead man.
> See also
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>
The Bilge school of continuing education. Snip the physics and argument
(without notice) and post an insult. And don't just insult one poster,
insult two or three, or a whole category!
greywolf42
> Minor Crank correctly wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, experiment by itself can't decide between SR and LET.
>
> greywolf42 replied:
> > Sure it can. So long as you use "real" clocks and don't constantly
> > reset them to eliminate the evidence.
>
> I have no idea what your talking about here. Maybe the one way light
speed
> problem. Yes that is a genuine issue.
It is THE issue under discussion. CAN experiment decide between SR and
Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory? The answer is CLEARLY, "yes." So long as
one doesn't invoke Einstein's "synchronization" requirement.
> But please usnderstand SR does not
> depend on that. SR depends on one axiom only - the POR. This axion alone
> implies the existance of a velocity that is the same in all inertial
> reference frames.
It doesn't "imply" it, it ASSUMES it.
> There are many more ways of showing this speed is the
> speed of light than the measurment of one way light speed. Unless you can
> show they ALL have problems then you must accept experimental fact - to a
> very high degree of accuracy the speed of light is the same in all
inertial
> reference frames.
LOL! I hate to bust your bubble, but ONE repeatable experiment that
contradicts a theory will disprove that theory.
> Minor Crank correctly wrote:
> > > In the end, it boils down to mathematical elegance, explanatory power,
> and
> > > heuristic value.
>
> greywolf42 replied:
> > Wrong again. Mathematical elegance is pure aethetics. Go count angels
on
> > pinheads. That's also "elegant."
>
> No it is you who are incorrect. All the evidence we have shows that when
a
> physical theory is viewed correctly it shows striking mathematical
elegance.
Which is irrelevant. Because "elegance" is a personal value system.
> It is almost like a law of nature. SR depends on one main axiom only -
the
> POR. I challenge you to detail one physical theory that can't be
expressed
> in a mathematical way whose elegance is not striking.
Predicting the weather. 'Rotsa ruck, charlie.
> I am not asking you
> to show me ugly theories that conform to experiment; I am asking you to
show
> me an ugly theory that can't be expressed in an elegant way.
That's the same as counting angels on pinheads. Sure, you can -- if you
make enough simplifying assumptions and abandon the real world. Try
calculating the NNPA of Mercury. GR may be "elegant", but the real universe
is a messy place.
> All I can think of is the standard model which has elements of dazzling
> beauty (which is what motivates me to study it) and elements of ugliness
(eg
> the number of constants it requires is quite large). Physicists strongly
> suspect there is a deeper more elegant theory lurking about. All the
> evidence we have of theories that work points to it.
LOL! Your "evidence" is simply religion. You want it, so it must be so.
> As an example consider classical mechanics. As usually expressed through
> Newton's laws the reason momentum and energy is conserved is a mystery.
Only to positivists, like yourself.
> However rewrite it in Langrangian form and the answer is it has to do with
> symmetry properties. That is what I mean by a more elegant theory
But Newton's relations are the ones that operate in the "real", observable
world. The Lagrangian is a recasting of the same information into an
unobservable frame. You still have to reconvert the results into
observables to use a Lagrangian.
> and that
> is what I believe physics is the quest for - what is the most elegant way
of
> expressing the laws of nature.
But there are NO "laws of nature" in the scientific method. Again, your
quest for the perfect mathematical equation is simply religion.
> All the evidence we have is it is possible
> to express physical laws in elegant mathematical language.
But only if you ignore the observable, contrary evidence. Your approach has
brought us such bastardized "elegance" as magical dark matter, magical dark
energy, quarks breeding like rabbits, "bump hunting" and the specific
abandonment of repeatable experimentation.
Old Physics
Dr. Roberts,
You, Bilge, Dirk, Tadchem and Dr. Carlip are among the giants of
this NG. Thank you for your response.
Originally matter was thought to be a denser form of ether. I use
the term "aether" to describe matter, made of energy, as a lower
density in an aether that would have to equal the unification density
of the unit electric charge and gravity, about 10^51 gm/cc. Imagine
the mass of a galaxy in a grain of dirt (your welcome to take this
with a grain of salt) and you get the idea.
Lorentz postulated that matter really does contract and time
dilate, by the Lorentz transforms, in accordance with its absolute
velocity through the aether. It follows that time and mass [the
equasion is the same, 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2] will dilate with absolute
velocity away from the center of the BrB.
In an action reaction where the cannonball is fired with two units
of energy toward the Big re Birth (11h 40m 36s rt asn), the cannon
ball will lose one unit of absolute energy mass and the cannon will
gain three.
If two atomic clocks are accelerated fast toward and away from
this direction, and returned to their origin by slow transport, the
clock fired toward the BrB will lose one unit (undilate) of time for
every three that the opposite clock gains.
When I was in grade school I always slipped back into this mode.
I wanted to belive that if you put the energy mass of the sun into a
marble that energy would not relativistically disappear but would
become the true energy mass of the marble.
Given the unification density, the upper mass the marble could
have would be about 10000 times the mass of the sun. Over a distance
of 100 billion LYs it would trail a quantum by a few inches.
In the Lorentz Aether Theory all motion is absolute. If the
source of the CMBR is cosmic dust then the faster it goes the more
time dilated it becomes. Thus faster dust will radiate at a lower
frequency. This could explain the poles of the CMB, warm toward Leo
Virgo and cooler toward Aquarius Pices, our direction of travel.
Given the red shift of the most distant galaxies in the Leo
direction, we have to be moving at close to 85% the SoL. Velocity
added to this direction will contract and time mass dilate matter.
Motion toward leo will reduce absolute velocity.
Your LET is not my LAT.
With respect,
stephen kearney
Patrick Reany
> As I write this, I write from a richer perspective than when I first arrived
> to sci.physice.relativity. In the beginning, I held SR in almost total
> disregard,
Later on you admit that you did not even know the notion of SR
spacetime very well at the time you were holding SR in almost total
disregard, as you put it. Why is it that you felt compelled to argue
so strongly against a theory (SR) that you knew that you didn't even
know? It's really the psychological point of view here I am intersted
in. Why were you not predisposed to at least give relativists a chance
before "debunking" their views?
> and in the process I said a lot of things which I would like to
> take back, but alas, the record of my wrong thinking is there for anyone
> with the desire to research. In any event, though I insulted some
> well-meaning people, they always seemed to give me a second chance to _get
> it_ The relativity experts really have been more than patient with the
> etherists on this group and even now, though still tenuously clinging to
> Lorentz ether, I feel a genuine gratitude, to Tom, Dirk, Bilge, Stephen, and
> others for teaching me the fundamentals of space-time.
What is so appealing to you of a luminiferous ether, anyway?
> The enlightenment of
> knowing what it is and what it means for space, time, and coordinate systems
> leaves me overwhelmingly sympathetic with the SRians as they, day by day,
> endure a barrage of _attacks_, all of which are inconsistent with SR's
> logical system.
>
> The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR without
> ether".
Einstein thought to the contrary. He thought that if the Lorentz
covariance of physical laws (optics and electrodynamics) implies the
existence of a unique ether rest frame in which the Maxwell equations
are only really true in that frame, then that means that Nature had
imposed a restriction on the concept of inertiality that was not
present in classical mechanics.
See
http://ajnpx.com/html/Einstein's-development-of-special-relativity.html
> I also, am guilty of saying this. In truth, "You can't have SR and
> ether in the same world" They have completed different constructions of
> space and time. These different underlying or fundamental constructions in
> turn _require_ laboratory constructions of space and time to be
> fundamentally different, indeed, different enough that one can predict the
> outcomes of experiments which would differentiate the two theories. Yes,
> our the constructions of time and space in the laboratory can tell us
> whether the real world is inconsistent with Lorentz' ether or Minkowski
> space-time. We just need to do an experiment.
>
> Perhaps, another experiment wouldn't be necessary if us etherists would be
> reasonable. I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light speed
> invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING Lorentz
> ether. To me, it is just an adhoc postulate, which is, in my opinion,
> inconsistent with the first principles of LET. To me, invariance of one way
> tests of light speed utilizing clocks synchronized by slow transport fully
> support Minkowski 4-space but are inconsistent with the first principles of
> LET. But I sit here really not knowing to what degree one-way invariance is
> supported by tests using this synchronization method. Now, I have been
> trying. I went to the FAQ to seek papers on the subject, only to find, that
> I would first need to join the APS and then suscribe to all of their
> periodicals if I was to have easy access. The little town I live in doesn't
> have these periodicals at the public library, so I'll have to find time to
> make the drive to the city, or, fork out about hundred dollars per paper I
> have keen interest in reading. (Suggestion: why doesn't the faq discuss
> each experiment in more detail, the mathematical derivations of the
> predictions, etc.)
>
> In any event, lets suppose (tounge in cheek), that the etherists are correct
> about slow clock transport. Does that make SR and LET indistinguishable?
> The answer to this question is an emphatic NO! The postulate of slow clock
> transport desynchronization still requires the laboratory constructions of
> space and time to be fundamentally different, particularly, in the synchrony
> of spatially separated clocks. So we could empirically find laboratory
> constructions of time inconsistent with Lorentz' ether simply by determining
> whether spatially separated clocks resting in one's inertial frame are
> indeed in synchrony.
>
> I first proposed this experiment to my brother, and he didn't like the
> notion of empirically testing theoretical foundations. Predictions, the
> consequent theorems of founding assumptions, are appropriate, in his mind,
> for empirical tests. But then, if one can conceive an experiement, what
> prevents one from performing it? Why can't one perform an experiment if the
> outcome can clearly and unambiguously be predicted? If it can be
> unambiguously predicted, then in my mind, lest we die of curiosity itself,
> the experiment should and must be conducted.
>
> Minkowski 4-space is a wonderful geometry. It did take me some time to get
> the hang of it, but now I see it for what it really is to SR. First, it is
> an object where inertial coordinate systems are dimensionally equivalent to
> the underlying construction of space and time. This is mouth-full but it is
> so very important. We know this, for one thing, because intervals are
> invariant under rotations. But this equivalence is necessary for the second
> postulate to hold true fundamentally. So in Minkowski 4-space, light speed
> truly is invariant and isotropic completely independent of your choice of
> inertial coordinate system. OWLS=TWLS=constant. Its fundamentally true and
> it is consistent with the construction of space and time. Furthermore,
> given the synchronization procedure, no inertial system's construction of
> simultaneity (synchrony) is invalid or has priority over another's. In
> essence, in Minkowski 4-space, an infinity of inertial coordinates systems
> wherein their respective grid of clocks have been synchronized, find their
> synchronized clocks in true synchrony.
>
> Such is not the case in Lorentz ether. Underlying inertial coordinate
> systems, is a construction of absolute space and absolute time wholly
> inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space. And every system in inertial motion
> wrt the ether rest frame, is without doubt, constructing simultaneity in his
> lab inconsistent with the underlying simultaneity. Its now time to test
> for it.
>
> We begin by establishing a spatial interval in our inertial lab.
>
> C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
>
> At each endpoint of this interval let us place clocks.
>
> Now, lets construct a rod which is approximately the length of the spatial
> interval. Each end of the rod has a whisker which may contact a register on
> their respective nearest clock. Let's calibrate the whiskers until we are
> satisfied they are touching but after a very small displacement, neither is
> touching.
>
>
> C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
> : :
> ===========================
>
> Lets now synchronize the clocks according to Einstein's synchronization
> procedure.
>
> In Minkowski 4-space, at any time slice, the interval separating the clocks
> is equal to the length of rod, a space like interval. While no single point
> object can find itself at C1 and C2 simultaneously, the whiskers on the rod
> can and will find themselves simultaneously at C1 and C2 (conditional to one
> being at its respective clock). This is because, no matter what frame of
> reference the lab rests in, light speed is fundamentally invariant and its
> own simulataneity is perfectly valid in Minkowski 4-space.
>
> Now _slowly_ move the rod until the whiskers touch the registers of their
> respective clocks.
>
> C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
> : :
> =========================== <---
>
> If the synchronzation of C1 and C2 is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, one
> should expect to find that the laboratory time coordinates for the events at
> C1 and C2 are simultaneous. If one rotates the apparatus 180 degrees,
> resynchronizes the clocks, and reconducts the experiment, the same result
> will be evident, that is, if and only if, the underlying space and time is
> consistent with Minkowski 4-space.
>
> But for the sake of maybe, lets discuss, if only for a moment, what the
> results would be if the underlying time and space is consistent with the
> absolute space and time of Lorentz' ether. Imagine the words of this
> posting are at rest with respect to the ether rest frame and that the lab
> and its apparatus are moving inertially to the right. To be consistent with
> the Lorentzian ether, the event C2 must have a time coordinate which lags
> the time coordinate of C1. If one rotates the apparatus 180 degrees,
> resynchronizes the clocks, and reconducts the experiment, the _opposite_
> result would be evident, that is, if and only if, the underlying space and
> time is consistent with absolute time and absolute space.
