0 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/1/99

to

Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Date: September 1, 1999

Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Date: September 1, 1999

Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims have observed

the ether and measured the earth's velocity relative to it. He presents a theory

which he calls "GTWMC" which he claims fits the experimental data for these and

other experiments better than Special Relativity. He mentions five experiments,

the first was at Belgacom:

http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/belgacom.htm

And the other four he has performed or prepared at home:

http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/news.htm

In this article I will consider a general class of theories of which both GTWMC

and SR are members, and all of which predict a null result for all of these

experiments. His analysis is flawed. As no "reasonable" ether theory predicts a

non-null result for _any_ of these experiments, the reasons for the non-null

results must be looked for elsewhere.

I will discuss some general aspects of all "reasonable" theories, present a

Lemma and Corollary which will be useful in applying the theories of the class

to DeWitte's experiments, and will then discuss each of his experiments and what

the theories predict for them.

A side comment: DeWitte's "GTWMC" theory has nothing at all "Galilean"

about it; this is a rather poor choice of name, IMHO. A better name

would be: Lorentz Transform With Different Synchronization. Because

that's what it really is. It is, I believe, the same theory first

discussed by Ives in the 1930's. It is definitely the same as published

by Selleri and as discussed around here by Arlin Brown.

General Aspects of All Reasonable Theories

------------------------------------------

A "reasonable" theory is one which has not already been refuted by other

experiments. This directly implies that in any reasonable theory the round-

trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame which an

earthbound lab instantaneously occupies. This has been established to

incredible accuracy (a few parts in 10^15), and by many experiments (Michelson

and Morley, Brillet and Hall, Hils and Hall, etc.). This accuracy and the

variations in the earth's orbit imply that it is likely that the round-trip

speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, not just those of the earth.

The class of theories I consider consists of all theories in which the

round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. They

differ in what the one-way velocity of light is. All ether theories of

this class contain a unique inertial frame in which the one-way speed of

light is isotropically c -- the ether frame. This class is described in

detail in [1] -- there they are called "Edwards frames".

Note that Dewitte's "GTWMC" is a member of this class. To compare

to Zhang's notation, put q' = -v/c (q' is Zhang's anisotropy parameter

for the frame, and v is the velocity of the inertial frame relative to

the ether frame, measured in the latter).

Note that SR is a member of this class, with q'=0. It has no explicit

"ether frame".

One important and useful aspect of this class of theories is that every theory

in the class includes this lemma and corollary:

Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

The time delay for such a path is measured by a single clock, so

differences in clock synchronization cannot affect the delay for a round-

trip path. This lemma is clearly true for one theory of the class (SR),

and the only difference between the theories of this class is how clocks

are synchronized [1], so it is true for all of them.

Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and a single

detector which measures the time delay between two signals from the

source propagating by different paths of fixed shape and size, the

detector output will be independent of the orientation of the paths

in an inertial frame. This is true for any theory of this class and

for any assumed anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.

Proof: move the source so it is collocated with the detector, and

transfer its output to where it was originally located by a path of fixed

shape and size. Now the signals are round-trip and the lemma applies; as

the time delay from emission to detection is independent of orientation

for each signal, it must also be true for their difference. As the

additional path contributes identically to both paths, this must be true

for the original configuration.

I remark that this corollary holds for any sort of path for an electromagnetic

signal: free space, waveguide, optical medium, electrical cables, etc., and

combinations.

DeWitte's Belgacom Experiment

-----------------------------

This experiment is essentially identical to that of Torr and Kolen [2] and

also to that of Krishner et al [3]. It is quite similar to Cialdea [4]. I

have already discussed this experiment at length:

sci.physics.relativity, Subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment Cannot

See the Ether.

All theories in this class, including DeWitte's GTWMC, predict a null result.

DeWitte claims a non-null result, but with terrible experimental technique.

Krishner and Cialdea both report a null result, with higher accuracy than

any of the others.

As no reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result, the reason for

DeWitte's non-null result must be looked for elsewhere. His "GTWMC" also

predicts a null result, contrary to his claims; his analysis is faulty

and did not properly take into account the effect of slow clock transport

on his clock synchronization.

DeWitte's Experiment 1

----------------------

This experiment compares the propagation delay of two sets of dissimilar coax

cables with significantly-different propagation speeds. One set is arranged so

every out path is one type and every return path is the other; the other set is

arranged so each type is simply out-and-back. The total length of each type of

cable is the same in the two sets.

DeWitte claims that the different propagation speeds will make an anisotropic

one-way speed of light observable, and the time delay between the two paths will

vary with orientation. He is wrong. The corollary above directly implies that

the time delay for each path will be independent of orientation, and so their

difference will also be independent of orientation.

DeWitte reports no result, due to instrumentation difficulties.

DeWitte's Experiment 2

----------------------

This is a variation on experiment 1, and every theory of the class predicts a

null result. DeWitte reports "no phase shift", as predicted.

DeWitte's Experiment 3

----------------------

This is another variation on experiment 1, and every theory of the class

predicts a null result. DeWitte reports no result, as it is still under

preparation.

DeWitte's Experiment 4

----------------------

This experiment can send a traveling wave down a rectangular waveguide in

either direction. Two moveable antennas probe into the waveguide to sample

the wave and compare its phase to a reference from the same source which

generated the wave in the waveguide.

The Corollary above predicts that for a fixed antenna position the output

of his detector will be independent of orientation. So if he positions

the antennas at nodes for one orientation, they will be at nodes for any

orientation. This applies separately to each direction of propagation in

the waveguide, as he uses different cables to arrange that.

DeWitte claims a difference in position between nodes for the two directions

of propagation in the waveguide. This is not a complete experiment, because

such an observation cannot distinguish between a cosmic effect and a simple

mismatch in length between his two sets of cables. To separate the two he

must perform the measurements for each set of cables 12 hours apartl, or

better, rotate the apparatus. He does not report any such measurements; it

appears that this experiment is still in progress.

Note that every reasonable ether theory predicts a null result for this

experiment. It seems likely that DeWitte made the same mistake in analysis

he made for the other experiments: he failed to realize that effects in the

cables will exactly offset the effects in the wave in the waveguide. This

experiment does _NOT_ measure wavelength as he apparently supposes, it

measures a phase difference, and that puts it into the purview of the

Lemma and Corollary above.

Summary

-------

No reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result for any of these

experiments. The class of theories considered includes both SR and DeWitte's

"GTWMC". DeWitte has not applied his theory consistently when analyzing them.

References

----------

[1] Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_.

[2] Torr and Kolen, Found. Phys. _12_#4 (1982), p401.

[3] Krishner et al, Phys. Rev. D42#2, p731 (1990)

[4] Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4#16, p821 (1972)

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99

to

On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>One important and useful aspect of this class of theories is that every theory

>in the class includes this lemma and corollary:

>

> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions. So I guess we

do have at least one aether that is not within your lemma.

Ken Seto

Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99

to

Ken H. Seto wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> > Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> > in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

> > round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

> > the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

>

> The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

> isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions. So I guess we

> do have at least one aether that is not within your lemma.

This reply doesn't address the quoted text before it at all. More

important, Ken's DRT theory doesn't belong to the class of reasonable

ether theories discussed, since the predictions that Ken alleges come

from DIRT, er excuse me DRT, have been refuted by experiment.

---Tim Shuba---

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99

to

On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

> Note that SR is a member of this class, with q'=0. It has no explicit

> "ether frame".

With q'=0 you are rejecting the existing of absolute time which all

ether theories accept. If you base your analysis with absolute time

you will find that q' is not equal to zero.

>

>One important and useful aspect of this class of theories is that every theory

>in the class includes this lemma and corollary:

>

> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

>

>The time delay for such a path is measured by a single clock, so

>differences in clock synchronization cannot affect the delay for a round-

>trip path. This lemma is clearly true for one theory of the class (SR),

>and the only difference between the theories of this class is how clocks

>are synchronized [1], so it is true for all of them.

This lemma is true only if you reject the existence of absolute time.

With absolute time, an observer can indeed detect his absolute motion

through the ether. I have such an experiment in my website. It is

based on a modified Comton Effect experiment.

<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>

Ken Seto

Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99

to

In <37CDF93C...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

writes:

> by in the 1930's. It is definitely the same as published

writes:

>

>Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

>Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>Date: September 1, 1999

>

> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims

> have observed the ether and measured the earth's velocity

> relative to it. He presents a theory which he calls "GTWMC"

> which he claims fits the experimental data for these and other

> experiments better than Special Relativity. He mentions five

> experiments, the first was at Belgacom:

>

> http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/belgacom.htm

> And the other four he has performed or prepared at home:

> http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/news.htm

>

> In this article I will consider a general class of theories of

> which both GTWMC and SR are members, and all of which predict a

> null result for all of these experiments. His analysis is flawed.

> As no "reasonable" ether theory predicts a non-null result for

>Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

>Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>Date: September 1, 1999

>

> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims

> have observed the ether and measured the earth's velocity

> relative to it. He presents a theory which he calls "GTWMC"

> which he claims fits the experimental data for these and other

> experiments better than Special Relativity. He mentions five

> experiments, the first was at Belgacom:

>

> http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/belgacom.htm

> And the other four he has performed or prepared at home:

> http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/news.htm

>

> In this article I will consider a general class of theories of

> which both GTWMC and SR are members, and all of which predict a

> null result for all of these experiments. His analysis is flawed.

> As no "reasonable" ether theory predicts a non-null result for

> any_ of these experiments, the reasons for the non-null results

> must be looked for elsewhere.

>

> I will discuss some general aspects of all "reasonable" theories,

> present a Lemma and Corollary which will be useful in applying

> the theories of the class to DeWitte's experiments, and will then

> discuss each of his experiments and what the theories predict for

> them.

>

> A side comment: DeWitte's "GTWMC" theory has nothing at

> all "Galilean" about it; this is a rather poor choice of

> name, IMHO. A better name would be: Lorentz Transform With

> Different Synchronization. Because that's what it really

> Ives is. It is, I believe, the same theory first discussed> must be looked for elsewhere.

>

> I will discuss some general aspects of all "reasonable" theories,

> present a Lemma and Corollary which will be useful in applying

> the theories of the class to DeWitte's experiments, and will then

> discuss each of his experiments and what the theories predict for

> them.

>

> A side comment: DeWitte's "GTWMC" theory has nothing at

> all "Galilean" about it; this is a rather poor choice of

> name, IMHO. A better name would be: Lorentz Transform With

> Different Synchronization. Because that's what it really

> by in the 1930's. It is definitely the same as published

So what, that is not, and has never been, the issue for this class of

experiments. In fact, the 'round-trip' times aren't even in question!

> The time delay for such a path is measured by a single clock,

> so differences in clock synchronization cannot affect the

> delay for a round-trip path. This lemma is clearly true for

> one theory of the class (SR), and the only difference between

> the theories of this class is how clocks are synchronized [1],

> so it is true for all of them.

And I say, "if the timing of any two clocks in an single inertial FOR

'need' to be altered to 'bring' measured one way light transit times

from different directions into a match, the theory that requires this

is logically, and fatally flawed.

> Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and

> a single detector which measures the time delay between two

> signals from the source propagating by different paths of

> fixed shape and size, the detector output will be independent

> of the orientation of the paths in an inertial frame. This is

< true for any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> in the 1-way speed of light.

Boil this down and you say, "no matter the orientation, the time it

will take a light pulse to travel between a transmitter and receiver of

fixed distance, will always measure the same delta t."

Yes this is what Einstein's assumption would predict, but not LET. If

I'm wrong about LET, please point me to where in his 1904 paper he

addresses this. Further, as agreed upon earlier, in Einstein's 1905

paper this is an presumption/definition without any supporting

derivation.

> Proof: move the source so it is collocated with the detector,

> and transfer its output to where it was originally located by

> a path of fixed shape and size. Now the signals are round-trip

> and the lemma applies; as the time delay from emission to

> detection is independent of orientation for each signal, it must

> also be true for their difference. As the additional path

> contributes identically to both paths, this must be true

> for the original configuration.

Get this, the 'round-trip' times ARE NOT AT ISSUE!

> I remark that this corollary holds for any sort of path for an

> electromagnetic signal: free space, waveguide, optical medium,

> electrical cables, etc., and combinations.

>

> DeWitte's Belgacom Experiment

> -----------------------------

>

> This experiment is essentially identical to that of Torr and

> Kolen [2] and also to that of Krishner et al [3]. It is quite

> similar to Cialdea [4]. I have already discussed this experiment

> at length:

>

> sci.physics.relativity, Subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment

> Cannot See the Ether.

>

> All theories in this class, including DeWitte's GTWMC, predict a

> null result. DeWitte claims a non-null result, but with terrible

> experimental technique. Krishner and Cialdea both report a null

> result, with higher accuracy than any of the others.

Please show us this, with math please... derive the one way transit

time for a source and receiver that are uniformly moving relative to

each other (again, just saying t = [L/c]Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] doesn't

derive squat, it USES Einstein'e assumption).

> As no reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result, the

> reason for DeWitte's non-null result must be looked for

> elsewhere. His "GTWMC" also predicts a null result, contrary

> to his claims; his analysis is faulty and did not properly take

> into account the effect of slow clock transport on his clock

> synchronization.

You have not even begun to meet the burden of proof necessary to

substantiate this claim. First, you would have to show mathematically,

using specifically Dewitte theory, that it does not support, or predict

this, then you would have to propose/show specifically how you can

account for his results. If you really want to take on this task fine,

but vague hand-waving won't do here.

>

> DeWitte's Experiment 1

> ----------------------

>

> This experiment compares the propagation delay of two sets of

> dissimilar coax cables with significantly-different propagation

> speeds. One set is arranged so every out path is one type and

> every return path is the other; the other set is arranged so each

> type is simply out-and-back. The total length of each type of

> cable is the same in the two sets.

>

> DeWitte claims that the different propagation speeds will make

> an anisotropic one-way speed of light observable, and the time

> delay between the two paths will vary with orientation. He is

> wrong. The corollary above directly implies that the time delay

> for each path will be independent of orientation, and so their

> difference will also be independent of orientation.

Sorry, appeal to authority doesn't suffice, prove the 'corollary' using

DeWitte's specific model.

> DeWitte reports no result, due to instrumentation difficulties.

So, then this specific experimental arrangement is a mute issue anyway.

> DeWitte's Experiment 2

> ----------------------

>

> This is a variation on experiment 1, and every theory of the

> class predicts a null result. DeWitte reports "no phase shift",

> as predicted.

I think you have parroted this phase enough times. It looks like

you're trying to convince yourself..., most readers don't need the

repetition.

> DeWitte's Experiment 3

> ----------------------

>

> This is another variation on experiment 1, and every theory of

> the class predicts a null result. DeWitte reports no result, as

> it is still under preparation.

>

> DeWitte's Experiment 4

> ----------------------

>

> This experiment can send a traveling wave down a rectangular

> wave-guide in either direction. Two moveable antennas probe

> into the wave-guide to sample the wave and compare its phase to

> a reference from the same source which generated the wave in

> the wave-guide.

>

> The Corollary above predicts that for a fixed antenna position

> the output of his detector will be independent of orientation.

> So if he positions the antennas at nodes for one orientation,

> they will be at nodes for any orientation. This applies

> separately to each direction of propagation in the wave-guide,

> as he uses different cables to arrange that.

>

> DeWitte claims a difference in position between nodes for the

> two directions of propagation in the waveguide. This is not a

> complete experiment, because such an observation cannot

> distinguish between a cosmic effect and a simple mismatch in

> length between his two sets of cables. To separate the two he

> must perform the measurements for each set of cables 12 hours

> apart, or better, rotate the apparatus. He does not report any

> such measurements; it appears that this experiment is still in

> progress.

Failing to mention the initial finding are positive, but needs

refinement and independent reproduction.

> Note that every reasonable ether theory predicts a null result

> for this experiment. It seems likely that DeWitte made the same

> mistake in analysis he made for the other experiments: he failed

> to realize that effects in the cables will exactly offset the

> effects in the wave in the waveguide. This experiment does

> _NOT_ measure wavelength as he apparently supposes, it measures

> a phase difference, and that puts it into the purview of the

> Lemma and Corollary above.

>

>

>Summary

>-------

>

> No reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result for any of

> these experiments. The class of theories considered includes both

> SR and DeWitte's "GTWMC". DeWitte has not applied his theory

> consistently when analyzing them.

My head is spinning from deja-vu, but I disagree here. I think LET and

my own variant of this, ASR (Acoustical Special Relativity) does lead

to asymmetric one way transit times for objects moving relative to the

global or Lorentz's primal frame. This simply needs to be tested. We

now have the technology to do this with ease, and the result will be

unambiguous either way.

>References

>----------

>

>[1] Zhang, Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_.

>

>[2] Torr and Kolen, Found. Phys. _12_#4 (1982), p401.

>

>[3] Krishner et al, Phys. Rev. D42#2, p731 (1990)

>

>[4] Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4#16, p821 (1972)

Paul Stowe

Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99

to

On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:41:53 GMT, sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

>Ken H. Seto wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

>> wrote:

>

>> > Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

>> > in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

>> > round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

>> > the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

>>

>> The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

>> isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions. So I guess we

>> do have at least one aether that is not within your lemma.

>

>This reply doesn't address the quoted text before it at all.

Yes it does. Tom's lemma assumes that absolute time doesn't exist

Whereas all ether theories (including mine) assume that absolute time

exists. Using absolute time you can indeed detect anisotropy in light

speed.

> More

>important, Ken's DRT theory doesn't belong to the class of reasonable

>ether theories discussed, since the predictions that Ken alleges come

>from DIRT, er excuse me DRT, have been refuted by experiment.

You are a hateful person. Where are all these hates come from? Were

you abused by you parents when you were young? DRT have not been

refuted by experiment. I did made a mistake deriving the Doppler

Factor. The following corrections to the Doppler Factor will make all

DRT equations compatible with all SR equations.

In my previos posts (before 8/30/99) I presented the formulae for the

Doppler Factor (DF) as follows:

A and B are in relative motion:

From A's point of view:

DFa=1/Sqrt[1-(Faa-Fab)^2/Faa^2]...............(1)

From B's point of view:

DFb=1/Sqrt[1-(Fbb-Fba)^2/Fbb^2]...............(2)

Where DFa = Doppler Factor as determined by A

Faa=measured frequency of a light source in A's frame

Fab= measured frequency (same light source) of the return

beam bounced off B

DFb= Doppler Factor as determined by B

Fbb=measured frequency of a light source in B's frame

Fba=measured frequency (same light source) of the return

beam bounced off A

Equations (1) and (2) are wrong. They should be as follows:

DFa = 1/Sqrt[1-(Faa^2-Fab^2)/Faa^2]..................(1C)

DFb = 1/Sqrt[1-(Fbb^2-Fab^2)/Fbb^2]...................(2C)

Equations !C and 2C will agree with all the SR frequency predictions

between A and B. For example:

In a transverse Doppler situation (from A's point of view) SR predicts

that the returned frequency is as follows:

Fab=Faa/gamma

Substituting the measured Fab in equation (1C) with this SR prediction

we get:

DFa=1/Sqrt[1-(Faa^2 - Faa^2/gamma^2)/Faa^2]

DFa= 1/Sqrt[1-(1-1/gamma^2)]

DFa= 1/1/gamma = gamma

Ken Seto

Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

> isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions. So I guess we

> do have at least one aether that is not within your lemma.

> The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

> isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions. So I guess we

> do have at least one aether that is not within your lemma.

I am puzzled by this response, for several reasons.

First, the lemma only applies to theories within the class, so the real issue is

whether or not your theory is a member of the class. I have never been able to

figure out your writings about your theory, due to the many obvious confusions,

errors, and self-inconsistencies in them. So I will respond _ONLY_ to what you

wrote above, and will ignore any context you may think is available.

You say "the 1-way speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames and all

directions [sic]", so clearly the two-way speed is also. The condition of the

class also requires that this be c in every frame. So if your 1-way isotropic

speed is not c in every inertial frame, your theory is not a member of the class;

it is also refuted by the many experiments which show that the round-trip speed

of light _is_ isotropic. If your 1-way isotropic speed of light is indeed c in

every inertial frame, then so is the round-trip speed, and your theory is a member

of the class, and the lemma applies to it. Note that this also makes your theory

equivalent to SR (i.e. that condition plus the properties of inertial frames

are sufficient to uniquely and unambiguously select the Poincare' group).

Second, you whould _want_ your theory to be a member of this class and have the

lemma, because otherwise it is not "reasonable", and has already been refuted.

Third, I have no idea why you think that your theory "is not within [my] lemma".

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> Tom's lemma assumes that absolute time doesn't exist

> Tom's lemma assumes that absolute time doesn't exist

NOT AT ALL. All of the assumptions for the lemma have been clearly spelled out,

and "absolute time" is not mentioned anywhere among them.

> Whereas all ether theories (including mine) assume that absolute time

> exists.

This is also false. There is a whole _CLASS_ of ether theories which I discuss,

and "absolute time" is not part of any of them. Note that except for the sub-class

of theories which are equivalent to SR, there _is_ a unique ether frame, and one

could suppose it's time coordinate to be "absolute", but that is not required by

the formalism. That is an _interpretation_, and cannot affect the comparison of

theory to experiment.

> Using absolute time you can indeed detect anisotropy in light

> speed.

Not for any of the theories in the class I discuss. And I'm pretty sure that

class includes all "reasonable" ether theories.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> With q'=0 you are rejecting the existing of absolute time which all

> ether theories accept.

> With q'=0 you are rejecting the existing of absolute time which all

> ether theories accept.

Yes. SR has no "absolute time".

> If you base your analysis with absolute time

> you will find that q' is not equal to zero.

I don't even know how to begin....

> This lemma is true only if you reject the existence of absolute time.

Not at all. This lemma is true only for the theories of this class. _ALL_ of

them.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/4/99

to

Ken Seto wrote:

> >> The structure of my aether posits that the 1-way speed of light is

> >> isotropic in all inertial frames and in all directions.

and then Ken wrote:

> Whereas all ether theories (including mine) assume that absolute time

> exists. Using absolute time you can indeed detect anisotropy in light

> speed.

There's no arguing with Ken's logic here, is there?

> DRT have not been

> refuted by experiment. I did made a mistake deriving the Doppler

> Factor. The following corrections to the Doppler Factor will make all

> DRT equations compatible with all SR equations.