>
> We spend alot of time here arguing why we like this or that theory. But why
> we like or dislike either is of little importance. Experience should drive
> our preference, which is _really_ empirically consistent with our laboratory
> constructions of space and time? We will never know which is consistent
> unless we do experiments. We should stop hiding behind this facade of
> equivalency and do the real science.
>
> Regards, Phil
But experience alone cannot determine our preference: it is also an
arbitrary choice. As Einstein put it:
In order to CONSTRUCT a theory, it is not enough to
have a clear conception of the goal. One must also have
a FORMAL POINT OF VIEW which will sufficiently
restrict the unlimited variety of possibilities.
[Found in: Ideas and Opinions, The fundaments of
theoretical physics, p. 328 (emphasis mine).]
Patrick
Old Physics
Thank you for your insights Phil,
The 180 test will only work if it is roughly parallel to our
direction of motion. The axis of the sun, the earth's precession
axis, the axis of the outer gas planets, the center of the galaxy,
signus B, the jets of Virgo A and the closest quasar 3C273, the gamma
jets of the crab pulsar and giminga are all on the same axial plane,
perpendicular to 11h 40m 36s rt asn.
Put several atomic clocks on a jet headed in this direction for
six hours, waint six hours and make the return trip in the same cosmic
direction, toward Leo Virgo. Have a flight take off 11h 58m later
folowing the same path and altitude. If the clocks are out of synch
by six nanoseconds over the 36 hr experiment you have an aether, an
absolute frame of reference which we are moving relative to, away from
the center of the BB.
The difference will be cumulative with additional flights.
You seem to be the only person in this NG who would accept the
outcome and the reasoning behind this ultimate test of the difference
between SR and Lorentz Aether Theory, LAT.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> There is no doubt about, the Lorentzian ether is _ugly_, lacks the
> fundamental symmetry of Minkowski space, and raises far more questions than
> it models the answers for. This may sound crazy, but I want to know which
> construction of space and time is really consistent with our laboratory
> constructions.
Both LET and SR are consistent with laboratory measurements. They have
the same mathematical formulation, make the same predictions and are
experimentally indistinguishable.
The way LET is constructed, the Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
Further, there is no basis for assuming LET applies to anything beyond
electrodynamics.
OTOH, the formulation of SR doesn't require the assumption of an ether.
Futher, it is a geometric model that applies to all of physics not just
electrodynamics. It is for these reasons SR is preferred.
In essence, assuming the existence of a Lorentzian ether is equivalent
to proposing a theory of friction that said it was the work of an
unobservable demon who opposes you in a very specific fashion. Since the
demon is unobservable, he can never be shown to not exist and such a
theory could never be shown wrong. The same observations apply to the
Lorentzian ether and LET.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think that is what nearly every etherist AND SRian wants. Even the
> insistence that LET and SR are indistinguishible, is a pre-conceived idea.
If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
between them?
> Why am I different? I am willing to accept the outcome of the experiment.
Why do you assume you are different? I am willing to accept the outcome
of valid experiments. But I see little point in the experiment you
propose since I do not see how any experiment can distinguish between to
theories that use precisely the same mathematics to make precisely the
same predictions.
Old Physics
Comments anyone? sk
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:bcttrp$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>for these two theories.
> This is FALSE. The physical situation which is described in the experiment
> of my original post seeks the coordinates of events which are SIMULTANEOUS
> in the underlying time of Lorentz Ether.
Think about how you must do that: First you must select some frame which
you CHOOSE to call "the Lorentz ether". Next you must arrange for clocks
AT REST IN THE LAB to be simultaneous IN THE LORENTZ ETHER FRAME. The
only way you can do that is to COMPUTE it using the Lorentz transform
from the ether frame to the lab frame. OK, now do _ANY_ measurement you
like with those clocks and compute LET's prediction -- SR will predict
EXACTLY the same result, because in SR the Lorentz transform holds also.
LET provides no "magic method" to synchronize clocks in the ether frame.
And for _ANY_ method you choose, SR will make identical predictions as LET.
Remember the indistinguishibility of LET and SR applies only to
MEASUREMENTS. But to perform any _REAL_ experiment you must make
measurements, and you must synchronize your clocks using measurements.
It's easy to concoct a GEDANKEN experiment that can distinguish them,
but it is impossible to construct a REAL experiment that can do so.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Phil Glasgow
> Phil Glasgow wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcttrp$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >>The time in the laboratory is INDISTINGUISHABLE BY EXPERIMENT
> >>for these two theories.
> > This is FALSE. The physical situation which is described in the
experiment
> > of my original post seeks the coordinates of events which are
SIMULTANEOUS
> > in the underlying time of Lorentz Ether.
>
> Think about how you must do that: First you must select some frame which
> you CHOOSE to call "the Lorentz ether".
No I don't. And the events described in the experiment don't have to have
identical time coordinates in a lab moving wrt the ether rest frame.
>Next you must arrange for clocks
> AT REST IN THE LAB to be simultaneous IN THE LORENTZ ETHER FRAME.
No I don't. The physical situation described involves events which are
simultaneous in the ether rest frame. By the construction of the space and
time of LET they are. A simple theorem proves this.
>The
> only way you can do that is to COMPUTE it using the Lorentz transform
> from the ether frame to the lab frame.
I don't have to find an ether rest frame. If there is an ether rest frame,
then there must be coordinate non-simultaneity in the lab for the events
described, if the lab moves wrt to the ether rest frame. Literally, the
asynchrony can be used to calculate the velocity of the lab. I don't have
to find the ether rest frame _first_, the ether rest frame will become
evident (I hate this word) after the experiment is conducted.
> Remember the indistinguishibility of LET and SR applies only to
> MEASUREMENTS. But to perform any _REAL_ experiment you must make
> measurements, and you must synchronize your clocks using measurements.
> It's easy to concoct a GEDANKEN experiment that can distinguish them,
> but it is impossible to construct a REAL experiment that can do so.
Again this is incorrect. In LET any frame with moves wrt to the ether rest
frame has spatially separated clocks whose synchrony is non-simultaneous.
So for any two events which are simultaneous in the ether rest frame
(simultaneous in the underlying time), the same events must be coordinate
non-simultaneous in any frame moving wrt the ether rest frame.
Here is what Tom is missing. In LET, it is assumed that any frame may
assume it is at rest in the ether. The practice is to give the practitioner
a sense of universality so that one may conceive the world to be governed by
laws which are independent of motion. This is the ugly part of LET. We
actually assume something which is incorrect regarding our laboratory
constructions of space and time. By theorem, our assumptions about resting
in the ether rest frame _cannot_ effect the actual constructions of space
and time in our laboratory.
Regarding the experiment, the predictions differ _because_ the practitioner
of LET and the practioner of SR assume the same thing. They assume
Euclidean space and absolute time in their own rest frame (at least the
equivalent of this construction), However, the practioner of LET doesn't
have that construction in his lab, that is, IF the underlying space and time
is absolute time and absolute space. If on the other hand, the underlying
construction of space and time is Minkowski 4-space, then the practioner of
LET finds the assumption of rest in ether to be valid and the outcome also
consistent with SR. Ironically, this should make the practioner of LET
confess that the fundamental assumptions of his theory (construction of
space and time) are empirically invalid.
Phil
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Phil Glasgow wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:bcttrp$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>>The time in the laboratory is INDISTINGUISHABLE BY EXPERIMENT
>>>for these two theories.
>> This is FALSE. The physical situation which is described in the experiment
>> of my original post seeks the coordinates of events which are SIMULTANEOUS
>> in the underlying time of Lorentz Ether.
>
>Think about how you must do that: First you must select some frame which
>you CHOOSE to call "the Lorentz ether". Next you must arrange for clocks
>AT REST IN THE LAB to be simultaneous IN THE LORENTZ ETHER FRAME. The
>only way you can do that is to COMPUTE it using the Lorentz transform
>from the ether frame to the lab frame. OK, now do _ANY_ measurement you
>like with those clocks and compute LET's prediction -- SR will predict
>EXACTLY the same result, because in SR the Lorentz transform holds also.
>
> LET provides no "magic method" to synchronize clocks in the ether frame.
Sure it does, it's called the 'observed' CMBR = isotropic... Hell, even Will
uses it as 'a preferred frame'!
{Snippo...]
Paul Stowe
Old Physics
Mr. Rowe
If velocity were absolute through absolute space, then velocity
toward the center of the BB would result in a loss of true kenetic
energy. Time would undialate. A rocket fired in this direction (11h
40m 36s) with two units of energy would lose one unit to the gain of
three units in its exhaust gasses.
Fast motion in this direction, with a slow return would result in
a time gain. In the opposite direction a time loss. Such an
experiment could distinguish between SR and a Lorentz "Euclidean"
field.
Of course such a unified field would have to have a density equal
to a trillion galaxies in less than the volume of a basket ball.
stephen kearney
Old Physics
Any takers?
Phil Glasgow
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<IeyHa.51549$Io.48...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > and in the process I said a lot of things which I would like to
> > take back, but alas, the record of my wrong thinking is there for anyone
> > with the desire to research. In any event, though I insulted some
> > well-meaning people, they always seemed to give me a second chance to
_get
> > it_ The relativity experts really have been more than patient with the
> > etherists on this group and even now, though still tenuously clinging to
> > Lorentz ether, I feel a genuine gratitude, to Tom, Dirk, Bilge, Stephen,
and
> > others for teaching me the fundamentals of space-time.
>
> What is so appealing to you of a luminiferous ether, anyway?
Why don't you just say what you find so appealing about Minkowski 4-space?
Is this meant to make the point that, even though the constructions of
absolute space and time and Minkowski 4-space are empirically
differentiable, we should refuse to do experiments which may invalidate the
construction you find so appealing? I don't know what to make of this
question, so why don't you explain it to me.
BTW, I'm indifferent. I'm willing to accept the outcome of the experiment.
> > The enlightenment of
> > knowing what it is and what it means for space, time, and coordinate
systems
> > leaves me overwhelmingly sympathetic with the SRians as they, day by
day,
> > endure a barrage of _attacks_, all of which are inconsistent with SR's
> > logical system.
> >
> > The favored argument of etherists seems to be, "You can't have SR
without
> > ether".
>
> Einstein thought to the contrary.
Well, Einstein was correct. You can't have Minkowski 4-space and ether in
the same world.
> >
> > We spend alot of time here arguing why we like this or that theory. But
why
> > we like or dislike either is of little importance. Experience should
drive
> > our preference, which is _really_ empirically consistent with our
laboratory
> > constructions of space and time? We will never know which is consistent
> > unless we do experiments. We should stop hiding behind this facade of
> > equivalency and do the real science.
> >
> > Regards, Phil
>
> But experience alone cannot determine our preference: it is also an
> arbitrary choice.
If you had been reading my other responses, it would be clear to that I
would _not_ propose that SR could not be practiced should we find Minkowski
4-space inconsistent. The generalized concept of universal light speed and
universal laws of physics complemented with Minkowski 4-space has value on
its own merits. But one should practice SR, given inconsistency is
empirically discovered, with the knowledge some other construction of space
and time underlies the real world.
Science should never become a philosophy which endeavors to prefer, rather,
remain one that endeavors to discover. I think should be indifferent to
models, empirical consistency should be the sole criteria. I think it would
be a terrible mistake to let preference prevent us from gaining empirical
knowledge OR let preference cause us to ignore empirical knowledge, for to
do so is to incorporate into the practice of science a fundalmental
ingeniuity.
>As Einstein put it:
>
> In order to CONSTRUCT a theory, it is not enough to
> have a clear conception of the goal. One must also have
> a FORMAL POINT OF VIEW which will sufficiently
> restrict the unlimited variety of possibilities.
Considering what you think you know of Einstein, how, really, do you think
Einstein would respond to empirical findings inconsistent with the
predictions of SR? Do you really think he would defend SR on philosophical
grounds? A kind of "experiments don't matter" argument?
Phil
Phil Glasgow
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I think that is what nearly every etherist AND SRian wants. Even the
> > insistence that LET and SR are indistinguishible, is a pre-conceived
idea.
>
> If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
> and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
> between them?
Because their formulation is fundamentally different. They are consistent
with different foundations of space and time. The actual constructions of
laboratory time are not the same in both theories. Given Lorentz ether, the
experiment tests for the time coordinates of two events which must be
simultaneous in the ether rest frame. Unless the experiment is performed
while resting wrt the ether rest frame, there must be coordinate
non-simultaneity of the two events. There is a built in assymetry in
Lorentz' ether which does not exist in Minkowski 4-space.
In Minkowski 4-space, there is symmetry, any inertial frame will get the
same result. Coordinate simultaneity for the two events.
> > Why am I different? I am willing to accept the outcome of the
experiment.