>

> In my previos posts (before 8/30/99) I presented the formulae for the

> Doppler Factor (DF) as follows:

...[new bogus theory deleted, though it's sure to be spammed again]

Oh, I see now. The hundreds of spamming and namecalling posts by Ken

before 30 August 99 were all in support of a completely worthless

theory. But *now*, by golly, Ken has really truly got it right and

has a theory which is compatible with SR. One wonders why Ken doesn't

just chuck his garbage out the window and consider SR, a theory which

is in fact compatible with the SR equations. Or maybe even consider

one of the 'reasonable' ether theories.

Sep 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/4/99

to

On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 00:44:32 GMT, sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

>

>Oh, I see now. The hundreds of spamming and namecalling posts by Ken

>before 30 August 99 were all in support of a completely worthless

>theory. But *now*, by golly, Ken has really truly got it right and

>has a theory which is compatible with SR. One wonders why Ken doesn't

>just chuck his garbage out the window and consider SR, a theory which

>is in fact compatible with the SR equations. Or maybe even consider

>one of the 'reasonable' ether theories.

The abusive childhood is coming through again. Did your mommy or your

daddy or both abused you?

Ken Seto

Sep 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/4/99

to

Paul Stowe wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:

> > Corollary. [...]

> Boil this down and you say, "no matter the orientation, the time it

> will take a light pulse to travel between a transmitter and receiver of

> fixed distance, will always measure the same delta t."

> Tom Roberts wrote:

> > Corollary. [...]

> Boil this down and you say, "no matter the orientation, the time it

> will take a light pulse to travel between a transmitter and receiver of

> fixed distance, will always measure the same delta t."

You boiled the essence of the corollary away. It is the TIME DIFFERENCE between

two signals from the same source to the same detector which is constant, not

what you claim.

> Get this, the 'round-trip' times ARE NOT AT ISSUE!

They are for all of DeWitte's experiments -- he really has round-trip signals,

but does not recognize them as such, and/or does not realize the corollary

applies. Again, the corollary is about time DIFFERNCES.

> Please show us this, with math please... derive the one way transit

> time for a source and receiver that are uniformly moving relative to

> each other (again, just saying t = [L/c]Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] doesn't

> derive squat, it USES Einstein'e assumption).

Please see my article subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment Cannot See the

Ether. As many/most members of the audience for this series are

mathematically challenged (:-(), I did it graphically.

> > As no reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result, the

> > reason for DeWitte's non-null result must be looked for

> > elsewhere. His "GTWMC" also predicts a null result, contrary

> > to his claims; his analysis is faulty and did not properly take

> > into account the effect of slow clock transport on his clock

> > synchronization.

> You have not even begun to meet the burden of proof necessary to

> substantiate this claim.

Here, no. In my referenced articles, I believe I have. Note that nobody has

substantively challenged my discussions in those other threads.

> First, you would have to show mathematically,

> using specifically Dewitte theory, that it does not support, or predict

> this, then you would have to propose/show specifically how you can

> account for his results.

See Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_. A major theme

throughout the book is that any anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light is

unobservable experimentally (for theories in this class).

> Sorry, appeal to authority doesn't suffice, prove the 'corollary' using

> DeWitte's specific model.

I appealed to no "authority", I merely applied the corollary.

> I think LET and

> my own variant of this, ASR (Acoustical Special Relativity) does lead

> to asymmetric one way transit times for objects moving relative to the

> global or Lorentz's primal frame.

You are wrong for LET; LET is mathematically identical to SR (every theorem of

either is a theorem of both). If your "ASR" is a "reasonable" ether theory (i.e.

not already refuted by other experiments), then you are wrong for it as well.

> This simply needs to be tested.

For LET, and for "ASR" if it belongs to this class, it _CANNOT_ be tested.

> We

> now have the technology to do this with ease, and the result will be

> unambiguous either way.

Not true at all. There _is_ no such technology. One can assume that _any_

member of this class is "true" and is the way the world "really works",

and then one can select any _other_ theory of the class and any experiment

will conform to this second theory's analysis, as well as to an analysis

using the first "assumed really true" theory. That's what experimental

indistinguishibility means.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/4/99

to

In <37D14FC0...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

writes:

> detector which is constant, not what you claim.

writes:

>

>Paul Stowe wrote:

>> Tom Roberts wrote:

>> > Corollary. [...]

>Paul Stowe wrote:

>> Tom Roberts wrote:

>> > Corollary. [...]

>> Boil this down and you say, "no matter the orientation, the time it

>> will take a light pulse to travel between a transmitter and receiver

>> of fixed distance, will always measure the same delta t."

>

>> will take a light pulse to travel between a transmitter and receiver

>> of fixed distance, will always measure the same delta t."

>

> You boiled the essence of the corollary away. It is the TIME

> DIFFERENCE between two signals from the same source to the same> detector which is constant, not what you claim.

Well, I far as I'm concerned that 'boil down' IS the only issue that is

in question.

>> Get this, the 'round-trip' times ARE NOT AT ISSUE!

>

> They are for all of DeWitte's experiments -- he really has round-trip

> signals, but does not recognize them as such, and/or does not realize

> the corollary applies. Again, the corollary is about time DIFFERNCES.

Not if the protocol depends upon a single transmitter and single

receiver and a light path that DOES NOT END where it began.

>> Please show us this, with math please... derive the one way transit

>> time for a source and receiver that are uniformly moving relative to

>> each other (again, just saying t = [L/c]Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] doesn't

>> derive squat, it USES Einstein'e assumption).

>

> Please see my article subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment Cannot

> See the Ether. As many/most members of the audience for this series

> are mathematically challenged (:-(), I did it graphically.

I downloaded this post, read it at length, and while I applaud your

effort in the context of one way light speed measurements, it is in a

word, irrelevant.

>> > As no reasonable ether theory predicts a non-null result, the

>> > reason for DeWitte's non-null result must be looked for

>> > elsewhere. His "GTWMC" also predicts a null result, contrary

>> > to his claims; his analysis is faulty and did not properly take

>> > into account the effect of slow clock transport on his clock

>> > synchronization.

>>

>> You have not even begun to meet the burden of proof necessary to

>> substantiate this claim.

>

> Here, no. In my referenced articles, I believe I have. Note that

> nobody has substantively challenged my discussions in those other

> threads.

I recall reading a critique for Mr. Mingst [Greywolf] which said the

logic (politely worded as weaknesses) was flawed.

>> First, you would have to show mathematically, using specifically

>> Dewitte theory, that it does not support, or predict this, then you

>> would have to propose/show specifically how you can account for his

>> results.

>

> See Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_. A

> major theme throughout the book is that any anisotropy in the 1-way

> speed of light is unobservable experimentally (for theories in this

> class).

I do not have ready access to this book. So, could you show me in

definitive logic how this is so.

>> Sorry, appeal to authority doesn't suffice, prove the 'corollary'

>> using DeWitte's specific model.

>

>I appealed to no "authority", I merely applied the corollary.

Without supporting justification. This is a defacto appeal to the

'authority', making an assumption of fact not SHOWN to be valid or

applicable to the case be discussed.

>> I think LET and my own variant of this, ASR (Acoustical Special

>> Relativity) does lead to asymmetric one way transit times for

>> objects moving relative to the global or Lorentz's primal frame.

>

> You are wrong for LET; LET is mathematically identical to SR (every

> theorem of either is a theorem of both). If your "ASR" is a

> "reasonable" ether theory (i.e. not already refuted by other

> experiments), then you are wrong for it as well.

I've ask you several times before, and I repeat it here, please provide

a reference to Lorentz's 1904 paper where he states or even implies

that this is an assumption. I know it is an assumption (without proof)

for Einstein's 1905 SR, but I cannot find any mention of this in

Lorentz's treatise.

>> This simply needs to be tested.

>

> For LET, and for "ASR" if it belongs to this class, it _CANNOT_ be

> tested.

Again, why not? Please be specific. If you again skip this question

without a viable answer, readers should correctly conclude that you

have none.

>> We now have the technology to do this with ease, and the result

>> will be unambiguous either way.

>

> Not true at all. There _is_ no such technology. One can assume that

> _any_member of this class is "true" and is the way the world "really

> works", and then one can select any _other_ theory of the class and

> any experiment will conform to this second theory's analysis, as well

> as to an analysis using the first "assumed really true" theory.

>That's what experimental indistinguishibility means.

I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to adequately

support this assertion.

Paul Stowe

Sep 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/4/99

to

Paul Stowe wrote:

> I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to adequately

> support this assertion.

> I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to adequately

> support this assertion.

I guess you're right, in that I have not explicitly displayed all of the steps.

The basic argument is simple: the theories in this class differ only by the

synchronization of spatially-separated clocks at rest in a given inertial frame,

and clock synchroniation cannot have any cosmic importance. But the devil is in

the details (also: "_God_ is in the details" - A.Einstein [emphasis mine]).

I will prepare an article on this, tentative Subject: Why the One-Way Speed of

Light is Unobservable. Look for it in a week or so. I will show that one could

assume that any member of this class of theories is "true" and "the way the world

really works", and yet an analysis of any 1-way experiment using any other theory

in this class will agree with the experimental results (as determined by the

theory originally chosen). Be forewarned that I will not type in all of Zhang's

book, and will reference it for the basic transform equations.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:57:43 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

>> With q'=0 you are rejecting the existing of absolute time which all

>> ether theories accept.

Tom:

>Yes. SR has no "absolute time".

>To compare to Zhang's notation, put q' = -v/c (q' is Zhang's anisotropy

> parameter for the frame, and v is the velocity of the >inertial frame

>relative to the ether frame, measured in the latter).

Since you and Zhang assume the non-existence of absolute time then

q' = 0 for all theories. The reason is that v is not detectable by a

clock second because a clock second will have a different amount of

absolute time content in different frame. This is to maintain the

speed of light to be c in all frames.

>

>

>> If you base your analysis with absolute time

>> you will find that q' is not equal to zero.

>

>I don't even know how to begin....

A clock second of different clocks in the same frame will have the

same duration (absolute time) content. There is no need to synchronize

clocks to measure time delay. All we need to do is measure the rate of

light pulses at the source and compared to that at the detector. The

modified Compton Effect experiment in my website is designed to do

that.

>> This lemma is true only if you reject the existence of absolute time.

>

>Not at all. This lemma is true only for the theories of this class. _ALL_ of

>them.

No. The lemma is true for those ether theories that insist that

absolute motion can be detected using clock second in combination with

a specific synchronization procedure.

Ken Seto

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:55:09 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

>> Tom's lemma assumes that absolute time doesn't exist

>

>NOT AT ALL. All of the assumptions for the lemma have been clearly spelled out,

>and "absolute time" is not mentioned anywhere among them.

But you and Zhang assume that q'=-v/c for all ether theories. We know

that v cannot be detected using a clock second--because of the

different amount of absolute time content for a clock second in

different frames. That's why I said that your lemma is true only if

there is no absolute time.

>

>

>> Whereas all ether theories (including mine) assume that absolute time

>> exists.

>

>This is also false. There is a whole _CLASS_ of ether theories which I discuss,

>and "absolute time" is not part of any of them.

Certainly LET acknowledges the existence of absolute time. Is LET not

in the class you are discussing?

>Note that except for the sub-class

>of theories which are equivalent to SR, there _is_ a unique ether frame, and one

>could suppose it's time coordinate to be "absolute", but that is not required by

>the formalism. That is an _interpretation_, and cannot affect the comparison of

>theory to experiment.

>

>

>> Using absolute time you can indeed detect anisotropy in light

>> speed.