>
> Why do you assume you are different? I am willing to accept the outcome
> of valid experiments. But I see little point in the experiment you
> propose since I do not see how any experiment can distinguish between to
> theories that use precisely the same mathematics to make precisely the
> same predictions.
There is a reason why they go about predicting the same in-spite of the
fundamentally different constructions of space and time. The practictioner
of LET assumes he rests wrt the ether rest frame. You may argue then, if
you are a sophist or one who knows nothing about Lorentz' ether, that he
must predict coordinate simultaneity consistent with rest wrt the ether rest
frame and the predictions of SR. But that is a nonsensical argument. The
practioner of LET _knows_ the events are coordinate non-simultaneous if he
is moving wrt the ether rest frame even if he assumes coordinate
simultaneity in practice. The laboratory is not subject to his assumptions,
rather, the lab is subject to the underlying space and time. In other
words, THE LAB IS GROUNDED IN REALITY WHILE HIS ASSUMPTION OF RESTING WRT
THE ETHER REST FRAME IS GROUNDED IN FANTASY.
Phil
Phil Glasgow
> In article <nP1Ia.53746$Io.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > There is no doubt about, the Lorentzian ether is _ugly_, lacks the
> > fundamental symmetry of Minkowski space, and raises far more questions
than
> > it models the answers for. This may sound crazy, but I want to know
which
> > construction of space and time is really consistent with our laboratory
> > constructions.
>
> Both LET and SR are consistent with laboratory measurements.
They are consistent with coordinate relationships which are consistent with
the universality of physical law. Coordinates relate to relatively moving
frames by the same function.
>They have
> the same mathematical formulation, make the same predictions and are
> experimentally indistinguishable.
They are indistinguishable in tests of physical law universality and in
tests of the universality of light speed. They are DISTINGUISHABLE in tests
of laboratory constructions of time.
> The way LET is constructed, the Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
Light speed variance is not observable by measuring time rate displacement
of light.
> Further, there is no basis for assuming LET applies to anything beyond
> electrodynamics.
What does this opinion have to do with the experiment I proposed?
> OTOH, the formulation of SR doesn't require the assumption of an ether.
Doesn't require? Heck, it is inconsistent with Lorentz ether. There is
symmetry in SR which is not present in an absolute space, absolute time
foundation.
> Futher, it is a geometric model that applies to all of physics not just
> electrodynamics. It is for these reasons SR is preferred.
Again, what does this have to do with testing for empirical consistency with
laboratory constructions of space and time?
> In essence, assuming the existence of a Lorentzian ether is equivalent
> to proposing a theory of friction that said it was the work of an
> unobservable demon who opposes you in a very specific fashion.
Don't make me laugh. Obviously you don't know much about Lorentz' ether.
I'm not asking anyone to _prefer_ it. I am proposing an experiment to
determine if our laboratory constructions of time are consistent with
Minkowski 4-space. What have you got to lose?
>Since the
> demon is unobservable, he can never be shown to not exist and such a
> theory could never be shown wrong. The same observations apply to the
> Lorentzian ether and LET.
Your lack of knowledge of Lorentz ether doesn't place you in a position to
tell me how time and space must be constructed in labs moving wrt the ether
rest frame. Your argument is meaningless and in every respect inconsistent
given the foundations of LET. Coordinate non-simultaneity would be an
observation that Minkowski 4-space is empirically inconsistent.
Phil
Patrick Reany
But you can. Just not a mechanical ether -- which was the reason the
luminiferous ether was invented in the first place -- to be consistent
with the modeling goals of the Mechanical Program.
Einstein has this to say:
H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation,"
later called after him, though without recognizing its group
character. To him Maxwell's equations in empty space held
only for a particular coordinate system distinguished from
all other coordinate systems by its state of rest. This was
a truly paradoxical situation because the theory seemed to
restrict the inertial system more strongly than did classical
mechanics. This circumstance, which from the empirical point
of view appeared completely unmotivated, was bounded to lead
to the theory of special relativity.
---- H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality, Ideas and
Opinions, p. 75.
For more, see
http://ajnpx.com/html/Einstein's-development-of-special-relativity.html
>
> > >
> > > We spend alot of time here arguing why we like this or that theory. But
> why
> > > we like or dislike either is of little importance. Experience should
> drive
> > > our preference, which is _really_ empirically consistent with our
> laboratory
> > > constructions of space and time? We will never know which is consistent
> > > unless we do experiments. We should stop hiding behind this facade of
> > > equivalency and do the real science.
> > >
> > > Regards, Phil
> >
> > But experience alone cannot determine our preference: it is also an
> > arbitrary choice.
>
> If you had been reading my other responses, it would be clear to that I
> would _not_ propose that SR could not be practiced should we find Minkowski
> 4-space inconsistent. The generalized concept of universal light speed and
> universal laws of physics complemented with Minkowski 4-space has value on
> its own merits. But one should practice SR, given inconsistency is
> empirically discovered, with the knowledge some other construction of space
> and time underlies the real world.
But the answer to that is that both SR and LET rise or fall together
experimentally. This was not the issue to Einstein, who despaired of
Lorentz's ether theory on the ground of it violating his sense of the
Pure Principle of Relativity. So, Einstein moved from the constructive
formal point of view to the principled point of view:
We can distinguish various kinds of theories
in physics. Most of them are constructive.
They attempt to build up a picture of the more
complex phenomena out of the materials of a
relatively simple formal scheme from which
they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and
diffusional processes to movements of molecules
-- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
molecular motion. When we say that we have
succeeded in understanding a group of natural
processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the
processes in question.
Along with this most important class of
theories there exists a second, which I will
call "principle-theories." These employ the
analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of
natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these
separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy. Thus
the science of thermodynamics seeks by
analytical means to deduce necessary conditions,
which separate events have to satisfy, from the
universally experienced fact that perpetual
motion is impossible.
The advantages of the constructive theory
are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
those of the principle theory are logical
perfection and security of the foundations.
The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
first of all to become acquainted with the
principles on which it is based. Before I go
into these, however, I must observe that the
theory of relativity resembles a building
consisting of two separate stories, the special
theory and the general theory. The special
theory, on which the general theory rests,
applies to all physical phenomena with the
exception of gravitation; the general theory
provides the law of gravitation and its relations
to the other forces of nature.
Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
Press, p. 228-9.
>
> Science should never become a philosophy which endeavors to prefer, rather,
> remain one that endeavors to discover. I think should be indifferent to
> models, empirical consistency should be the sole criteria. I think it would
> be a terrible mistake to let preference prevent us from gaining empirical
> knowledge OR let preference cause us to ignore empirical knowledge, for to
> do so is to incorporate into the practice of science a fundamental
> ingeniuity.
>
> >As Einstein put it:
> >
> > In order to CONSTRUCT a theory, it is not enough to
> > have a clear conception of the goal. One must also have
> > a FORMAL POINT OF VIEW which will sufficiently
> > restrict the unlimited variety of possibilities.
>
> Considering what you think you know of Einstein, how, really, do you think
> Einstein would respond to empirical findings inconsistent with the
> predictions of SR? Do you really think he would defend SR on philosophical
> grounds? A kind of "experiments don't matter" argument?
>
> Phil
I think that Einstein would say that the validation of a given theory
is in its conformance to experiment. This is not what I'm talking
about, however. I'm talking about that fact that one cannot
reverse-engineer deep reality from any set of empirical data. Einstein
said:
Physical concepts are free creations of the
human mind, and are not, however it may
seem, uniquely determined by the external
world.
--- The Evolution of Physics, Einstein
& Infeld, Touchstone, 1938, p31.
The purpose of any physical theory is to
explain as wide a range of phenomenon as
possible. It is justified in so far as it does
make events understandable.
--- The Evolution of Physics, Einstein
& Infeld, Touchstone, 1938, p40.
The first observation is that the principle of
general relativity imposes exceedingly strong
restrictions on the theoretical possibilities. Without
this restrictive principle it would be practically
impossible for anybody to hit upon the gravitational
equations, not even by using the principle of special
relativity, even though one knows that the field has
to be described by a symmetric tensor. No amount
of collection of data could lead to these equations
unless the principle of general relativity were used.
This is the reason why all attempts to obtain a
deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics
seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are
in accord with general relativity from the beginning.
The situation makes it difficult to use our empirical
knowledge, however comprehensive, in looking
for the fundamental concepts and relations of
physics, and it forces us to apply free speculation
to a much greater extent than is presently assumed
by most physicists. I do not see any reason to
assume that the heuristic significance of the principle
of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and
that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately
on the basis of special relativity, with the hope that
later on the whole may be fitted consistently into
the general relativistic scheme.
--- Found in: On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation,
A. Einstein Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press,
p. 352.
Patrick
Phil Glasgow
Many people here say Einstein envisioned an ether which complements
Minkowski 4-space. But it is most certainly not Lorentz' ether which is
inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space.
> Einstein has this to say:
>
> H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation,"
> later called after him, though without recognizing its group
> character.
Why didn't Lorentz recognize the group character? He doesn't envision space
and time to be Minkowski 4-space and most important, he does not envision
the coordinate constructions of relatively moving frames of reference to be
dimensionally equivalent. The group character is meaningless in his ether
construction of absolute space and absolute time.
>To him Maxwell's equations in empty space held
> only for a particular coordinate system distinguished from
> all other coordinate systems by its state of rest.
It really doesn't matter that Einstein said this. History tells us
otherwise. It was Lorentz, NOT EINSTEIN, who discovered that Maxwell's
equations are valid in any inertial coordinate system if coordinate systems
relate coordinate by Lorentz transformations. Lorentz understood the
universality of Maxwell's equations as coordinate universality, not a
fundamental reality as Einstein did.
>This was
> a truly paradoxical situation because the theory seemed to
> restrict the inertial system more strongly than did classical
> mechanics.
Indeed it may _seem_ paradoxical, but actually it is not. I think Tom
describes it as _ugly_. And indeed the practioner of LET is asked to
_assume_ laws are fundamentally fixed to a special frame and then practice
as though they are universal to every inertial frame. The practioner of LET
can do this only because coordinates relate by Lorentz transforms.
Still, it is you and others, both etherists and SRists, who are caught in
paradox. In your case, you take a half-truth and protract it to mean
something which is not true. You assert that because both systems relate
coordinates identically and because the laws of physics are universal with
either practice, they must be experimentally indistinguishable.
Here is where you are wrong. Laboratory constructions of space and time are
not physical laws. As such, they need not be and , in fact, are not
indistinguishable regarding LET and SR.
> > >
> > > But experience alone cannot determine our preference: it is also an
> > > arbitrary choice.
> >
> > If you had been reading my other responses, it would be clear to that I
> > would _not_ propose that SR could not be practiced should we find
Minkowski
> > 4-space inconsistent. The generalized concept of universal light speed
and
> > universal laws of physics complemented with Minkowski 4-space has value
on
> > its own merits. But one should practice SR, given inconsistency is
> > empirically discovered, with the knowledge some other construction of
space
> > and time underlies the real world.
>
> But the answer to that is that both SR and LET rise or fall together
> experimentally.
No one has performed a test which tests the laboratory construction of space
and time.
Here's what happens. They construct a laboratory coordinate system and
perform measurements on natural phenonema. This is not a measurement of the
laboratory's construction of space and time. It is the laboratory's
assignment of coordinate values for natural events.
>This was not the issue to Einstein, who despaired of
> Lorentz's ether theory on the ground of it violating his sense of the
> Pure Principle of Relativity.
Well you have said it all in a nutshell. Now why is Lorentz' ether not
_PURE_? What symmetries in its construction are lacking? When you figure
this out, you will undoubtedly agree that their laboratory coordinate
constructions are fundamentally differentiable.
> <<snipped>>
You spend alot of time quoting Einstein. None of these quotes is a response
to the proposed experiment about which this post is about. For you to argue
against the differential predictions I have claimed, AND it be a reasonable
argument, you must show the prediction for Lorentz' ether to be inconsistent
with the foundations of Lorentz ether.
Both etherists and SRists alike, seem to fear an experiment which would
distinguish between the two theories. They just want to philosophize about
the metaphysics. Why the fear? All I have received in return for my post
is inconsistent rationalization from both parties. I can tell you, that the
predictions I made are founded in theorems which are consistent in their
respective logical/mathematical systems.
BTW. I would like a response from you regarding the statement previously
posted below. I noticed some omissions I intended to be in this statement
which are in parethesis.
> > Science should never become a philosophy which endeavors to prefer,
rather,
> > remain one that endeavors to discover. I think (science) should be
indifferent to
> > models, empirical consistency should be the sole criteria. I think it
would
> > be a terrible mistake to let preference prevent us from gaining
empirical
> > knowledge OR let preference cause us to ignore empirical knowledge, for
to
> > do so is to incorporate into the practice of science a fundamental
> > (dis-)ingeniuity.
> > Considering what you think you know of Einstein, how, really, do you
think
> > Einstein would respond to empirical findings inconsistent with the
> > predictions of SR? Do you really think he would defend SR on
philosophical
> > grounds? A kind of "experiments don't matter" argument?