>

>Not for any of the theories in the class I discuss. And I'm pretty sure that

>class includes all "reasonable" ether theories.

How can you be sure when you don't accept the existence of absolute

time? Also what is reasonable and according to whom? What about my

modified Compton Effect experiment?

Ken Seto

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

In article <37CDF93C...@lucent.com>,

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

> Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

> Date: September 1, 1999

>

> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims have

observed

> the ether and measured the earth's velocity relative to it. He

presents a theory

> which he calls "GTWMC" which he claims fits the experimental data for

these and

> other experiments better than Special Relativity.

>

--------------------excerpted from original-----------------------------

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

> Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

> Date: September 1, 1999

>

> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims have

observed

> the ether and measured the earth's velocity relative to it. He

presents a theory

> which he calls "GTWMC" which he claims fits the experimental data for

these and

> other experiments better than Special Relativity.

>

I think your title should be "DeWitte's Experiments May See the Ether".

Let's be clear that the "ether" that people like Lorentz, Sommerfeld [

he also called it the vacuum to "avoid confusion"], Dennis { I think !]

and myself talk about is the known fact that electromagnetic transverse

fields have material substance. They have energy and momentum just as

any material substance does. Thus when we have balanced dual momentums

they can be separated mechanically as described here.

As far as I can tell, your analysis doesn't include the Berry Phase

effects that I have described in the thread " Relativity and Berry

Phase ". I have apologized to DeWitte, Roland for spelling his name

wrong in the thread. These effects are easy to understand since they

show up macroscopically with the Foucalt Pendulum. The referenced paper

by Berry describes how linearly polarized light is shifted in polarity

[ an effective geometric Faraday Effect ] when it travels in a twisted

fiber optic cable. The reason is that the left and right handed

components of the linearly polarized traveling wave receive equal and

opposite Berry Phase effects in the cable. These predictions that so

startled the quantum mechanic world have been validated many times

since the original Berry breakthrough in physical understanding.

As explained in the "Relativity and Berry Phase" thread the DeWitte

case is similar except he has standing waves, one traveling out and one

traveling back which receive the differential Berry Phase effects. This

looks like an effective repeated phase shift or frequency shift and

like the Foucalt Pendulum has a daily period. The question is to

estimate the size of the effect and see if the DeWitte techniques are

sensitive enough to detect this "ether" or EM material substance

effect. The line impedance frequency variation needs to be compared to

the same source driving a pure resistive load. Good seeing. JD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 20:02:07 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:

>> I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to adequately

>> support this assertion.

>

>I guess you're right, in that I have not explicitly displayed all of the steps.

>The basic argument is simple: the theories in this class differ only by the

>synchronization of spatially-separated clocks at rest in a given inertial frame,

>and clock synchroniation cannot have any cosmic importance. But the devil is in

>the details (also: "_God_ is in the details" - A.Einstein [emphasis mine]).

You are right. Clock synchronization is not capable of detecting the

state of absolute motion of the detector. The reason is that the

duration (absolute time) content of a clock second will yield the same

math ratio c in any frame.

>

>I will prepare an article on this, tentative Subject: Why the One-Way Speed of

>Light is Unobservable.

This is a futile excercise unless you include absolute time in your

analysis. BTW, the difference in absolute time content of a clock

second between any two frames is known as time dilation.

Ken Seto

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:55:09 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> But you and Zhang assume that q'=-v/c for all ether theories.

> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:55:09 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> But you and Zhang assume that q'=-v/c for all ether theories.

You _really_ need to learn how to read. There is no such assumption, and

q' can have any value -1<q'<1. q'=-v/c is the specific choice of q' for the

specific ether theory advocated by Brown and DeWitte (and others).

> Certainly LET acknowledges the existence of absolute time. Is LET not

> in the class you are discussing?

You did not understand what I said. While many ether theories may indeed

discuss an "absolute time", that is an _interpretation_ and is _IRRELEVANT_

to whether or not a given theory is a member of this class.

LET is a member of this class.

> >> Using absolute time you can indeed detect anisotropy in light

> >> speed.

> >Not for any of the theories in the class I discuss. And I'm pretty sure that

> >class includes all "reasonable" ether theories.

> How can you be sure when you don't accept the existence of absolute

> time?

Because I can apply the lemma and its corollary I have presented earlier.

Again, "absolute time" is an _interpretation_, and cannot affect the predictions

of a theory.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> Since you and Zhang assume the non-existence of absolute time then

> q' = 0 for all theories.

> Since you and Zhang assume the non-existence of absolute time then

> q' = 0 for all theories.

Again, you need to learn how to read. q' can have any value -1<q'<1. q'=0 is the

value corresponding to SR.

There is _NO_ assumption concerning "absolute time" at all.

> The reason is that v is not detectable by a

> clock second because a clock second will have a different amount of

> absolute time content in different frame. This is to maintain the

> speed of light to be c in all frames.

But using any theory of this class with q' not identically zero, the one-way speed

of light is not c in some directions, in any frame with q' not equal to zero.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between your personal ether theory and the

class of theories I am discussing....

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I think your title should be "DeWitte's Experiments May See the Ether".

> I think your title should be "DeWitte's Experiments May See the Ether".

Nope.

> As far as I can tell, your analysis doesn't include the Berry Phase

> effects that I have described in the thread " Relativity and Berry

> Phase ".

Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is important.

DeWitte's experiments are all covered by the lemma and corollary I presented,

and all "reasonable" ether theories predicts a null result for all of them.

So thay cannot see the ether, as my Subject says.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99

to

In article <37D2D4F9...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:

>

>Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is important.

>

>Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is important.

The Berry phase is relevant for all experiments. It's the

greatest revelation in physics in the last 50 years. All things

are explained by the Berry phase.

Aaron

--

Aaron Bergman

<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

In article <slrn7t5lui....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good comments but I think you are slightly exaggerating. The history of

understanding electromagnetics is a fascinating topic and we can now

see that magnetism itself would have been understood by BERRY PHASE.

This is all explained in the World Science book I referenced you before.

Your exaggeration comes when you say "all". There are many things that

don't involve BERRY PHASE, but one of it's significances to this

newsgroup is to illustrate the few so called [ Dennis has "so called" ]

experts that are unaware of such a huge breakthrough in science

understanding [ particularly in clarifying the material substance of

the quantum mechanic wave function description ] from the mid 1980s.

Your personal "GREATEST REVELATION" will come when you understand

where to "stand" to observe relativity effects and then realize how

many are explained simply by BERRY PHASE. Good seeing. JD

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

In article <7qv38r$nnk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <slrn7t5lui....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,

> aber...@princeton.edu wrote:

>> In article <37D2D4F9...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> >

>> >Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is

>important.

>>

>> The Berry phase is relevant for all experiments. It's the

>> greatest revelation in physics in the last 50 years. All things

>> are explained by the Berry phase.

>>

>

>In article <slrn7t5lui....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,

> aber...@princeton.edu wrote:

>> In article <37D2D4F9...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> >

>> >Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is

>important.

>>

>> The Berry phase is relevant for all experiments. It's the

>> greatest revelation in physics in the last 50 years. All things

>> are explained by the Berry phase.

>>

>

>Good comments but I think you are slightly exaggerating.

Wow.

I mean really, wow.

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

>

>In article <37CDF93C...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

>> Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

>> Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>> Date: September 1, 1999

>>

>> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims have

>observed

>> the ether and measured the earth's velocity relative to it. He

>presents a theory

>> which he calls "GTWMC" which he claims fits the experimental data for

>these and

>> other experiments better than Special Relativity.

>>

>--------------------excerpted from original-----------------------------

>

JD: >I think your title should be "DeWitte's Experiments May See the Ether".>In article <37CDF93C...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

>> Subject: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether

>> Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>> Date: September 1, 1999

>>

>> Roland DeWitte has described several experiments which he claims have

>observed

>> the ether and measured the earth's velocity relative to it. He

>presents a theory

>> which he calls "GTWMC" which he claims fits the experimental data for

>these and

>> other experiments better than Special Relativity.

>>

>--------------------excerpted from original-----------------------------

>

>Let's be clear that the "ether" that people like Lorentz, Sommerfeld [

>he also called it the vacuum to "avoid confusion"], Dennis { I think !]

>and myself talk about is the known fact that electromagnetic transverse

>fields have material substance. >They have energy and momentum just as

>any material substance does.

Dennis: Exactly.

I do have to study Berry phase some before I can comment on it....

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 15:36:07 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

>> Since you and Zhang assume the non-existence of absolute time then

>> q' = 0 for all theories.

>

>Again, you need to learn how to read. q' can have any value -1<q'<1. q'=0 is the

>value corresponding to SR.

Yes I understand what you are saying.

Here's your lemma:

Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

Here are my objections:

1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

It can be measured using the modified Compton Effect experiment in my

website.

2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path in

an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time delay

for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

frame.

3. Items #1 and 2 suggest that you use experimental data based on

clock time exclusively to support your lemma.

Ken Seto

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> Here's your lemma:

> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> Here are my objections:

> 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

> Here's your lemma:

> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> Here are my objections:

> 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one can make

_ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly allowed.

> It can be measured using the modified Compton Effect experiment in my

> website.

That's irrelevant -- this lemma is a mathematical theorem of the theories I

am discussing. Remember, please, this whole discussion is about the

implications of various theories, and how they compare to experiments.

And I strongly doubt your experiment can measure what you claim....

> 2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

> fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path in

> an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time delay

> for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

> frame.

You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is undefinable....

> 3. Items #1 and 2 suggest that you use experimental data based on

> clock time exclusively to support your lemma.

Go back and read my article -- it is based upon _THEORIES_, not experiments.

The word "lemma" should clue you that this is mathematics and theoretical

physics, not experimental physics (no amount of measurements can ever prove

anything, in the sense of mathematical or logical proof).

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:05:15 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

>> Here's your lemma:

>> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

>> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a

>> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent of

>> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

>> Here are my objections:

>> 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

>

>Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one can make

>_ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly allowed.

My point is: You cannot find v using clock time and clock

synchronization. This means zero anisotropy for all theoies. This is

true no matter if a theory predicts anisotropy Therefore any

anisotropy assumption is pointless.

>> It can be measured using the modified Compton Effect experiment in my

>> website.

>

>That's irrelevant -- this lemma is a mathematical theorem of the theories I

>am discussing. Remember, please, this whole discussion is about the

>implications of various theories, and how they compare to experiments.

It seems that an aether theory requires absolute duration to detect

anisotropy is not within your lemma and yet you classify such a theory

not reasonable--is that right?

>

>And I strongly doubt your experiment can measure what you claim...

It can..

>

>

>> 2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

>> fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path in

>> an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time delay

>> for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

>> frame.

>

>You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is undefinable....

An absolute second can be defined as follows:

The Paris frame's Cs clock second can be choosen as an absolute

second. An observer can determine the value of his absolute second by

using the Doppler Relativity Transform equation.

Ken Seto

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

In article <37d26dce...@news.erinet.com>,

ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 20:02:07 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> >Paul Stowe wrote:

> >> I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to

adequately

> >> support this assertion.

> >

> >I guess you're right, in that I have not explicitly displayed all of

the steps.

> >The basic argument is simple: the theories in this class differ only

by the

> >synchronization of spatially-separated clocks at rest in a given

inertial frame,

> >and clock synchroniation cannot have any cosmic importance. But the

devil is in

> >the details (also: "_God_ is in the details" - A.Einstein [emphasis

mine]).

>

> You are right. Clock synchronization is not capable of detecting the

> state of absolute motion of the detector. The reason is that the

> duration (absolute time) content of a clock second will yield the same

> math ratio c in any frame.

ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 20:02:07 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> >Paul Stowe wrote:

> >> I know you have asserted this, but to date have failed to

adequately

> >> support this assertion.

> >

> >I guess you're right, in that I have not explicitly displayed all of

the steps.

> >The basic argument is simple: the theories in this class differ only

by the

> >synchronization of spatially-separated clocks at rest in a given

inertial frame,

> >and clock synchroniation cannot have any cosmic importance. But the

devil is in

> >the details (also: "_God_ is in the details" - A.Einstein [emphasis

mine]).

>

> You are right. Clock synchronization is not capable of detecting the

> state of absolute motion of the detector. The reason is that the

> duration (absolute time) content of a clock second will yield the same

> math ratio c in any frame.

So you are claiming that space is absolute as well, and that all clocks

measure the SAME rate of time flow, according to some magical,

undetectable prefered frame. (You probably don't understand enough

about physics to understand what you said, but that IS what you have

claimed.)

> >I will prepare an article on this, tentative Subject: Why the One-Way

Speed of

> >Light is Unobservable.

>

> This is a futile excercise unless you include absolute time in your

> analysis. BTW, the difference in absolute time content of a clock

> second between any two frames is known as time dilation.

You have now flatly contradicted yourself AGAIN. You have previously

claimed that all clocks measure IDENTICLE intervals between any given

pair of events.

Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99

to

In article <37d42b4a...@news.erinet.com>,

> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:05:15 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> >"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> >> Here's your lemma:

> >> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> >> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to

make a

> >> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent

of

> >> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> >> Here are my objections:

> >> 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light

speed.

> >

> >Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one

can make

> >_ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly

allowed.

>

> My point is: You cannot find v using clock time and clock

> synchronization. This means zero anisotropy for all theoies. This is

> true no matter if a theory predicts anisotropy Therefore any

> anisotropy assumption is pointless.

> wrote:

> >"Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> >> Here's your lemma:

> >> Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> >> in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to

make a

> >> round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent

of

> >> the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> >> Here are my objections:

> >> 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light

speed.

> >

> >Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one

can make

> >_ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly

allowed.

>

> My point is: You cannot find v using clock time and clock

> synchronization. This means zero anisotropy for all theoies. This is

> true no matter if a theory predicts anisotropy Therefore any

> anisotropy assumption is pointless.

You forgot to mention why you assume that your demands are pointless.

> >> It can be measured using the modified Compton Effect experiment in

my

> >> website.

> >

> >That's irrelevant -- this lemma is a mathematical theorem of the

theories I

> >am discussing. Remember, please, this whole discussion is about the

> >implications of various theories, and how they compare to

experiments.

>

> It seems that an aether theory requires absolute duration to detect

> anisotropy is not within your lemma and yet you classify such a theory

> not reasonable--is that right?

Why would your mistakes be right? He said that if the theory has a

certain interaction of its implications, then it was 'reasonable.' Had

you been able to understand that set of conditions, you could not avoid

knowing that there is a certain group of ether theories that fulfill

this condition.

> >And I strongly doubt your experiment can measure what you claim...

>

> It can..

Then why have the experiments that would have detected these effects not

detected them?

> >> 2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

> >> fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path

in

> >> an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time

delay

> >> for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

> >> frame.

> >

> >You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is

undefinable....

>

> An absolute second can be defined as follows:

> The Paris frame's Cs clock second can be choosen as an absolute

> second. An observer can determine the value of his absolute second by

> using the Doppler Relativity Transform equation.

As predicted, you have failed to define an absolute second, which cannot

avoid being a second as measured in the prefered frame of rest for the

universe. You have gone further, however, and admitted total ignorance

of what it MEANS to have absolute time.

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

In article <37D3E63B...@lucent.com>,

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> > Here's your lemma:

> > Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> > in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to

make a

> > round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent

of

> > the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> > Here are my objections:

> > 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

>

> Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one

can make

> _ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly allowed.

>

>

> > 2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

> > fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path

in

> > an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time

delay

> > for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

> > frame.

>

> You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is

undefinable....

>

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:

> > Here's your lemma:

> > Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy

> > in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to

make a

> > round trip around a path of fixed shape and size is independent

of

> > the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.

> > Here are my objections:

> > 1. There is no need to assume anisotropy in the one-way light speed.

>

> Read the first sentence of the Lemma again. It _explicitly_ says one

can make

> _ANY_ suumption about anisoropy -- zero anisotropy is clearly allowed.

>

> > It can be measured using the modified Compton Effect experiment in

my

> > website.

>

> That's irrelevant -- this lemma is a mathematical theorem of the

theories I

> am discussing. Remember, please, this whole discussion is about the

> implications of various theories, and how they compare to experiments.

>

> And I strongly doubt your experiment can measure what you claim....my

> > website.

>

> That's irrelevant -- this lemma is a mathematical theorem of the

theories I

> am discussing. Remember, please, this whole discussion is about the

> implications of various theories, and how they compare to experiments.

>

>

> > 2. I agree that the time delay to make a around trip of a path of

> > fixed shape and size is independent of the orientation of the path

in

> > an inertial frame. But using a defined absolute second, the time

delay

> > for the same experiment would be different in different inertial

> > frame.

>

> You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is

undefinable....

>

> > 3. Items #1 and 2 suggest that you use experimental data based on

> > clock time exclusively to support your lemma.

>

> Go back and read my article -- it is based upon _THEORIES_, not

experiments.

>

> The word "lemma" should clue you that this is mathematics and

theoretical

> physics, not experimental physics (no amount of measurements can ever

prove

> anything, in the sense of mathematical or logical proof).

>

> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>

> > clock time exclusively to support your lemma.

>

> Go back and read my article -- it is based upon _THEORIES_, not

experiments.

>

> The word "lemma" should clue you that this is mathematics and

theoretical

> physics, not experimental physics (no amount of measurements can ever

prove

> anything, in the sense of mathematical or logical proof).

>

> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>

I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

Neither LET nor ASR have this result. So, though your mathematics and

logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both one-

way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

(unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

The non-uniform travel time can be seen in any standard acoustic form.

The issue can be defined with a simple experiment. Why not try it?

That's what experiments are for.

--

mingstb aka greywolf42 (when on the road)

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

mingstb wrote:

> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

>

> Neither LET nor ASR have this result. So, though your mathematics and

> logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

> result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both

one-

> way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

> (unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

Gee, mingstb aka greywolf42, you seem to be following a different

thread here than I am. Roberts can correct me if I'm wrong,

but I think his initial definition of the class of 'reasonable'

theories means no anisotropy in the 2-way travel time, which

is a prediction of both SR and LET, and is amply backed up by

many experiments. Sure, Einstein's derivation does assume one-way

isotropy and LET does not, but so what? Both theories predict e.g.

the null fringe shift of MMX because of the 2-way isotropy.

---Tim Shuba---

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

You need to be more precise.

All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed of

light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

class. But they differ in their predictions of the 1-way speed of light

and its isotropy or anisotropy in a given inertial frame.

As I said, all "reasonable" ether theories belong to this class, because

the MMX, Brillet and Hall, and other experiments put such stringent

limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light.

> Neither LET nor ASR have this result. So, though your mathematics and

> logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

> result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both one-

> way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

> (unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

Yes, SR makes that assumption. I DO NOT. I _explicitly_ permit theories

of this class to have an anisotropic 1-way speed of light. But the

experiments essentially require an isotropic round-trip speed of light.

> The non-uniform travel time can be seen in any standard acoustic form.

Huh? This is electromagnetism, not sound. I haven't a clue what you are

trying to say.

> The issue can be defined with a simple experiment. Why not try it?

> That's what experiments are for.

No, it cannot be resolved by any experiment. THAT IS MY POINT! The

1-way speed of light cannot be measured independent of clock

synchronization, and the latter is conventional. This entire class

of theories is an equivalence class, where the equivalence is that

their predictions for all possible experiments are identical. _THAT_

is what makes them experimentally indistinguishable.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:03:42 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

>> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

>> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

>

>You need to be more precise.

>

>All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed of

>light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

>class.

The _ROUND TRIP_ isotropy of the speed of light in vacuum supports the

existence of ether. It is just another form of source independency of

the speed of light and source independency _IS_the result of light

waves are traveling in the ether at a constant speed (based on a clock

second in the ether frame).

> But they differ in their predictions of the 1-way speed of light

>and its isotropy or anisotropy in a given inertial frame.

A reasonable ether theory would predict that the 1-way speed of light

(using the observer's clock second) is isotropic in any given

inertial frame. The reason is that there is no way to detect any

anisotropy (round trip or 1-way) using the observer's clock second in

combination with synchronization . One way to show one way anisotropy

in any inertial frame is using the Modified Compton Effect experiment

in my website. The reason this experiment can detect anisotropy is

because it uses an absolute duration to determine the rate of light

pulses emitted and compare with the rate detected after the light

pulses are reflected off the nucli of the target that are in a state

of absolute motion.

>As I said, all "reasonable" ether theories belong to this class, because

>the MMX, Brillet and Hall, and other experiments put such stringent

>limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light.

The results of all these experiments can be explained by the source

independency of the speed of light. Souce independency of the speed of

light is the result of light waves are traveling at a constant speed

in the ether.

It is clear that your lemma is designed to rule out all ether theories

but it is not successful because of your prejudice against the

existence of absolute time.

Ken Seto

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:32:43 GMT, ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)

wrote:

wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:05:15 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

>wrote:

>>

>>You need to define an "absolute second". I suspect it is undefinable....

>

>An absolute second can be defined as follows:

>The Paris frame's Cs clock second can be choosen as an absolute

>second. An observer can determine the value of his absolute second by

>using the Doppler Relativity Transform equation.

Sorry an absolute second should be defined as follow:

The Paris frame's Cs clock second (,9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs

133 atom) is choosen as an absolute duration second. The value of this

absolute duration in any other frame would be determine by the Paris

observer using the Doppler Relativity Transform equation. An observer

would use this value to set his absolute time clock. For example:

If the Paris observer determined that observer A's absolute

second is worth 5,515,579,062 periods of Cs 133 atom, then A

will set his universal clock using this clock rate as an

absolute second.

Ken Seto

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

In article <37d53c59...@news.erinet.com>,

Why do you want to pretend that you could have an absolute second of

variable length, as you have just done?

Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99

to

In article <37d52f79...@news.erinet.com>,

> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:03:42 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

> wrote:

> >min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> >> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> >> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

> >

> >You need to be more precise.

> >

> >All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed

of

> >light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

> >class.

>

> The _ROUND TRIP_ isotropy of the speed of light in vacuum supports the

> existence of ether. It is just another form of source independency of

> the speed of light and source independency _IS_the result of light

> waves are traveling in the ether at a constant speed (based on a clock

> second in the ether frame).

> wrote:

> >min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> >> I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> >> theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

> >

> >You need to be more precise.

> >

> >All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed

of

> >light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

> >class.

>

> The _ROUND TRIP_ isotropy of the speed of light in vacuum supports the

> existence of ether. It is just another form of source independency of

> the speed of light and source independency _IS_the result of light

> waves are traveling in the ether at a constant speed (based on a clock

> second in the ether frame).

If you ASSUME that there is an ether, then that is a natural conclusion.

This cannot explain the assumption of an ether, however.