> >
> > Phil
>
> I think that Einstein would say that the validation of a given theory
> is in its conformance to experiment. This is not what I'm talking
> about, however. I'm talking about that fact that one cannot
> reverse-engineer deep reality from any set of empirical data.
I agree. Did you happen to read what I posted previously in this same
thread?
*****
In science, one must really conceive truth in two types. Empirical truth
which assigns the values(truth) of the places and times of objects in the
coordinate systems we have created. Even this knowledge is subject to _our_
definitions and to _our_ constructions of space and time. Empirical
knowledge must be viewed as truth only in the context of the subjectivity of
our definitions, AND space and time constructions.
The other truth, is theoretical truth, where the _how_ of the relationships
of empirical truths are described. Again, consistency of theories with
empirical truth is only a confirmation of compatibility with our laboratory
constructions and definitions.
******
I have never said that this experiment would prove the existence of Lorentz
ether. I said that coordinate non-simultaneity for the events measured in
the experiment would be qualitatively consistent with Lorentz ether and
quantitatively inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space and SR.
Phil
Tom Roberts
>>It is utterly impossible to distinguish LET from SR.
> Another repeat of the Roberts Catechism. Sorry, Tom, LET (Lorentz, 1904)
> still contains the equation
> t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2)
> that identifies the EM field "rest" -- which is different than SR.
Clearly you have not seriously studied Lorentz's 1904 paper [Lorentz,
"Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less
than that of Light", Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst., 6, 1904]:
1) in his paper \gamma stands for v/c (his eq. 34); what we call \gamma
today he calls \beta (his eq. 3, in slightly different notation).
2) The above equation does not appear in his paper -- c.f his eq. 5.
In fact, he never actually displays the "Lorentz transform", even
though this paper is the primary "claim to fame" for that name; he
does indeed USE it, however (it is a Galilean transform followed
by Lorentz's "further change of variables", his eq 3-5).
3) the equation you wrote above is, in our modern notation, one of the
equations known as the "Lorentz transform", and is a part of SR.
Your claim that equation is "different than SR" is false.
This is not any sort of "Roberts Catechism", it is a simple mathematical
truth that LET and SR share the same set of theorems, and therefore are
experimentally indistinguishable.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I suggest you learn how to read
and understand technical literature before attempting to discuss it.
> You
> claim they are the same because you also claim that LET must use Einstein's
> synchronization procedure (which eliminates the above equation from LET).
> Hence, you are requiring SR from the get-go.
Just as you have not understood Lorentz's paper, you have not understood
what I have said about the equivalence of SR and LET. There is NO
requirement whatsoever to use Einstein's synchronization procedure.
Clock synchronization is _CONVENTIONAL_, and you are free to select ANY
convention you like. Use ANY method of clock synchronization and then
make some measurements -- SR and LET will make identical predictions for
the results.
>>Because the ONLY
>>difference between them is in LET there is some (unknown) inertial frame
>>labelled "the ether frame",
> Here you are just wrong. See above. t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2) It can be found.
WHERE is it that "It can be found."??? Compare to Lorentz's equation 5.
>>and LET itself predicts that no measurement can identify
>>the ether frame.
> The above statement is completely in error. LET contains
> t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2).
WHERE?? And then please explain how that permits some MEASUREMENT to
determine the ether frame.
>>No. It is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transform, which is one of
>>the postulates ("first principles") of LET.
> LOL!!!! [...] The Lorentz transform is
> DERIVED in LET (Lorentz, 1904).
I repeat -- you have clearly not studied Lorentz's 1904 paper seriously.
There is no such "derivation" there, the "further change of variables"
is simply stated with no justification whatsoever, and the Lorentz
transform never appears directly in that paper -- how could he possibly
"derive" equations which never appear??
> [... no point in looking any further in his nonsensical post ...]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-611876....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> > If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
> > and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
> > between them?
> Because their formulation is fundamentally different. They are consistent
> with different foundations of space and time.
This and the rest I snipped doesn't answer the question. Two theories
which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict identical
measurements from any real experiment. Given that, there is no
experiment that can be done to distinguish between them. Note, this is
simply a statement about mathematics and is independent of any physical
interpretation of the mathematics.
> There is a reason why they go about predicting the same in-spite of the
> fundamentally different constructions of space and time.
So, you do seem to realize the two make the same predictions, i.e., they
are mathematically indistinguishable which means they are experimentally
indistinguishable.
Bill Rowe
skea...@earthlink.net (Old Physics) wrote:
> If velocity were absolute through absolute space,
Since velocity is not absolute nor is there any such thing as absolute
the rest of your post based on these assumptions (which I snipped) is
meaningless.
Phil Glasgow
> In article <go9Ja.7237$C83.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-611876....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
>
> > > If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
> > > and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
> > > between them?
>
> > Because their formulation is fundamentally different. They are
consistent
> > with different foundations of space and time.
>
> This and the rest I snipped doesn't answer the question. Two theories
> which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict identical
> measurements from any real experiment.
Not true. The mathematical formula means absolutely nothing outside the
context of the mathematics of the system. I simply can't say that because
two theories have the same formula, they are the same. The identical
formulas tell us nothing about the underlying space and time. The
underlying construction of space and time is not devoid of their respective
and different mathematical influence. In essence, you are a sophist and a
sophist only. Indeed there is no mathematics in your argument and you don't
know what you are talking about when you compare the two theories as
_EQUIVALENT_.
You know, Bill. You can't snip my original posts. But you wish you could,
don't you?
> > There is a reason why they go about predicting the same in-spite of the
> > fundamentally different constructions of space and time.
>
> So, you do seem to realize the two make the same predictions, i.e., they
> are mathematically indistinguishable which means they are experimentally
> indistinguishable.
They don't predict the same constructions of space and time in the
laboratory. You see, one is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, the other
with absolute space and time.
Phil
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-8B7204....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> > They have the same mathematical formulation, make the same
> > predictions and are experimentally indistinguishable.
> They are indistinguishable in tests of physical law universality and in
> tests of the universality of light speed. They are DISTINGUISHABLE in tests
> of laboratory constructions of time.
This simply cannot be true. The mathematics of each is identical. That
requires the predictions of each to be identical for any physical
situation. This cannot be any other way as long as the two theories have
identical mathematics. Anything else would imply a logical inconsistency
in the mathematics.
> > The way LET is constructed, the Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
> Light speed variance is not observable by measuring time rate displacement
> of light.
This is simply another way of stating what I stated, i.e., the
Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
> > Further, there is no basis for assuming LET applies to anything beyond
> > electrodynamics.
> What does this opinion have to do with the experiment I proposed?
Nothing. It should have been clear from the context that you snipped
this comment from it was part of the reasoning why SR is generally
preferred to LET. That is, this was not a direct comment about your
specific proposal.
> > In essence, assuming the existence of a Lorentzian ether is equivalent
> > to proposing a theory of friction that said it was the work of an
> > unobservable demon who opposes you in a very specific fashion.
> Don't make me laugh. Obviously you don't know much about Lorentz' ether.
> I'm not asking anyone to _prefer_ it. I am proposing an experiment to
> determine if our laboratory constructions of time are consistent with
> Minkowski 4-space. What have you got to lose?
Quite simply, it is a waste of time and resources. Again, the
mathematics of the two are identical. That means the predictions of each
(which are based on the mathematics of each) must also be identical. And
that means attempting any experiment that purports to distinguish
between them is a useless exercise.
Phil Glasgow
> In article <2I9Ja.7253$C83.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-8B7204....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
>
> > > They have the same mathematical formulation, make the same
> > > predictions and are experimentally indistinguishable.
>
> > They are indistinguishable in tests of physical law universality and in
> > tests of the universality of light speed. They are DISTINGUISHABLE in
tests
> > of laboratory constructions of time.
>
> This simply cannot be true.
It most certainly is true.
>The mathematics of each is identical.
This is false. Absolute time and space underlie LET, Minkowski 4-space
underlies SR.
You are literally claiming that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically
identical to Euclidean space and Absolute time. They aren't.
>That
> requires the predictions of each to be identical for any physical
> situation.
Again this is false.
>This cannot be any other way as long as the two theories have
> identical mathematics. Anything else would imply a logical inconsistency
> in the mathematics.
Again false. You fail to acknowledge, because you _lack_ the knowledge,
that practioners of LET practice something which is inconsistent with their
laboratory constructions of space and time. They assume they rest wrt the
ether rest frame.
> > > The way LET is constructed, the Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
>
> > Light speed variance is not observable by measuring time rate
displacement
> > of light.
>
> This is simply another way of stating what I stated, i.e., the
> Lorentzian ether is unobservable.
No its not. It a way of stating unambigously what is actually true of LET.
What you protract it to mean is your own wild-haired fantasy which is
inconsistent with Lorentz ether.
> > > Further, there is no basis for assuming LET applies to anything beyond
> > > electrodynamics.
>
> > What does this opinion have to do with the experiment I proposed?
>
> Nothing. It should have been clear from the context that you snipped
> this comment from it was part of the reasoning why SR is generally
> preferred to LET. That is, this was not a direct comment about your
> specific proposal.
So why does it matter? What difference does it make? Do you really think,
like Einstein, that God has something to do with it? I fully understand why
SR is preferred. I'm not discussing metaphysics and I don't care to. I
want to discuss the empirical differences (between LET and SR) in laboratory
constructions of time which this experiment is designed to detect.
> > > In essence, assuming the existence of a Lorentzian ether is equivalent
> > > to proposing a theory of friction that said it was the work of an
> > > unobservable demon who opposes you in a very specific fashion.
>
> > Don't make me laugh. Obviously you don't know much about Lorentz'
ether.
> > I'm not asking anyone to _prefer_ it. I am proposing an experiment to
> > determine if our laboratory constructions of time are consistent with
> > Minkowski 4-space. What have you got to lose?
>
> Quite simply, it is a waste of time and resources.
Because you don't understand it? What, _measuring_ the speed of light was a
waste of time and resources? Why not measure coordinate non-simultaneity?
To find it isn't present is to show LET inconsistent with its time and space
foundations.
>Again, the
> mathematics of the two are identical.
Again you are saying that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically identical to
absolute space and time.
>That means the predictions of each
> (which are based on the mathematics of each) must also be identical.
Again you are saying that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically identical to
absolute space and time.
>And
> that means attempting any experiment that purports to distinguish
> between them is a useless exercise.
Again you are saying that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically identical to
absolute space and time.
Obviously, you are incorrect.
Phil
Tom Roberts
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-A541B6....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>>In article <go9Ja.7237$C83.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:bjrowe-611876....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
>>>>If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
>>>>and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
>>>>between them?
>>which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict identical
>>measurements from any real experiment.
> Not true. The mathematical formula means absolutely nothing outside the
> context of the mathematics of the system.
Yes, sort of. But remember that what you call the "mathematical context"
of a physical theory is ALL THAT MATTERS when comparing the theory to an
experiment. To compare any physical theory to an experiment, one applies
the theorems of the theory to the physical situation of the experiment,
and computes what the theory predicts for the measurement.
> I simply can't say that because
> two theories have the same formula, they are the same.
Yes. Nobody claims that LET and SR are "the same theory" (whatever that
means (:-)). But for ANY prediction of a MEASUREMENT, and for comparison
to ANY experiment, LET and SR make the same prediction, and therefore
they are experimentally indistinguishable.
> The identical
> formulas tell us nothing about the underlying space and time.
True (at least sort of). But the formulas DO tell us what a theory will
predict for MEASUREMENTS.
When one makes a measurement of the speed of light in an inertial frame,
in SR one would say "of course the result is c, because that is so in
any inertial frame". In LET one would say "of course the result is c,
because the motion of the inertial frame causes the rulers and clocks to
behave differently (from when they are at rest in the ether frrame), but
these effects conspire together to make the result of the measurement be c."
> They don't predict the same constructions of space and time in the
> laboratory. You see, one is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, the other
> with absolute space and time.
Yes. But they make identical predictions for any MEASUREMENT.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Patrick Reany
Sorry, but I'm just trying to stay in the area of my greatest
competency. Maybe you need to talk to an experimentalist.
> For you to argue
> against the differential predictions I have claimed, AND it be a reasonable
> argument, you must show the prediction for Lorentz' ether to be inconsistent
> with the foundations of Lorentz ether.
>
> Both etherists and SRists alike, seem to fear an experiment which would
> distinguish between the two theories. They just want to philosophize about
> the metaphysics.
Actually, the metaphysics isn't very important to me.
[snip]
> *****
> In science, one must really conceive truth in two types. Empirical truth
> which assigns the values(truth) of the places and times of objects in the
> coordinate systems we have created.
I.e., facts of recorded events.
> Even this knowledge is subject to _our_
> definitions and to _our_ constructions of space and time. Empirical
> knowledge must be viewed as truth only in the context of the subjectivity of
> our definitions, AND space and time constructions.
I am generally unhappy with the use of the term "truth" in science.
>
> The other truth, is theoretical truth, where the _how_ of the relationships
> of empirical truths are described. Again, consistency of theories with
> empirical truth is only a confirmation of compatibility with our laboratory
> constructions and definitions.
Personally, I would not accept the concept of "theoretical truth."
> ******
>
> I have never said that this experiment would prove the existence of Lorentz
> ether. I said that coordinate non-simultaneity for the events measured in
> the experiment would be qualitatively consistent with Lorentz ether and
> quantitatively inconsistent with Minkowski 4-space and SR.
>
> Phil
Patrick
Old Physics
What if matter really does contract and time-mass dilate relative
to a stationary frame. If you could determine a direction of motion
away from a common center of the BB, then velocity added in this
direction would result in a "true" contraction, time dilation and
increase in mass. In an action reaction scenario with two units of
energy, matter accelerated toward the center would lose one unit to
its opposites gain of three.
The idea may be wrong but it is clear.
Old Physics
Aether: "The term is devoid of meaning". Do you agree with this
statement, Mr. Rowe. sk
Hayek
Minor Crank wrote:
> If we grant that aether theories exist that are mathematically and/or
> indistinguishable from SR, what drives the vast majority of modern
> physicists to prefer SR over aether theories is the mathematical elegance,
> explanatory power, and inherent heuristic value of the relativistic
> approach.
>
> But mathematical elegance is an aesthetic concept, and there -is- room for
> the nonconformist who, while understanding the basis for SR, nevertheless
> has a different sense of aesthetics and prefers thinking in terms of, say,
> LET.
I would not call it a nonconformist, I would call it a
physicist. Physics has degraded to be the supplier of
formulae to engineers. It is imo definitely the task of
the physicist to understand physics, and not just to
produce working mathematics for engineers.
This may be the physicists bread and butter, and I
noticed that it often restrains him from asking "What If".
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Phil Glasgow
> Phil Glasgow wrote:
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-A541B6....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> >>In article <go9Ja.7237$C83.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:bjrowe-611876....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> >>>>If two theories have exactly the same mathematical formulation (as SR
> >>>>and LET do) how is it possible to do *any* experiment to distinguish
> >>>>between them?
> >>This and the rest I snipped doesn't answer the question. Two theories
> >>which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict identical
> >>measurements from any real experiment.
> > Not true. The mathematical formula means absolutely nothing outside the
> > context of the mathematics of the system.
>
> Yes, sort of. But remember that what you call the "mathematical context"
> of a physical theory is ALL THAT MATTERS when comparing the theory to an
> experiment. To compare any physical theory to an experiment, one applies
> the theorems of the theory to the physical situation of the experiment,
> and computes what the theory predicts for the measurement.
Which is precisely what I have done.
First the test apparatus is assume to move wrt to the ether rest frame.
The apparatus consists of two objects, the object to which the clocks are
attached and the rod to which the whiskers are attached. The interval
between the two clocks and the interval of the rod are equal as the
instrument has been calibrated.
We may think of the objects of the instrument as co-moving wrt the ether
rest frame.
Time is of an absolute construction in the ether rest frame. So at any time
slice, the endpoints of the objects correspond to events which are
simultaneous in the rest frame of the ether (hence simultaneous in the
underlying time) and these events also bound the interval which corresponds
to the dimensional extension of the objects in absolute space. The ether
rest frame measures the events at C1 and C2 to be simultaneous. The events
C1 and C2 are events which correspond to unique physical situations, the
whiskers of the rod touch their respective clock registers.
Lorentz transformations may be used to transform the coordinate of the ether
rest frame to the frame of the lab. The events _will not_ be coordinate
simultaneous in the laboratory frame. Yes they are simultaneous in the
ether rest frame and yes they are simultaneous in the underlying absolute
time. BUT they are not coordinate simultaneous in the lab frame.
In SR, the events must be coordinate simultaneous in _ANY_ inertial frame
the lab rest in. This is a symmetry which exists only in Minkowski 4-space
where there is no underlying simultaneity, in essence, simultaneity is
purely frame dependent and each inertial system has perfectly valid
construction of simultaneity.
> > I simply can't say that because
> > two theories have the same formula, they are the same.
>
> Yes. Nobody claims that LET and SR are "the same theory" (whatever that
> means (:-)). But for ANY prediction of a MEASUREMENT, and for comparison
> to ANY experiment, LET and SR make the same prediction, and therefore
> they are experimentally indistinguishable.
I think you are the only relativist here with a sense of what the Lorentzian
ether is. I'm not saying you understand the Lorentzian ether fully but you
do have a sense of it. In the experiment, all we are doing is taking two
rods of equal length and laying them side by side. In the ether rest frame
the endpoints exist simultaneously even as the rods are moving wrt to this
frame. So when one endpoint is at t=0 then simultaneously the other
endpoint is precisely placed in absolute space by an absolute space interval
which corresponds to the length of the rods. Now we moved the rod with the
whiskers so that contact is not made and then very slowly move the rod so
that contact between the whiskers and their respective registers could be
initiated by a _UNIQUE_ event in space and time. If the objects are the
same length in the absolute space and absolute time of the ether rest frame,
then the events must be simultaneous in the ether rest frame. But these
events can not be coordinate simultaneous in the lab which moves wrt the
ether rest frame. Lorentz transformations make that painfully obvious.
But in SR there is no underlying sense of simultaneity. Synchronization
does not leave clocks coordinate non-simultaneous, rather, coordinate
simultaneous and in perfect synchronization. It is a symmetry which does
not exist in Lorentz' ether.
> > The identical
> > formulas tell us nothing about the underlying space and time.
>
> True (at least sort of). But the formulas DO tell us what a theory will
> predict for MEASUREMENTS.
In truth, LET is unable to predict the actual measurements of this
experiment. Only SR can do that. All LET can tell us is that
_qualitatively_ the actual measurements of the events will be coordinate
non-simultaneous if the lab is moving wrt the ether rest frame. This test
cannot distinguish between Lorentz ether and an infinity of directioniferous
ether theories. All this test can do is one of two things. It can show us
Lorentz' ether (and an infinity of ether theories) are empirically
inconsistent with laboratory constructions of space and time OR that
Minkowski 4-space is empirically inconsistent with laboratory constructions
of space and time. It will do one or the other. It simply can not support
both absolute space/time and Minkowski 4-space.
Furthermore, the events do transform by LT's as I previously stated. That
doesn't mean the coordinates themselves are consistent with both
constructions of space and time. This is not a test of a physical law, its
not a test of how coordinates relate amongst relatively moving coordinate
systems, it is a test of the laboratory construction of time.
> When one makes a measurement of the speed of light in an inertial frame,
> in SR one would say "of course the result is c, because that is so in
> any inertial frame". In LET one would say "of course the result is c,
> because the motion of the inertial frame causes the rulers and clocks to
> behave differently (from when they are at rest in the ether frrame), but
> these effects conspire together to make the result of the measurement be
c."
Yes, yes, yes. In LET laboratory constructions of space and time _ARE_
constructed with rulers which have differing dimensionality in absolute
space _AND_ clocks which have differing temporal dimensionality in absolute
time. This is what the experiment tests for.
So regarding your statement above, in the lab which moves with respect to
the ether rest frame, the spatially separated clocks of this frame are
coordinate non-simultaneous in the underlying time. This is the effect I am
proposing we test for.
> > They don't predict the same constructions of space and time in the
> > laboratory. You see, one is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, the
other
> > with absolute space and time.
>
> Yes. But they make identical predictions for any MEASUREMENT.
Re-read everything.
Phil Glasgow
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > For you to argue
> > against the differential predictions I have claimed, AND it be a
reasonable
> > argument, you must show the prediction for Lorentz' ether to be
inconsistent
> > with the foundations of Lorentz ether.
> >
> > Both etherists and SRists alike, seem to fear an experiment which would
> > distinguish between the two theories. They just want to philosophize
about
> > the metaphysics.
>
> Actually, the metaphysics isn't very important to me.
Nor to me. I have been brooding doubts about Lorentz' ether for about a
year now as a consequence to my disagreement with etherists regarding the
effects of slow clock transport. I have invested considerable effort in
developing a theory of gravity founded in Lorentz' ether. Relativists
(considering what they have said in this thread) may even call it an
_equivalent_ to GR. But I haven't been able to bring myself to develop
another theorem since my doubts about the Lorentzian ether cropped up. I
just want to know if Minkowski 4-space is _really_ empirically consistent
with laboratory constructions of space and time. If it is, then I can put
my work in the trash can and study GR. If not, then I can continue what I
have started, feeling like it may make a useful contribution.
> [snip]
> > *****
> > In science, one must really conceive truth in two types. Empirical
truth
> > which assigns the values(truth) of the places and times of objects in
the
> > coordinate systems we have created.
>
> I.e., facts of recorded events.
>
> > Even this knowledge is subject to _our_
> > definitions and to _our_ constructions of space and time. Empirical
> > knowledge must be viewed as truth only in the context of the
subjectivity of
> > our definitions, AND space and time constructions.
>
> I am generally unhappy with the use of the term "truth" in science.
So am I. So try to describe what the context of "truth" actually is in
science. It is logical only and should not be conceived as fundamental
truth.
> > The other truth, is theoretical truth, where the _how_ of the
relationships
> > of empirical truths are described. Again, consistency of theories with
> > empirical truth is only a confirmation of compatibility with our
laboratory
> > constructions and definitions.
>
> Personally, I would not accept the concept of "theoretical truth."
By theoretical truth, I mean only logical systems which are empircially
consistent with its corresponding construction of space and time. It has
nothing to do with fundamental truth.
Phil
Old Physics
> > truth that LET and SR share the same set of theorems, and therefore are
> > experimentally indistinguishable.
> >
>
>
> What if matter really does contract and time-mass dilate relative
> to a stationary frame. If you could determine a direction of motion
> away from a common center of the BB, then velocity added in this
> direction would result in a "true" contraction, time dilation and
> increase in mass. In an action reaction scenario with two units of
> energy, matter accelerated toward the center would lose one unit to
> The idea may be wrong but it is clear.
>
asn, with a slow return to the origin, would result in time
undialation in the moving clock relative to a stationary clock; the
opposite of what SR predicts.
Daniel Weston
9:00am you quoted Einstein. It was the one consisting of 4 paragraphs
beginning with the words, "We can distinguish--" and with the 4th
paragraph ending, "---forces of nature".
Einstein says, "Along with this most important class of theories [i.e.
constructive] there exists a second, which I will call
'principle-theories'. These employ the ANALYTIC, NOT THE SYNTHETIC,
method." (emphasis mine)
Then later Einstein is reported by you to have said, "Thus the science
of thermodynamics seeks by ANALYTICAL means to deduce necessary
conditions, which separate events have to satisfy----".
(emphasis mine) But Einstein had just previously identified
thermodynamics as a constructive theory.
It therefore _appears_ that Einstein has contradicted himself. He
states that the difference between constructive theories and principle
theories is that principle theories employ the analytic not the
synthetic; but later describes the constructive theory of thermodynamics
to arise from analytical thinking.
1) Did you copy Einstein correctly?
2) Since you represent yourself as having expertise in Einstein
quotations, what do you think Einstein meant by the words "analytical"
and "synthetic"? What was his implied definitions?
Old Physics
Dosn't anyone want to knock this one down?
xxein
xxein: I'll stab at it. "analytical" means to work from within a
theory. "constructive" is "ad theorem", to which a theory may be
applied.
Once you apply to existing theory, the "constructive" becomes
"analytic, principled".
The "synthetic" is the result of constructive theory not (yet)
accepted as a "proper/principled theory".
They are distinguisked only by a SYNTHETIC formalism of belief.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-B1D11E....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> >The mathematics of each is identical.
> This is false. Absolute time and space underlie LET, Minkowski 4-space
> underlies SR.
>
> You are literally claiming that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically
> identical to Euclidean space and Absolute time. They aren't.
Fine. Support your claim. Provide the mathematics for each for some
specific situation showing where the two differ. If you can show valid
mathematics resulting in *different* predictions from both LET and SR
then and only then you will provided a convincing reason to do an
experiment to disinguish between them .
I've snipped the rest since until you can show a mathematical difference
between the two the rest is pointless.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-A541B6....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> > This and the rest I snipped doesn't answer the question. Two theories
> > which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict identical
> > measurements from any real experiment.
> Not true. The mathematical formula means absolutely nothing outside the
> context of the mathematics of the system. I simply can't say that because
> two theories have the same formula, they are the same.
I didn't say the two theories were the same. I said identical
mathematical formulations lead to identical predictions for any physical
experiment. That means the two are indistinguishable either with
mathematics or any physical experiment. Again, this is not the same as
declaring the two theories are identical.
> They don't predict the same constructions of space and time in the
> laboratory. You see, one is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, the other
> with absolute space and time.