> > But they differ in their predictions of the 1-way speed of light

> >and its isotropy or anisotropy in a given inertial frame.

>

> A reasonable ether theory would predict that the 1-way speed of light

> (using the observer's clock second) is isotropic in any given

> inertial frame. The reason is that there is no way to detect any

> anisotropy (round trip or 1-way) using the observer's clock second in

> combination with synchronization . One way to show one way anisotropy

> in any inertial frame is using the Modified Compton Effect experiment

> in my website. The reason this experiment can detect anisotropy is

> because it uses an absolute duration to determine the rate of light

> pulses emitted and compare with the rate detected after the light

> pulses are reflected off the nucli of the target that are in a state

> of absolute motion.

As yopu have been informed on many, MANY occasions, your expoerimental

analysis assumes that pulses DISAPPEAR somewhere in the interaction,

despite the observation in all real experiments that they do NOT

disappear, and that no change of pulse frequency of the kind you assume

is EVER observed. The relative angle of observation direction and

incident beam DOES change the energy spectrum distribution of the

SCATTERED (but NOT redshited) photons, but this does not depend on the

orientation of the entire aparatus in space.

> >As I said, all "reasonable" ether theories belong to this class,

because

> >the MMX, Brillet and Hall, and other experiments put such stringent

> >limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light.

>

> The results of all these experiments can be explained by the source

> independency of the speed of light. Souce independency of the speed of

> light is the result of light waves are traveling at a constant speed

> in the ether.

That is, as you cannot avoid knowing, only the conclusion that is

reached on the basis of an assumption of an ether. There is, thus far,

no explanation from you on WHY there should be this assumption.

> It is clear that your lemma is designed to rule out all ether theories

> but it is not successful because of your prejudice against the

> existence of absolute time.

You forgot to support your assumption that the restriction of theories

to those which do not conflict with the observed behaviour of the

universe could rule out all ether models. (There must be compelling

reasons to assume ether, however, due to the massive loss of predictive

power that results from this assumption.)

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:33:45 GMT, dev...@technologist.com wrote:

You are not only the runt of the SR experts. You are also shameless.

Can't you see that that I don't want to waste my time on you because

you don't know what you are talking about? This makes me ashamed as

a former Canadian.

Ken Seto

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

In article <19990905221752...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,

djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) wrote:

> >

> >In article <37CDF93C...@lucent.com>,

djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk) wrote:

> >

> >In article <37CDF93C...@lucent.com>,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dennis; 8 Sept 99

I did a little search to see if anyone else had noticed the importance

of BERRY PHASE to relativity questions.

Reference your comments and your particular interests in Sagnac an

interesting paper shows up when searching Yahoo! at

Home>Science>Physics "Berry Phase". I still can't figure out how to see

the full text of any of these HEP type papers { us taxpayers are good

enough to pay them but not good enough to get to read the papers } but

I did read the abstract. The 16th web site found out of 201 in the

search was the abstract of the paper by Franz Hasselbach and Marc

Nicklaus titled:

" Sagnac experiment with electrons ..". I thought you would find the

following end comments also of interest: " A brief informal discussion

is included of the interpretation of the Sagnac phase shift as a

geometric phase ( "Berry Phase") caused by the global anholonomy of the

local phase factor that is produced by the gauge field induced by

rotation." Does this relate to your past works on the Sagnac?

The fancy French words [ anholonomy and gauge would have been chuckled

at by Hamilton when he described all these ideas ] refer to the

mechanical process of separating balanced EM material properties of

momentum as I explained to Tom Roberts above in this thread. It's also

related to the experimental process that Professor Berry explained for

optical modes in the paper referenced in the thread "Relativity and

Berry Phase". As you have so well demonstrated how REAL science

developes with people willing to "think outside the box" in historical

context,as some say today, it wasn't so long ago [ mid 1980s ] that

these fundamental predictions weren't understood by anyone, except

Berry, not just the naive new-ager nor the dusty ol' dinosaur as today

in this forum. Let us know what your studies turn up. Good seeing. JD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

In article <37D5294E...@lucent.com>,

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> > I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> > theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

>

> You need to be more precise.

>

> All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed of

> light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

> class. But they differ in their predictions of the 1-way speed of

light

> and its isotropy or anisotropy in a given inertial frame.

>

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> > I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> > theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

>

> You need to be more precise.

>

> All theories in this class predict isotropy in the ROUND_TRIP speed of

> light in vacuum, because that is the defining characteristic of the

light

> and its isotropy or anisotropy in a given inertial frame.

>

> As I said, all "reasonable" ether theories belong to this class,

because

> the MMX, Brillet and Hall, and other experiments put such stringent

> limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light.

>

because

> the MMX, Brillet and Hall, and other experiments put such stringent

> limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light.

>

Sorry Tom, I thought your reference to isotropic speeds of light

referred to 1-way speeds.

> > Neither LET nor ASR have this result. So, though your mathematics

and

> > logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

> > result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both

one-

> > way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

> > (unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

>

> Yes, SR makes that assumption. I DO NOT. I _explicitly_ permit

theories

> of this class to have an anisotropic 1-way speed of light. But the

> experiments essentially require an isotropic round-trip speed of

light.

My confusion was that two-way trips are not defined as "isotropic"

(according to my understanding), since the trip time for a cross-flow

(or cross motion) trip is not the same as a parallel flow trip in SR,

LET or ASR.

>

> > The non-uniform travel time can be seen in any standard acoustic

form.

>

> Huh? This is electromagnetism, not sound. I haven't a clue what you

are

> trying to say.

I was referring to the recent posts on Acoustic derivations of SR -- or

ASR. That is, if you assume a standard acoustic source you get all of

SR. Since SR's assumptions (PoE, constant c, and AB->BA equivalence)

are not electromagnetic in nature, ASR gives an alternate derivation.

(True, you do need to evaluate transverse instead of compressive waves

-- but a superfluid allows this).

>

> > The issue can be defined with a simple experiment. Why not try it?

> > That's what experiments are for.

>

> No, it cannot be resolved by any experiment. THAT IS MY POINT! The

> 1-way speed of light cannot be measured independent of clock

> synchronization, and the latter is conventional. This entire class

> of theories is an equivalence class, where the equivalence is that

> their predictions for all possible experiments are identical. _THAT_

> is what makes them experimentally indistinguishable.

>

> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

>

Tom, this is where you are wrong. According to SR this cannot be done.

But it can be done according to LET or ASR or any reasonable aether

theory. It cannot be done in SR because Einstein's DEFINITION of

simultenaeity requires a round-trip. This is required to support

Einstein's use of t_1 being 1/2 of the round-trip time.

If you use any other definition of simultenaeity you can measure this

effect. In fact, you do not need to be simultaneous. Only equivalent

time rates. Two devices. One sender, fixed on earth, sending periodic

pulses. One receiver, fixed on earth. Since they should change their

orientation WRT the "local aether flow" (whatever that is), a sinusoidal

pattern should be found as a fraction of the recorded detection periods.

We don't care what the average time delay is (or distance). We don't

care what the average time compression (if any) is. All we want to do

is find a sinusoidal pattern.

According to SR there CANNOT BE such a pattern. According to LET or ASR

or "reasonable aether theories" there SHOULD BE such a pattern.

--

greywolf42

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

In article <7r257g$q6e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

> mingstb wrote:

>

> > I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> > theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

> >

sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

> mingstb wrote:

>

> > I do not agree that "theories of this class" (reasonable aether

> > theories) all predict isotropy. This defines away the problem.

> >

> > Neither LET nor ASR have this result. So, though your mathematics

and

> > logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

> > result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both

> one-

> > way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

> > (unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

>

and

> > logic is impeccable, your initial assumption is wrong and so is your

> > result. Only Einstein (SR) "defines" simultenaeity such that both

> one-

> > way trips are exactly half of the round-trip time. This is an

> > (unstated) third assumption in SR (p 40 Dover).

>

> Gee, mingstb aka greywolf42, you seem to be following a different

> thread here than I am. Roberts can correct me if I'm wrong,

> but I think his initial definition of the class of 'reasonable'

> theories means no anisotropy in the 2-way travel time, which

> is a prediction of both SR and LET, and is amply backed up by

> many experiments. Sure, Einstein's derivation does assume one-way

> isotropy and LET does not, but so what? Both theories predict e.g.

> the null fringe shift of MMX because of the 2-way isotropy.

>

> ---Tim Shuba---

> thread here than I am. Roberts can correct me if I'm wrong,

> but I think his initial definition of the class of 'reasonable'

> theories means no anisotropy in the 2-way travel time, which

> is a prediction of both SR and LET, and is amply backed up by

> many experiments. Sure, Einstein's derivation does assume one-way

> isotropy and LET does not, but so what? Both theories predict e.g.

> the null fringe shift of MMX because of the 2-way isotropy.

>

> ---Tim Shuba---

I think you're right on what Tom was referring to -- based on his later

post. But the thread is on De Witte's experiment. Which is a one-way

experiment. So a two-way definition is irrelevant. That's why I was

confused by Tom's reference to isotropic travel time.

So read the thread. It's De Witte. Not MMX. It's one-way. That's

what.

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> But the thread is on De Witte's experiment. Which is a one-way

> experiment. So a two-way definition is irrelevant. That's why I was

> confused by Tom's reference to isotropic travel time.

> But the thread is on De Witte's experiment. Which is a one-way

> experiment. So a two-way definition is irrelevant. That's why I was

> confused by Tom's reference to isotropic travel time.

The point is that there is no reasonable ether theory which predicts

a non-null result. So for DeWitte to claim his experiment "detects"

the ether frame is in error.

Yes, his experiment is one-way (I'm thinking of his Belgacom expt.),

but the one-way velocity of light _AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ are unobservable

in all theories of this class, including his "GTWMC". So this is a

strange sort of "one-way" experiment, which cannot measure the one-way

speed of light.... (all experiments are "strange" in that sense).

All _any_ "one-way" experiment can measure is: the one-way speed of

light for a given method of clock synchronization. Different methods of

synchronization will yield different one-way values, FOR THE SAME

EXPERIMENT.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99

to

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <37D5294E...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> > min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> > > The issue can be defined with a simple experiment.

> In article <37D5294E...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> > min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:

> > > The issue can be defined with a simple experiment.

> > No, it cannot be resolved by any experiment. THAT IS MY POINT!

> Tom, this is where you are wrong. According to SR this cannot be done.

> But it can be done according to LET or ASR or any reasonable aether

> theory.

> But it can be done according to LET or ASR or any reasonable aether

> theory.

You haven't been paying attention. You merely _THINK_ it can be done.

But in fact it cannot.

LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (i.e. every theorem of either is

a theorem of both). This means that each and every computation of one

is a computation of either, and they are therefore experimentally

indistinguishable. So your claim that LET "can do this" is clearly

false.

I don't know anything about your "ASR", but if its round-trip speed of

light is isotropic in any inertial frame, and if there exists an

inertial frame in which its one-way speed of light is isotropic, then

ASR is a member of this class, and "it cannot be done" in ASR, either.

If the round-trip speed is not isotropic in any inertial frame,

then ASR is almost certainly refuted by the MMX and Brillet and

Hall. If there exists no inertial frame in which the 1-way speed

of light is isotropic, then I don't think it qualifies as an

ether theory.

> It cannot be done in SR because Einstein's DEFINITION of

> simultenaeity requires a round-trip. This is required to support

> Einstein's use of t_1 being 1/2 of the round-trip time.