You keep asserting this. But it doesn't address the point I am making.
All you need do to show me wrong is either show the mathematical
formulation for LET differs from that of SR or that identical
mathematical formulations lead to different predictions for identical
physical situations. Again, this has nothing whatever to do with the
Bill Rowe
skea...@earthlink.net (Old Physics) wrote:
> Aether: "The term is devoid of meaning". Do you agree with this
> statement, Mr. Rowe. sk
I wouldn't say the term is "devoid of meaning". Relativity doesn't
really address how light propagates. Relativity simply makes the concept
of an aether unnecessary. Other experiments suggest an aether doesn't
exist.
Phil Glasgow
> In article <EYpJa.60518$Io.56...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-A541B6....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>
> > > This and the rest I snipped doesn't answer the question. Two theories
> > > which use the identical mathematical formulation will predict
identical
> > > measurements from any real experiment.
>
> > Not true. The mathematical formula means absolutely nothing outside the
> > context of the mathematics of the system. I simply can't say that
because
> > two theories have the same formula, they are the same.
>
> I didn't say the two theories were the same. I said identical
> mathematical formulations lead to identical predictions for any physical
> experiment.
No you said that identical formulations lead to identical laboratory
constructions of time. You literally claimed that the math was the same so
you said that Minkowski 4-space is the same as absolute space and time. You
are wrong. Indeed you are a sophists because you really don't care to learn
what you need to know about Lorentz ether in order to predict the outcome of
the experiment I proposed. Instead, you are intent of philosophising about
what identical functions mean for the mathematics of SR and LET without any
mathematical theorems to support your sophist argument.
>That means the two are indistinguishable either with
> mathematics or any physical experiment. Again, this is not the same as
> declaring the two theories are identical.
Your assertions are wrong. Period.
> > They don't predict the same constructions of space and time in the
> > laboratory. You see, one is consistent with Minkowski 4-space, the
other
> > with absolute space and time.
>
> You keep asserting this.
No, I have proven this. If you had a genuine understanding of the
mathematics of Lorentz ether, you would understand what you claim is
assertion is a conclusion supported by mathematical theorems. You are doing
the asserting here. Don't expect me to accept your argument that Minkowski
4-space is mathematically identical to absolute time and space.
>But it doesn't address the point I am making.
> All you need do to show me wrong is either show the mathematical
> formulation for LET differs from that of SR or that identical
> mathematical formulations lead to different predictions for identical
> physical situations.
I have done all I have to do. I have designed an experiment whose two
measured events are simultaneous in the rest frame of the ether. Prove that
they aren't.
No Bill, prove that every frame of the inifinity of potential inertial
frames _ALL_ rest in the ether rest frame. Good Luck.
Phil
Phil Glasgow
> In article <kzrJa.8446$C83.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-B1D11E....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>
> > >The mathematics of each is identical.
>
> > This is false. Absolute time and space underlie LET, Minkowski 4-space
> > underlies SR.
> >
> > You are literally claiming that Minkowski 4-space is mathematically
> > identical to Euclidean space and Absolute time. They aren't.
>
> Fine. Support your claim.
He, he, he. You are outrageous. You really expect anyone to believe that
the burden of proof lies on my shoulders regarding your logical statement
above.
Hey look everyone. Bill is claiming that Minkowski 4-space is
mathematically identical to Euclidean space and Absolute time. And, this is
laughable, he thinks it is my responsibility to disprove his assertion. I
mean, get real, Billy. The burden of proof is on you. Prove that
non-Euclidean space is Euclidean space. I would really like to see you do
that.
Phil
Patrick Reany
> 9:00am you quoted Einstein. It was the one consisting of 4 paragraphs
> beginning with the words, "We can distinguish--" and with the 4th
> paragraph ending, "---forces of nature".
>
> Einstein says, "Along with this most important class of theories [i.e.
> constructive] there exists a second, which I will call
> 'principle-theories'. These employ the ANALYTIC, NOT THE SYNTHETIC,
> method." (emphasis mine)
>
> Then later Einstein is reported by you to have said, "Thus the science
> of thermodynamics seeks by ANALYTICAL means to deduce necessary
> conditions, which separate events have to satisfy----".
> (emphasis mine) But Einstein had just previously identified
> thermodynamics as a constructive theory.
We can distinguish various kinds of theories
in physics. Most of them are constructive.
They attempt to build up a picture of the more
complex phenomena out of the materials of a
relatively simple formal scheme from which
they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and
diffusional processes to movements of molecules
-- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
molecular motion. When we say that we have
succeeded in understanding a group of natural
processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the
processes in question.
Along with this most important class of
theories there exists a second, which I will
call 'principle-theories'; These employ the
analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of
natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these
separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy. Thus
the science of thermodynamics seeks by
analytical means to deduce necessary conditions,
which separate events have to satisfy, from the
universally experienced fact that perpetual
motion is impossible.
The advantages of the constructive theory
are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
those of the principle theory are logical
perfection and security of the foundations.
The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
first of all to become acquainted with the
principles on which it is based. Before I go
into these, however, I must observe that the
theory of relativity resembles a building
consisting of two separate stories, the special
theory and the general theory. The special
theory, on which the general theory rests,
applies to all physical phenomena with the
exception of gravitation; the general theory
provides the law of gravitation and its relations
to the other forces of nature.
Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
Press, p. 228-9.
> It therefore _appears_ that Einstein has contradicted himself. He
> states that the difference between constructive theories and principle
> theories is that principle theories employ the analytic not the
> synthetic; but later describes the constructive theory of thermodynamics
> to arise from analytical thinking.
I don't see it. In any case, your term "arise" is ambiguous. In my
interpretation of what Einstein means by the analytic/synthetic
distinction the analytical thinking occurs after one has the
fundamental principles already laid down: fundamental phenomenological
equations of thermodynamics, certain conservation laws, and the
'negative principle' that perpetual motion is impossible. All three of
these principle types result from induction of some type (i.e., are
empirically derived). There is among these principles no speculation
about the deep or ultimate nature of matter that is involved in
thermodynamics, such as is done in statistical mechanics, which
speculates that matter is atomistic and all that that implies.
Einstein credited statistical mechanics as one of the great triumphs
of the Mechanical Program inaugurated by Newton!
However, the atomistic nature of matter is not directly apparent to
the naked eye, and such a model is a "speculation," to use Einstein's
terminology. It is a free creation of the human mind, and it works
very well, but it is a logical weakness of any theory. After all, what
ARE "principles" anyway to Einstein? They are propositions of physical
or heuristic content in which one has great confidence in. To
Einstein, one is justified in having confidence in the utility of
speculative models, but not justified in claiming to have "great"
confidence in them.
>
> 1) Did you copy Einstein correctly?
Don't you have the book, Ideas and Opinions, yet? It's just a cheap
paperback; you should buy it yourself.
>
> 2) Since you represent yourself as having expertise in Einstein
> quotations,
I don't recall having ever "represented" myself as "having expertise
in Einstein quotations." I just make quotations, and sometimes comment
on what I think Einstein meant by them.
> what do you think Einstein meant by the words "analytical"
> and "synthetic"? What was his implied definitions?
Einstein's use of "analytic v. synthetic" is an invention of his own,
from what I can determine. It is unlike the analytic/synthetic
distinctions of either geometry or of the logical positivists of the
20th century (Carnap to Quine). He does present his own
characterizations of them:
Analytic -- empirically discovered principles which are combined
without speculation as to the "real" nature of matter involved,
producing a theory which has logical perfection and security of
foundations because such a theory is formed by deduction on principles
alone, and includes no speculative elements in the foundation to the
theory. The theory holds as long as the principles themselves hold.
Synthetic -- empirically discovered principles and one or more
speculative models (as to the "real" nature of matter involved) are
combined (synthesized), producing a theory which has completeness,
adaptability, and clearness, but which lacks security of foundations
because it contains these speculative elements in the very foundation
to the theory. The theory holds as long as the models within them
stretch or evolve to encompass more phenomena as physicists
continually seek towards unification in physical phenomena.
Patrick
ueb
[from Einstein quotation]
> The advantages of the constructive theory
> are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
> those of the principle theory are logical
> perfection and security of the foundations.
> The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
> class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
> first of all to become acquainted with the
> principles on which it is based. Before I go
> into these, however, I must observe that the
> theory of relativity resembles a building
> consisting of two separate stories, the special
> theory and the general theory. The special
> theory, on which the general theory rests,
> applies to all physical phenomena with the
> exception of gravitation; the general theory
> provides the law of gravitation and its relations
> to the other forces of nature.
> Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
> Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
> Press, p. 228-9.
I cannot stop remark that people are still not aware of "its relations
to the other forces of nature". They do particularly not understand
the role of chaos. Properly dealing with it, one can easily see
known particle numbers from GR,
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
> However, the atomistic nature of matter is not directly apparent to
> the naked eye, and such a model is a "speculation," to use Einstein's
> terminology. It is a free creation of the human mind, and it works
> very well, but it is a logical weakness of any theory.
Oh yes !
People do rather freely create something instead of asking simple
questions like "What quantities have discrete values ?"
> After all, what
> ARE "principles" anyway to Einstein? They are propositions of physical
> or heuristic content in which one has great confidence in. To
> Einstein, one is justified in having confidence in the utility of
> speculative models, but not justified in claiming to have "great"
> confidence in them.
Whom do you say it !
> Einstein's use of "analytic v. synthetic" is an invention of his own,
> from what I can determine. It is unlike the analytic/synthetic
> distinctions of either geometry or of the logical positivists of the
> 20th century (Carnap to Quine). He does present his own
> characterizations of them:
> Analytic -- empirically discovered principles which are combined
> without speculation as to the "real" nature of matter involved,
> producing a theory which has logical perfection and security of
> foundations because such a theory is formed by deduction on principles
> alone, and includes no speculative elements in the foundation to the
> theory. The theory holds as long as the principles themselves hold.
> Synthetic -- empirically discovered principles and one or more
> speculative models (as to the "real" nature of matter involved) are
> combined (synthesized), producing a theory which has completeness,
> adaptability, and clearness, but which lacks security of foundations
> because it contains these speculative elements in the very foundation
> to the theory. The theory holds as long as the models within them
> stretch or evolve to encompass more phenomena as physicists
> continually seek towards unification in physical phenomena.
> Patrick
I agree fully with Einstein in this. But it is converse nowadays.
For example, moderators of s.p.research call all, that Einstein
summarized as "analytic", "overly speculative", during they don't
do it with the rest.
Pardon, Patrick, that I cannot abstain from saying that. Your
philosophic excursions seduce into doing it, because they concern
it essentially.
Ulrich
Old Physics
Thank you for your post, Mr Rowe,
As you probably know, Lorentz originally speculated that the MMX
interferometer contracted "just sufficient to compensate for the
difference in time" (Einstein's description).
What if there were a euclidean aether with a density of about
10^51 gm/cc, (where gravity unifies with the other constants, in the
BB theory when the universe was the size of a grapefruit) about a
billion trillion times the "antimass" of the earth in the volume of a
grain of sand. Light would be a wave through this medium and matter a
wave trapped by the unit electric charge. If gravity (displacement)
and the uec (a displacement wave) propagated by a second density mode
equal to the neutron's density, by Young's equasion, E=pv^2, they
would propagate at about 30 billion LYs/sec.
Put several atomic clocks on a six hour flight in the direction of
the cold pole of the CMB, aquarius, wait six hours and make the return
trip in the same direction. Compare with a flight that takes off
about 11h 58m later over the same course and altitude. If the
aquarius clocks lose three units of time to Leo's gain of one, you
have evidence that space is filled with a medium.
If there is no time difference you have strong evidence that
Einstein's relativity is the truth.
Why not do the experiment?
Phil Glasgow
Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:747a5d11.03061...@posting.google.com...news:<L9jIa.3175$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...> > news:bcogh1$q...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > Phil Glasgow wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > > I recently posted my disdain with the notion of clocks
> > > > desynchronzing as a consequence of slow transport such that light
speed
> > > > invariance is consistent with this synchronization method, ASSUMING
> > Lorentz
> > > > ether.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. In LET, in a frame moving wrt the ether frame, clocks do indeed
> > > desynchronize such that the speed of light will be MEASURED to be
> > > isotropically c.
> >
> > This is not a derivable theorem in LET, at least, in my experience.
> > Asynchrony is a derivable theorem, and ultimately leads to LT's in LET,
that
> > is, if the synchronization method Einstein's method. I think the
> > foundations of this theorem are in conflict with slow transport
> > desynchronization, and have publicly requested for a mathematical
> > derivation of slow clock transport desynchronization from first
principles
> > of Lorentz' ether. Until I am able to relate them mathematically, I
will
> > always _suspect_ the concept "ad-hoc" AND inconsistent with the
foundations
> > of Lorentz' ether.
>
> Take a simple light clock, a tube with a mirror at each end. Position
> the tube so that a photon follows a vertical path between the mirrors.
> When the clock is moved with respect to the aether the photon travels
> in a zig zag path, taking longer to travel between the mirrors.
>
> Let's say the clock is on a moving train car and you reposition it
> from the back of the car to the front of the car. While it is being
> moved forward the zig zags are elongated, slowing the clock down from
> what it would read if left at the back of the car. When it is set
> down at the front of the train it will resume the same frequency it
> had before, but it will be out of sync.
>
> When moved back to its starting position, the photon's path becomes
> more vertical than when it is moving at the train's speed. That
> causes the path to be shorter, so the clock runs fast, regaining most
> of the time it lost in the move forward. The slight discrepancy when
> the clock is returned to its starting position is in perfect agreement
> with SR (the traveling twin).
>
> Given the above I think you're smart enough to figure out the math on
> your own.
I sure am. And if the relationship is a function of velocity (the same
related to the rates of relatively moving clocks), then slow clock transport
is incapable of causing _sufficient_ asynchrony to measure light speed
isotropy in Lorentz ether. Think about, in SR it is related to the same
function and _very little_ displacement in time occurs. That is why it can
be an alternate method of spatially separated clock synchronization.
See ya, Phil
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-8A293B....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> > I didn't say the two theories were the same. I said identical
> > mathematical formulations lead to identical predictions for any physical
> > experiment.
> No you said that identical formulations lead to identical laboratory
> constructions of time. You literally claimed that the math was the same so
> you said that Minkowski 4-space is the same as absolute space and time.
This is your inaccurate paraphrase of my comments and not what I said.
Do not seem to be able to accurately paraphrase what I said responding
to the rest of your post seems pointless.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hey look everyone. Bill is claiming that Minkowski 4-space is
> mathematically identical to Euclidean space and Absolute time.
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I said the
mathematics of LET and SR is the same, i.e., they both use the Lorentz
transform and have identical mathematical predictions for a given
physical situation. This is not the same as saying Euclidean space and
Minkowski spacetime are the same. They are clearly different.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-61549D....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> > I wouldn't say the term is "devoid of meaning". Relativity doesn't
> > really address how light propagates. Relativity simply makes the concept
> > of an aether unnecessary. Other experiments suggest an aether doesn't
> > exist.
> Describe at least one experiment which suggests an ether doesn't exist.
Note the photoelectic experiment that suggests light is particles. Then
note the decrease in light attenuation along a path as the path becomes
closer to a true vacuum. These two certainly give reason to think light
is not propagated as waves in a medium.
> Show us the ether "prediction" for the experiment and then the SR
> "prediction". Explain why the ether must "predict" (mathematically) the
> outcome which is not supported by observation.
Now just how would I do that? LET is specifically designed to match
experimental observation. Additionally, SR matches experimental
observation. In fact, the mathematics used in both guarantee an
experiment showing one wrong will show the other wrong. The fact
relativity makes an aether unecessary isn't the same as saying it
doesn't exist.
Phil Glasgow
> In article <ER4Ka.11005$C83.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bjrowe-61549D....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
>
> > > I wouldn't say the term is "devoid of meaning". Relativity doesn't
> > > really address how light propagates. Relativity simply makes the
concept
> > > of an aether unnecessary. Other experiments suggest an aether doesn't
> > > exist.
>
> > Describe at least one experiment which suggests an ether doesn't exist.
>
> Note the photoelectic experiment that suggests light is particles. Then
> note the decrease in light attenuation along a path as the path becomes
> closer to a true vacuum. These two certainly give reason to think light
> is not propagated as waves in a medium.
We have know for some time that a fluid can be indistinguishable as a gas or
liquid under specific environmental condition. When this occurs, we say the
gas is critical. If there happens to be an ether, it must be not be
distinguishable between gas and solid, literally, it would have properties
of both. Such an object is not "impossible", it merely involves each ether
particle having a region of resonance which is stable in its position with
respect to the resonances of other particles.
> > Show us the ether "prediction" for the experiment and then the SR
> > "prediction". Explain why the ether must "predict" (mathematically) the
> > outcome which is not supported by observation.
>
> Now just how would I do that?
You tell me. It was you who said that "Other experiments suggest ..." I
merely asked you validate that it was the "Experiments suggesting .." as
opposed to "Bill Rowe inferring ..."
>LET is specifically designed to match
> experimental observation.
Not really. LET is specifically designed to model MMX. As a consequence,
coordinates relate by Lorentz transforms. Consequently, the laws of physics
are coordinate invariant. This whole notion of matching experimental
observation can only be true of the set of all possible experiments if and
only if, you irrationally decide we can't test laboratory coordinate
constructions.
Phil Glasgow
Sure it is. You fail to acknowledge that the differing constructions of
space and time lead to wholly different constructions of time and space in
one's laboratory. You see Bill, this is necessary if both Minkowski 4-space
and Lorentz' Absolute space and time are to relate coordinate by Lorentz
transformations. So indeed, you continue to say that Minkowski 4-space is
Euclidean space and absolute time.
Phil
Phil Glasgow
What is pointless, is your insistence that Minkowski 4-space is
mathematically identical to Absolute Space and time.
Daniel Weston
(mind) uses in problem solving. The 6 most important are 1) a
posteriori, 2) a priori,
3) inductive, 4) deductive, 5) analytic, and 6) synthetic.
Generally speaking, analytical thinking is where the mind sees a whole
and attempts to break it down into its constituent parts. For example,
a woman sees a car and thinks of it as a way to get to the beauty
parlor. A mechanic sees a car and analytically breaks it down into
smaller constituent parts, such as wheels, axels, transmission, engine,
electrical system, body, etc etc.
Generally speaking synthetic thinking is the mind looking at apparently
disparate and distinctly different things and finding a commonality
among them or a synthesis.
For example, someone doing synthetic thinking, will look at a picture of
1) sailboat, 2) skate board, 3) donkey, and 4) tractor, and think, 'a
means of human transportation'.
In plain simple English, can you tell me the definition of an 1)
analytical theory, and a 2) synthetic theory, with examples.
Once we can get on the same wavelength as to the meaning of analytic
thinking and synthetic thinking, we can discuss in some meaningful way
why constructive theories are analytical (or synthetic) and principle
theories are synthetic (or analytical).
Bruce Richmond
Look at the Lorentz transform for t' and you will find an x in there.
That means t' is dependent on position. It doesn't matter how slowly
the clock is moved, it will go out of sync just enough so that OWLS
will be measured to be c. And as the clock is brought back to its
starting position it will again be in sync with a clock that remained
there. The slow part of "slow clock transport" is to reduce the
velocity dependent part of the transform. The velocity dependent time
loss does not go away when the clock is brought back. So long as the
velocity is kept very low, compared to the speed of light, it will
have little effect on the sync.
I SR it is easy to see the position dependence of t' in the moving
frame. What is less obvious is that the moving frame sees t as being
position dependent. That is what relative simultaneity is all about.
In LET, we are in the moving frame. Our t is really t', which we know
is position dependent.
Old Physics
speculation", Mr. Rowe.
Thankyou. sk
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sure it is. You fail to acknowledge that the differing constructions of
> space and time lead to wholly different constructions of time and space in
> one's laboratory.
Until those differing constructions lead to different predictions for
specific physical measurments of a given physical situation, the
differences are meaningless with regard to distinguishing LET from SR.
And that is the point.
> So indeed, you continue to say that Minkowski 4-space is Euclidean
> space and absolute time.
This is your strawman not what I said
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What is pointless, is your insistence that Minkowski 4-space is
> mathematically identical to Absolute Space and time.
Apparently, you cannot provide meaningful comment on what I actually
said so you need to invent something you can demolish. That is a rather
poor argument in support of your position.
Bill Rowe
skea...@earthlink.net (Old Physics) wrote:
> I would appreciate any further comments you may have on the "Lorentz
> speculation", Mr. Rowe.
There really isn't anything more to add. Lorentz never really provided a
reason for things to behave this way save that is what was observed.
Bill Rowe
"Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bjrowe-70EEDD....@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
> > In article <ER4Ka.11005$C83.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Phil Glasgow" <cms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Describe at least one experiment which suggests an ether doesn't exist.
> > Note the photoelectic experiment that suggests light is particles. Then
> > note the decrease in light attenuation along a path as the path becomes
> > closer to a true vacuum. These two certainly give reason to think light
> > is not propagated as waves in a medium.
> We have know for some time that a fluid can be indistinguishable as a gas or
> liquid under specific environmental condition. When this occurs, we say the
> gas is critical. If there happens to be an ether, it must be not be
> distinguishable between gas and solid, literally, it would have properties
> of both. Such an object is not "impossible", it merely involves each ether
> particle having a region of resonance which is stable in its position with
> respect to the resonances of other particles.
And this is relevant?
> > > Show us the ether "prediction" for the experiment and then the SR
> > > "prediction". Explain why the ether must "predict" (mathematically) the
> > > outcome which is not supported by observation.
> > Now just how would I do that?
>
> You tell me. It was you who said that "Other experiments suggest ..." I
> merely asked you validate that it was the "Experiments suggesting .." as
> opposed to "Bill Rowe inferring ..."
Which I did. Note the fact other experients suggest there is no ether
has nothing to agreement between LET and SR with respect to predictions.
It is one thing to find experiments that suggest there is no ether, it
is quite another thing to find experiments showing a disagreement
between the predictions of LET and SR. I did the first. I cannot do the
second.
Phil Glasgow
You can't derive a Lorentz transform using slow clock movement as the
synchronization method. I tried. It can't be done. Just try to using the
foundations of Lorentz ether. If you can, I'll send you a crisp $10 bill.
> That means t' is dependent on position.
Yes, when synchronized by Einstein's method, not when synchronized by slow
clock transport.
>It doesn't matter how slowly
> the clock is moved, it will go out of sync just enough so that OWLS
> will be measured to be c.
Nope. You are fantasizing. Its ad hoc. This proposition is quite simply
not mathematically related to the foundations of Lorentz ether.
>And as the clock is brought back to its
> starting position it will again be in sync with a clock that remained
> there.
Nope. Not true again.
>The slow part of "slow clock transport" is to reduce the
> velocity dependent part of the transform.
Rate of clocks are sole dependent on velocity in Lorentz ether. You are
imagining ad-hoc some other function which doesn't exist.
>The velocity dependent time
> loss does not go away when the clock is brought back. So long as the
> velocity is kept very low, compared to the speed of light, it will
> have little effect on the sync.
Nope. There aren't two types of time loss.
> I SR it is easy to see the position dependence of t' in the moving
> frame.
time isn't position dependent in SR. Slow transport doesn't desynchronize
clocks at all except for the velocity function's effect on its rate. If the
velocity is very low, the slowly transported clock's synchrony approaches
simultaneity.
>What is less obvious is that the moving frame sees t as being
> position dependent.
Hardly.
> That is what relative simultaneity is all about.
Are you kidding? Rethink what you said. You are saying, in SR, the
"moving" frame sees t as being position dependent and that this is what the
relativity of simultaneity is all about. The relative simultaneity means
only that simultaneity is frame dependent. There is no underlying
construction of simultaneity.
> In LET, we are in the moving frame.
Oddly enough, I can agree with this. I'm quite certain that I am not
resting wrt the ether rest frame.
>Our t is really t', which we know
> is position dependent.
Here's where you lose me because _I know_ what you are doing here. You want
the position dependence of t' to be a relationship which describes slow
clock transport. It doesn't. BTW. The practitioner of LET doesn't see his
synchrony as non-simultaneous. For there to be this sense of universality,
one does assume simultaneous synchrony. Its like assuming that he rests wrt
the ether rest frame. Still, non-simultaneity can be measured with the
experiment I posted in this thread.
Slow clock transport is actually a sorry method of synchronizing clocks.
Take for example. Given a frame of reference moving at .5c, a spatial
interval of one light second (ether rest frame) requires a .133974596 sec
lag. At an additional 1 meter/second (wrt ether rest frame) it takes 3 E8
seconds get the clock transported and when it gets there it lags .443757
seconds more than the required amount. For a spatial interval which needs
only one second displacement to have light speed invariance, its not even
close. Hell, it would nearly double the speed of light. Lets say we use a
clock movement of only 1 E-5 m/s, its not much better (still way off the
mark). In fact the predicted quantity of this effect at such low transport
rates makes the notion of slow clock transport wholly inadequate for clock
synchronization. The same is true of SR. In fact, if light speed
invariance were supported by experiments involving slow clock transport, it
would seem that the experimentalists performing the experiment were outright
lying about their results.
Try it for yourself. Use the Lorentz transformation I reduced above.
Consider two spatially separated and synchronized clocks moving at .5c. One
at the left is at your origin. The other lies at x=1 light-second. The
clock move in the positive x direction.
Now calculate, according to your frame, the time lag of the right-most clock
(.133974596).
Now consider a third clock which moves at (.5c +delta v). The left-most
clock and this clock are at the origin of your system when your t=0.