Einstein wrote many papers over a long and distinguishaed career. He

described at least three different methods of clock synchronization.

All are equivalent to each other and to slow clock transport _IN_SR_;

only one of them requires a round-trip signal.

But independent of this, in the class I discuss one can select any

theory of the class which uses any clock synch and one-way speed one

likes, and still no experiment can distinguish among the theories of

this class.

> If you use any other definition of simultenaeity you can measure this

> effect. In fact, you do not need to be simultaneous. Only equivalent

> time rates. Two devices. One sender, fixed on earth, sending periodic

> pulses. One receiver, fixed on earth. Since they should change their

> orientation WRT the "local aether flow" (whatever that is), a sinusoidal

> pattern should be found as a fraction of the recorded detection periods.

That is essentially the same situation as Krishner et al, and as Cialdea.

Both of these real experiments report null results. All theories of the

class predict null results for both of them. Remember LET is a member of

the class.

> We don't care what the average time delay is (or distance). We don't

> care what the average time compression (if any) is. All we want to do

> is find a sinusoidal pattern.

You haven't thought it through; you are just guessing. I repeat: NO

theory of this class predicts any "sinusoidal pattern", they all

predict no variation whatsoever for such an experiment.

> According to SR there CANNOT BE such a pattern. According to LET or ASR

> or "reasonable aether theories" there SHOULD BE such a pattern.

Not true. You need to consider what the slow clock transport does to

the synchronization of the clocks. In all theories of this class

(which certainly includes LET) this exactly cancels the effect due

to the anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.

See my recent article, Subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment

Cannot See the Ether.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99

to

[snip]

Tom, the problem here remains in all your comments. You claim that "all

theories of this class" cannot see one-way effects. But you assumed

that (not derived it) as a starting point in your recent article. Thus

your article could not prove this.

So, until you provide some basis for this repeated, as yet

unsubstantiated claim that "all reasonable theories" cannot see one-way

effects, I'll remain unimpressed.

You state "LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (i.e. every theorem of

either is a theorem of both). This means that each and every computation

of one is a computation of either".

This is flatly untrue.

L.E.T. NEVER produced a theorem on 1-way speeds. The fact that both

theories produce the Lorentz transforms for round-trip cases does not

mean they are the same. Lorentz also derived the radius of the electron

based on EM. Something Einstein did not. Einstein assumed

synchronization was needed for 1-way trips. Lorentz did not. And there

are other differences. About the only equations in common are the

Lorentz transforms. This is not surprising, as they were both working

on MMX.

The travel time for one-way trips would be different for LET. No

redefinition of length and time (to arbitrarily preserve constant c in

all moving frames) is needed in LET.

Now, you may be thinking that because SR requires "synchronization" all

other theories do also. This is not true. "Slow transport" is

irrelevant to recorded data.

Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99

to

In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

>

> You haven't been paying attention. You merely _THINK_ it can

> be done. But in fact it cannot.

>

> You haven't been paying attention. You merely _THINK_ it can

> be done. But in fact it cannot.

So you claim, so far without viable support...

> LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (i.e. every theorem of

> either is a theorem of both). This means that each and every

> computation of one is a computation of either, and they are

> therefore experimentally indistinguishable. So your claim that

> LET "can do this" is clearly false.

Again I ask, please reference in Lorentz's 1904 article where he does

any of the following:

1) Says that a one way trip time should be 1/2 the round trip time.

2) Discusses time synchronization of multiple observers AT ALL.

3) States that the speed of light should be unchanged in a moving

FOR.

I just can't find it. I do find that on page 14 of the Dover Edition

of "Principles of Relativity", Equation 3 says:

c^2

Beta^2 = ---------

c^2 - v^2

When c^2 is factored out, this gives us gamma. He has another term NOT

found in SR which he designates as coefficient (l). In 'his theory'

this term is only 'exactly' unity when v = 0 in the primal or global

(ether) frame.

The point is, if you really look at these (SR vs. LET), they are

different both in conceptual development AND underlying principles.

From all I know of Lorentz, he would have NEVER proposed that in a

moving frame (relative to the primal) that transit times or path

lengths would be equal in opposite directions along the axis of motion.

> I don't know anything about your "ASR", but if its round-trip

> speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, and if there

> exists an inertial frame in which its one-way speed of light is

> isotropic, then ASR is a member of this class, and "it cannot be

> done" in ASR, either.

ASR [Acoustical Special Relativity] (do a dejanews search of old posts

in this group on this title to find my original posting referencing the

basic foundation for this) simply REMOVES Lorentz's assumption of

length contraction in LET by saying this:

"It is well known that wave phenomena (forms) that are

either a) moving relative to a stationary medium or b)

stationary to a moving medium will have their field

distribution distorted (contracted) along the axis of

motion by exactly gamma. Thus, as Lorentz surmised,

and QM subsequently confirmed, matter (De Broglie waves)

would experience the distortion assumed by Lorentz within

a physical medium, given their now observed and confirmed

nature."

The other assumption of Lorentz, that all matter including 'so-called'

neutral matter would experience this contraction, is also placed on

solid physical foundation. Thus, the addition of this to the original

LET work results in ASR AND removes from LET all unfounded assumptions.

However, ASR & LET are both premised (founded) upon a 'real' underlying

physical medium, thus postulating that the wave speed for it is

invariant is redundant and unnecessary. Further, motion within this

medium MUST result in a 'real' velocity of (c - v) in the direction of

motion and (c + v) opposite to same. Given the established 'fact' that

a contraction of gamma will occur due to any motion, both the MMX class

MUST result in a null result and Maxwell's equations will be a great

approximation of EM processes.

> If the round-trip speed is not isotropic in any inertial frame,

> then ASR is almost certainly refuted by the MMX and Brillet and

> Hall. If there exists no inertial frame in which the 1-way speed

> of light is isotropic, then I don't think it qualifies as an

> ether theory.

As irrelevant as always to the issue of one way speeds.

> > It cannot be done in SR because Einstein's DEFINITION of

> > simultenaeity requires a round-trip. This is required to support

> > Einstein's use of t_1 being 1/2 of the round-trip time.

>

> Einstein wrote many papers over a long and distinguished career.

> He described at least three different methods of clock

> synchronization. All are equivalent to each other and to slow

> clock transport _IN_SR_; only one of them requires a round-trip

> signal.

>

> But independent of this, in the class I discuss one can select any

> theory of the class which uses any clock synch and one-way speed

> one likes, and still no experiment can distinguish among the

> theories of this class.

But, clock 'synch' isn't necessary to test actual speed differences,

that is, and continues to be, the ONLY issue at hand.

> > If you use any other definition of simultenaeity you can measure

> > this effect. In fact, you do not need to be simultaneous. Only

> > equivalent time rates. Two devices. One sender, fixed on earth,

> > sending periodic pulses. One receiver, fixed on earth. Since

> > they should change their orientation WRT the "local aether flow"

> > (whatever that is), a sinusoidal pattern should be found as a

> > fraction of the recorded detection periods.

>

> That is essentially the same situation as Krishner et al, and as

> Cialdea. Both of these real experiments report null results. All

> theories of the class predict null results for both of them.

> Remember LET is a member of the class.

Answer this simply question, "Did these measure propagation speed

directly?"

> > We don't care what the average time delay is (or distance). We

> > don't care what the average time compression (if any) is. All we

> > want to do is find a sinusoidal pattern.

>

> You haven't thought it through; you are just guessing. I repeat: NO

> theory of this class predicts any "sinusoidal pattern", they all

> predict no variation whatsoever for such an experiment.

You claim this without merit. Consider the two following expressions.

- -

1 | L L |

- | ----- + ----- |

c | gamma gamma |

- -

or:

- --------- --------- -

L | / 1 + v/c / 1 - v/c |

- | \ / ------- + \ / ------- |

c | V 1 - v/c V 1 + v/c |

- -

Both of these ARE mathematically equivalent. The first is based on

Einstein's definition that path A-B is equal to B-A, and the second on

Lorentz's postulate of length contraction and a physical medium. Now

note, in the brackets of both are two terms representing the 'one-way'

legs of a 'round-trip' path. Equation one would predict NO difference

in any 'one-way' due to orientation, while Equation 2 WOULD give us a

sinusoidal pattern in a 180 degree reversal or orientation of a single

one way leg.

Now the question IS, which one is valid?

> > According to SR there CANNOT BE such a pattern. According to

> > LET or ASR or "reasonable aether theories" there SHOULD BE

> > such a pattern.

>

> Not true. You need to consider what the slow clock transport does to

> the synchronization of the clocks. In all theories of this class

> (which certainly includes LET) this exactly cancels the effect due

> to the anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.

I'll ask again, given two fixed locations on the earth's surface, WHAT

DOES slow clock transport have to do with anything?

> See my recent article, Subject: Torr and Kolen's Experiment

> Cannot See the Ether.

Been there, seen it, commented irrelevant to this particular issue.

Paul Stowe

Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99

to

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Tom, the problem here remains in all your comments. You claim that "all

> theories of this class" cannot see one-way effects. But you assumed

> that (not derived it) as a starting point in your recent article. Thus

> your article could not prove this.

> Tom, the problem here remains in all your comments. You claim that "all

> theories of this class" cannot see one-way effects. But you assumed

> that (not derived it) as a starting point in your recent article. Thus

> your article could not prove this.

I did not "assume" it, I based my comments on Zhang's book. I'm preparing

and article on this, tentative Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable.

> You state "LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (i.e. every theorem of

> either is a theorem of both). This means that each and every computation

> of one is a computation of either".

> This is flatly untrue.

By LET I mean the loosely-described theory bandied around this newsgroup,

whose basis is approximately the following assumptions:

1) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest.

2) relative to the ether frame, local clocks and rulers at rest in

other inertial frames behave according to the Lorentz transform.

(2) can be further decomposed into two assumptions: that moving rulers

contract by a factor of 1/gamma, and that moving clocks slow down by

a factor of 1/gamma; these two assumptions can be used to derive the

Lorentz transforms.

> L.E.T. NEVER produced a theorem on 1-way speeds.

Sure it does. This is implicit in the Lorentz transforms.

> The fact that both

> theories produce the Lorentz transforms for round-trip cases does not

> mean they are the same.

Yes it does, _mathematically_. The Lorentz transforms are coordinate

transforms; one can differentiate them to obtain velocity transforms,

and when one does that it is clear that the one-way speed of light is

isotropically c in every inertial frame.

> The travel time for one-way trips would be different for LET.

Not true, using moving rulers and clocks of course. In LET "time"

is a bit ambiguous -- do you mean "as measured in the ether frame" or

"as measured in the moving frame". I _always_ interpret such ambiguities

in the moving frame, as the ether frame cannot be identified.

> No

> redefinition of length and time (to arbitrarily preserve constant c in

> all moving frames) is needed in LET.

But when one uses local (i.e. at rest in the observer's frame) rulers and

clocks one _does_ preserve "constant c" in all frames. AND THEY ARE THE

ONLY ONES AVAILABLE TO REAL EXPERIMENTS.

> Now, you may be thinking that because SR requires "synchronization" all

> other theories do also. This is not true. "Slow transport" is

> irrelevant to recorded data.

If an experiment uses more than one clock, clock synchronization is

important for it. If clocks are moved slowly, then one must consider how

slow clock transport affects the synchronization of the clocks. Whether

or not one records data is irrelevant to this.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

Paul Stowe wrote:

> In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

> > You haven't been paying attention. You merely _THINK_ it can

> > be done. But in fact it cannot.