The time it takes the third clock to reach the right most clock is x/v .
Multiply this by the relative rates of the two clocks. Subtract the time
lag from the right-most clock. Then subtract the time of transported clock.
What is left is the predicted discrepancy. Use any velocity you like.
Pretty soon it will become clear that it is a sorry way to synchronize
clocks.
Phil
Patrick Reany
Daniel,
The best I can do is to point you to my webpage
http://ajnpx.com/html/Science/Einstein-and-the-Analytic-Synthetic-Distinction.html
Patrick
greywolf42
You are explicitly incorrect. See "Electrodynamic Phenomena in a system
moving with any velocity less than the speed of light", 1904, H.A. Lorentz.
The reason for length contraction is the physical response of electrons
(spherically-shaped charge distributions) is response to Maxwell's
equations. Purely classical.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfm3vg5...@corp.supernews.com...
Says Petr Beckman in his book "Lorentz Plus Five", right?
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:KtEKa.1526$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Hi coward. Still posting on physics-free posts in violation of NG
guidelines?
Still "no" on taking those bets?
Phil Glasgow
Just as relevant as your inference that the particulate nature of light
"suggest" there is no medium to propogate light.
> > > > Show us the ether "prediction" for the experiment and then the SR
> > > > "prediction". Explain why the ether must "predict" (mathematically)
the
> > > > outcome which is not supported by observation.
>
> > > Now just how would I do that?
> >
> > You tell me. It was you who said that "Other experiments suggest ..."
I
> > merely asked you validate that it was the "Experiments suggesting .." as
> > opposed to "Bill Rowe inferring ..."
>
> Which I did. Note the fact other experients suggest there is no ether
> has nothing to agreement between LET and SR with respect to predictions.
> It is one thing to find experiments that suggest there is no ether,
I don't buy it. Experiments don't suggest. They give us the time and space
coordinates of events. Nothing more, nothing less. If they are consistent
with a theory, then they are consistent with theory, which means nothing
more than they are consistent with a theory.
>it
> is quite another thing to find experiments showing a disagreement
> between the predictions of LET and SR. I did the first. I cannot do the
> second.
And I suppose that because you can't do it, nobody can? That's not very
rational. In much the same way you insist that Minkowski 4-space and
absolute space and time are mathematically identical.
Phil Glasgow
No Billy, it is you which is inventing the notion that laboratory
constructions of space and time can not be distinguished between the two
theories. You actually don't have an argument. Instead you half ass
_claim_ that because they relate coordinates the same they must predict the
same for any experiment. I have stated, and I am correct, that because they
do relate coordinates the same and because their underlying construction of
space and time differ, the laboratory constructions of space and time are
not identical and can be distinguished between one or the other by
experiment. I am correct and you are _not even_ wrong. You are fantasizing
an equivalency which does not exist.
My argument is supported by complete description of an experiment which
measures the time of events which are simultaneous in the ether rest frame.
If you think you are correct, then disprove mathematically that the events
measured in the experiment are not simultaneous in the ether rest frame.
When you fail, you will come to realize that because they are simultaneous
in the ether rest frame and because they relate to the laboratory frame by
Lorentz transformations, they must be coordinate non-simultaneous in any
frame moving wrt the ether rest frame. Now if you can't see why the events
must be coordinate simultaneous in _any_ inertial frame (assuming SR), well
then, you've got alot of studying to do.
Phil
Phil Glasgow
> In article <TwhKa.64433$Io.60...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure it is. You fail to acknowledge that the differing constructions of
> > space and time lead to wholly different constructions of time and space
in
> > one's laboratory.
>
> Until those differing constructions lead to different predictions for
> specific physical measurments of a given physical situation, the
> differences are meaningless with regard to distinguishing LET from SR.
> And that is the point.
You don't have a point Billy boy. You are not providing an argument because
there is no mathematics in your argument. You have failed to prove that the
test I have proposed will not be able to distinguish between the two. All
you have to do Billy boy, is prove the events measured are not simultaneous
in the ether rest frame OR that they are not simultaneous for inertial labs
in SR. Just prove it Billy. My history here clearly indicates that when I
am shown to be incorrect with a clearly unambigous mathematical argument
(you know saying that Minkowsi 4-space and absolute time/space are the same
thing is ambiguous), that I am more than happy to confess my incorrectness.
But Billy, while I have often been incorrect about SR, I have never been
incorrect about Lorentz' ether. So don't purport to be teaching me about
it.
> > So indeed, you continue to say that Minkowski 4-space is Euclidean
> > space and absolute time.
>
> This is your strawman not what I said
It is precisely what "what you said" means.
Phil
Old Physics
Greywolf42,
Are we in agreement that matter contracts and time (mass) dilates,
by the Lorentz transforms, in accordance with its absolute velocity
through the aether? Lorentz sought all his career to preserve
Maxwell's aether.
With admiration for your tenacity,
stephen kearney
greywolf42
Old Physics <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
My personal views are that matter does contract. As in Lorentz
electrodynamic theory. I do not think that mass "dilates." What I think
occurs is that Maxwell's equations become less valid as you approach "c" (in
full accord with Maxwell's physical model used in deriving same). So the
"real" force is reduced below the "calculated" force by the mass increase
factor.
I do not believe that time dilates in any fashion. Decay rates do change --
coincidentally in rough conformity to the SR equations -- due to variations
from Maxwellian distribution of the aether. But it it the physical process
that is affected -- not "time" itself.
And I never use the term "absolute" velocity. Velocity relative to the
aether is not absolute.
And I don't share your opinion of Lorentz' intentions. But that's history,
not science.
Bruce Richmond
I didn't say anything about deriving the transform, I just pointed out
that it tells you something about the synchronization of clocks in a
moving frame. You have agreed below that we are in a moving frame,
and the Lorentz transform does apply to LET.
> > That means t' is dependent on position.
>
> Yes, when synchronized by Einstein's method, not when synchronized by slow
> clock transport.
>
In SR slow clock transport is said to yield the same result as
Einstein's method, so why shouldn't it in LET? The two theories have
different interpretations of what is going on, but the math ends up
exactly the same either way.
> >It doesn't matter how slowly
> > the clock is moved, it will go out of sync just enough so that OWLS
> > will be measured to be c.
>
> Nope. You are fantasizing. Its ad hoc. This proposition is quite simply
> not mathematically related to the foundations of Lorentz ether.
>
How can you claim this is ad hoc? Clock rate being dependent on
motion through the ether is at the very foundation of LET. I
explained the mechanism of the varying tick rate of a light clock
above. Since we are in a moving frame our clocks are running slower
that a clock at rest in the ether. Can you see that by moving a clock
ahead to a new position it must have a combined velocity of V+v and it
will lose time? If you transport the clock slower v becomes smaller,
but v must be maintained longer to reach the same position, so the
slowed clock rate lasts longer. Cut the speed in half and it takes
the clock twice as long to reach its new position. That is why at the
low limit of motion results in t' being position dependent. When you
return the clock to its starting position it is moving at V-v which is
slower in relation to the ether than V, so it runs faster than when at
rest in its own frame and gains time back.
> >And as the clock is brought back to its
> > starting position it will again be in sync with a clock that remained
> > there.
>
> Nope. Not true again.
>
> >The slow part of "slow clock transport" is to reduce the
> > velocity dependent part of the transform.
>
> Rate of clocks are sole dependent on velocity in Lorentz ether. You are
> imagining ad-hoc some other function which doesn't exist.
>
> >The velocity dependent time
> > loss does not go away when the clock is brought back. So long as the
> > velocity is kept very low, compared to the speed of light, it will
> > have little effect on the sync.
>
> Nope. There aren't two types of time loss.
>
> > I SR it is easy to see the position dependence of t' in the moving
> > frame.
>
> time isn't position dependent in SR. Slow transport doesn't desynchronize
> clocks at all except for the velocity function's effect on its rate. If the
> velocity is very low, the slowly transported clock's synchrony approaches
> simultaneity.
>
In SR when you look at the clocks in a moving frame you see they are
out of sync due to RS. If you watch an observer slowly transport a
clock in that frame, it must be in synch with each clock it passes,
ending up in sync with the clock at its new position. That is the
only way that slow transport can be said to give the same result as
Einstein's sync procedure. When the clock is moved back the process
reverses so the clock is again in sync with the clock at it's starting
position. An observer in the moving frame would see the same thing
happen in the "stationary" frame due to symmetry.
> >What is less obvious is that the moving frame sees t as being
> > position dependent.
>
> Hardly.
>
Then you have just broken symmetry! Remember, in SR both frames see
the other's clocks as running slow and being out of sync.
Phil Glasgow
Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:747a5d11.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Glasgow" <pas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Z_vKa.65535$Io.61...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:747a5d11.03062...@posting.google.com
> > > > I sure am. And if the relationship is a function of velocity (the
Well it doesn't.
>so why shouldn't it in LET?
Because it shouldn't.
> > >It doesn't matter how slowly
> > > the clock is moved, it will go out of sync just enough so that OWLS
> > > will be measured to be c.
> >
> > Nope. You are fantasizing. Its ad hoc. This proposition is quite
simply
> > not mathematically related to the foundations of Lorentz ether.
> >
>
> How can you claim this is ad hoc?
Because it is not fundamentally related. It's been added _not_ derived.
>Clock rate being dependent on
> motion through the ether is at the very foundation of LET.
That's right and you can not show me there exist a spatial part of the
function (LT) which takes over as the velocity approaches zero. I had
already derived a proof to debunk to this claim of yours but I failed to
send it because I worked with two drafts and sent the wrong one. So here it
is.
Let me provide you with a simple theorem which will show you that
displacements in time for clock
movement is _strictly_ a function of velocity.
Given:
A clock moves at uniform velocity wrt the ether rest frame congruent with
the x-axis of the ether rest frame coordinate system.
At t1=0 the moving clock reads t1'=0. The clock is located at the origin of
the ether rest frame coordinate system.
PROPOSITION: The time t2' of the moving clock is independent of its postion
in the ether rest frame coordinate system and is solely dependent on the
clock's velocity and the time which passes in the ether rest frame.
By Lorentz transformation
t2' = gamma(t2 - vx/c^2)
Since x is the distance travelled by the clock in the time interval (t2 -t1)
then x =v*t2.
By substitution:
t2' = gamma(t2 - (t2*v^2)/c^2)
t2' = t2 *gamma(1 - v^2/c^2)
t2' = t2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
So yes I can do the math. There is not a position dependent function for a
moving clock no matter how slow the clock is moving. As the velocity
approaches zero the time displacement doesn't approach some imaginary
position function. This concept is completely ad hoc, bogus, and
inconsistent with Lorentz ether.
> > > I SR it is easy to see the position dependence of t' in the moving
> > > frame.
> >
> > time isn't position dependent in SR. Slow transport doesn't
desynchronize
> > clocks at all except for the velocity function's effect on its rate. If
the
> > velocity is very low, the slowly transported clock's synchrony
approaches
> > simultaneity.
> >
>
> In SR when you look at the clocks in a moving frame you see they are
> out of sync due to RS.
RS is _not_ the cause of coordinate non-simultaenity of synchronized clocks
in SR.
>If you watch an observer slowly transport a
> clock in that frame, it must be in synch with each clock it passes,
> ending up in sync with the clock at its new position.
False. The clock goes out of synch.
>That is the
> only way that slow transport can be said to give the same result as
> Einstein's sync procedure.
Don't say it. Calculate it. You'll soon discover it is a poor method of
clock synchronization.
>When the clock is moved back the process
> reverses so the clock is again in sync with the clock at it's starting
> position.
You are imagining this. This is not true of Lorentz' ether nor of SR.
>An observer in the moving frame would see the same thing
> happen in the "stationary" frame due to symmetry.
What?
> > >What is less obvious is that the moving frame sees t as being
> > > position dependent.
> >
> > Hardly.
> >
>
> Then you have just broken symmetry! Remember, in SR both frames see
> the other's clocks as running slow and being out of sync.
In SR, _ANY_ inertial frame sees its own time as an absolute construction of
time. Its the same time, everywhere, simultaneously. Remember, light speed
is fundamentally invariant. The counterpart in LET is resting in the ether
rest frame, which is, what every practictioner of LET assumes when applying
the mathematics of the theory in practice.
x/(delta)v .
> > Multiply this by the relative rates of the two clocks. Subtract the
time
> > lag from the right-most clock. Then subtract the time of transported
clock.
> > What is left is the predicted discrepancy. Use any velocity you like.
> > Pretty soon it will become clear that it is a sorry way to synchronize
> > clocks.
What? No response to actual calculations of slow clock transport? Why not?
Are you going to calculate the results for yourself? Well, you should.
When you put a pencil to it, its a terrible way to synchronize clocks. Who
wants to move a clock 30 meters over a period of a month only to find out
the synchronization leaves one to measure the one way speed of light over
33% greater than one is supposed to?
Phil