> So you claim, so far without viable support...

> In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

> > You haven't been paying attention. You merely _THINK_ it can

> > be done. But in fact it cannot.

> So you claim, so far without viable support...

My "viable support" is in Zhang's book. I can't help it if you don't

bother to look it up. And as I said, I am preparing an article on this.

> Again I ask, please reference in Lorentz's 1904 article where he does

> any of the following:

> 1) Says that a one way trip time should be 1/2 the round trip time.

> 2) Discusses time synchronization of multiple observers AT ALL.

> 3) States that the speed of light should be unchanged in a moving

> FOR.

> I just can't find it.

I am not familiar with that paper. What I mean by "LET" is the rather

loose description which has floated around this newsgroup for several

years. It essentially postulates a unique ether frame, and postulates

that for frames moving wrt the ether frame the Lorentz transforms

(ether -> moving) apply. All 3 of your statements are mathematical

consequences of the Lorentz transforms, as is the mathematical

equivalence of LET and SR.

> The point is, if you really look at these (SR vs. LET), they are

> different both in conceptual development AND underlying principles.

Yes. But mathematically they are equivalent. They are merely two

different sets of postulates for the same mathematical theory (set

of theorems). And two different _interpretations_ of the quantities

appearing in the equations; but both agree on the correspondence

between coordinate values in a moving system and what clocks and

rulers will measure when at rest in that moving system.

> ASR [Acoustical Special Relativity] [...] simply REMOVES Lorentz's

> assumption of length contraction in LET by saying [...]

That makes ASR merely a different set of postulates for LET. Remember

that equivalence is transitive, so ASR is mathematically equivalent to

SR. That also ensures ASR is a member of the class of theories I

discuss.

> But, clock 'synch' isn't necessary to test actual speed differences,

> that is, and continues to be, the ONLY issue at hand.

How do you measure _ANY_ 1-way speed without two clocks? How do you

relate the values displayed on two different clocks without

synchronizing them?

> [about Krishner et al and Cialdea]

> Answer this simply question, "Did these measure propagation speed

> directly?"

No. They measured (lack of) anisotropy for a 1-way light path. But as

I keep stressing, they cannot distinguish among the theories of this

class, and those theories have significantly different 1-way speeds,

so in that sense they are insensitive to the 1-way speed of light.

Both experiments directly measure variations in the speed rather

than attempting to measure the actual speed several times and then

subtracting; they achieve significantly better sensitivity this way.

>[...] Consider the two following expressions. [...]

> Both of these ARE mathematically equivalent. The first is based on

> Einstein's definition that path A-B is equal to B-A, and the second on

> Lorentz's postulate of length contraction and a physical medium. Now

> note, in the brackets of both are two terms representing the 'one-way'

> legs of a 'round-trip' path. Equation one would predict NO difference

> in any 'one-way' due to orientation, while Equation 2 WOULD give us a

> sinusoidal pattern in a 180 degree reversal or orientation of a single

> one way leg.

No. Your expressions are for TWO-WAY speeds. You need to compute

MEASUREMENTS OF ONE-WAY speeds, AND THOSE EQUATIONS DO NOT DO SO. Those

equations do not take into account the clock synchronization necessary to

MEASURE a 1-way speed. Your lame attempt to look at the individual terms

in those equations is INVALID -- they do NOT correspond to observable and

MEASURABLE quantities; only the entire expression is observable and

measurable (via a round-trip path).

To obtain observable quantities corresponding to one-way speeds

you need to use two clocks and specify their synchronization.

These expressions are inherently one-clock expressions, and are

therefore restricted to round-trip speeds.

> Now the question IS, which one is valid?

You just said they "ARE mathematically equivalent", and two lines of algebra

confirms this; so if either is valid they both are. What is invalid is your

attempt to separate them into individual "1-way" terms and claim that those

values are observable.

> I'll ask again, given two fixed locations on the earth's surface, WHAT

> DOES slow clock transport have to do with anything?

This is SR and LET and similar ether theories, which are only valid

in inertial frames. So one must analyze the experiment in an inertial

frame (the ECI frame is simplest). Over a day the rotation of the earth

moves these clocks in the inertial frame, and that is indeed slow clock

transport IN THE INERTIAL FRAME. Remember you are relying on this

rotation to change the direction of propagation wrt the velocity of the

earth in the ether frame.

This is essentially ignoring the rotation of the earth during

one light transit time, and also ignoring the directional change

of the earth's orbit over one day. It can be shown that this

assumption of being at rest in an inertial frame for one light

transit time is an excellent approximation, and only introduces

errors well below the sensitivity of Krishner et al or Cialdea

or Torr & Kolen or Silvertooth. Brillet and Hall is another

matter....

> [about my Torr&Kolen article]

> Been there, seen it, commented irrelevant to this particular issue.

It is directly applicable to your two-clock gedanken.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

In article <37D91B27...@lucent.com>,

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Paul Stowe wrote:

> > In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Paul Stowe wrote:

> > In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

> > ASR [Acoustical Special Relativity] [...] simply REMOVES Lorentz's

> > assumption of length contraction in LET by saying [...]

>

> That makes ASR merely a different set of postulates for LET.

Dennis: The first major point you are missing (which is not relevant to

the one-way argument, but is relevant to the question of which theory

should be preferred) is that ASR does not rely on any new postulates or

arbitrary axioms. You **have to** agree that the ASR assumptions hold

for media--and that the Lorentz equations follow therefrom.

Now, a question arises concerning Newton's principle of reasoning--

which claims that as far as it is possible you must assume that like

effects arise from like causes. Is this a valid scientific point or is

it more scientifically reasonable to assume that like effects (acoustic

and EM adherence to the Lorentz equations) are produced by completely

different causes (ASR media derivation and SR's postulates)? Is it

truly reasonable to assume completely different axioms to explain the

conformity of EM to Lorenz equations when you already accept another

explanation for the fact those equations also apply to acoustics?

Let's even make this point more clear:

Let's compare two in-depth physics tomes, one pro-SR, the other

pro-ether. Let's further imagine that each tome devotes chapter 10 to

acoustics and chapter 11 to EM and Lorentz equations.

In chapter 10 of both books, you would have to include the

acoustic derivation of the Lorentz equatoins.

However, in chapter 11 of the pro-SR tome, you would have to

tell students to forget everything they have learned about Galilean

relativity, Newtonian frameworks, acoustics, media waves, materialistic

cause-and-effect, and their intuitive notions of time, distance, and

velocity. You would then have to describe completely new postulates

that would shock the brightest of the class, and then you would have to

rederive completely all the equations you had already derived in

chapter 10. The chapter would consist of dozens of pages.

In the pro-ether book, Chapter 11 would read as follows: "EM

also adheres to the Lorentz equations. See chapter 10."

The second major point you are missing is that, unlike SR, ASR

(a mechanical explanation of L(P)ET) is based on the fact that the one-

way speed of light varies wrt observers in motion.

-Dennis McCarthy

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

>

>> L.E.T. NEVER produced a theorem on 1-way speeds.

>

Roberts: >> L.E.T. NEVER produced a theorem on 1-way speeds.

>

>Sure it does. This is implicit in the Lorentz transforms.

Dennis: Ay, yay, yay. That the one-way speed of light varies is implicit in

the etheristic derivation of the Lorentz transforms.

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

>

>

>In article <7qv38r$nnk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>In article <slrn7t5lui....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,

>> aber...@princeton.edu wrote:

>>> In article <37D2D4F9...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:

>>> >

>>> >Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is

>>important.

>>>

>>> The Berry phase is relevant for all experiments. It's the

>>> greatest revelation in physics in the last 50 years. All things

>>> are explained by the Berry phase.

>>>

>

>In article <7qv38r$nnk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>In article <slrn7t5lui....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,

>> aber...@princeton.edu wrote:

>>> In article <37D2D4F9...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:

>>> >

>>> >Feel free to describe some experiment for which "Berry Phase" is

>>important.

>>>

>>> The Berry phase is relevant for all experiments. It's the

>>> greatest revelation in physics in the last 50 years. All things

>>> are explained by the Berry phase.

>>>

JD:

>>Good comments but I think you are slightly exaggerating.

Bergman: Wow.

>

>I mean really, wow.

Dennis: Somewhat typical. JD is being polite. Bergman is being rude and

obnoxious.

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

In <37D7D0F5...@lucent.com>

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> You state "LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (i.e.

> every theorem of either is a theorem of both). This

> means that each and every computation of one is a

> computation of either". This is flatly untrue.

Tom Roberts wrote:

By LET I mean the loosely-described theory bandied around

this newsgroup, whose basis is approximately the following

assumptions:

1) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is

at rest.

2) relative to the ether frame, local clocks and rulers at

rest in other inertial frames behave according to the

Lorentz transform.

O'Barr comments:

Tom, these comments are not meant to be in disagreement

with anything you said in this post. You and Paul put up

with much, and you do a better job than I could do. But in

terms of your number 1) above, I would have said it this

way:

1) There is an ether. And in the ether, there is one

and only one unique inertial frame which is at rest with

respect to the ether.

This really says the same thing as you said, but it

makes it clear that the ether is first, and it determines

what is `at rest.' The inertial frame does not determine

if the ether is at rest. Also. In 2) above you then used

the word `ether frame' which was not specifically

identified, and thus one could associate it with the ether

itself, or the inertial frame mentioned in 1). This might

not really make a difference, but I thought I would point

it out to you. Also, in 2) above, you mentioned `Lorentz

transforms,' but then the deriving of these transforms were

not done until you made use of 2) down below. I have no

troubles in understanding you, but I can see how others

might get confused.

Tom Roberts continues:

(2) can be further decomposed into two assumptions: that

moving rulers contract by a factor of 1/gamma, and that

moving clocks slow down by a factor of 1/gamma; these two

assumptions can be used to derive the Lorentz transforms.

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> L.E.T. NEVER produced a theorem on 1-way speeds.

Tom Roberts wrote:

Sure it does. This is implicit in the Lorentz transforms.

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> The fact that both theories produce the

> Lorentz transforms for round-trip cases does not

> mean they are the same.

Tom Roberts wrote:

Yes it does, _mathematically_. The Lorentz transforms are

coordinate transforms; one can differentiate them to obtain

velocity transforms, and when one does that it is clear

that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in every

inertial frame.

O'Barr comments:

Why all these thoughts are such a problem to us is that

we often get confused between `physical' facts and

`measured' facts. Back in the days when things were simple

(Newtonian days), our tools were fixed and non-changing,

and any `measured' fact was also the `physical' fact. But

in the world as we now know it, our tools are not fixed,

and `physical facts' are not automatically what is

measured. What could be said above would be clearer if it

were said as follows:

... the ***measured*** one-way speed of light is

isotropically c in every inertial frame. In every ether

theory, the real physical one-way speed is of course not

isotropic!!!!! But we of course cannot measure this. Our

*measurements* will be exactly as Roberts says!!!!!

We have to keep clear that there will be differences

between what is really happening, verses with what would be

measured, since our tools are now known to be capable of

changing between frames.

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> The travel time for one-way trips would be different for

> LET.

Tom Roberts wrote:

Not true, using moving rulers and clocks of course. In LET

"time" is a bit ambiguous -- do you mean "as measured in

the ether frame" or "as measured in the moving frame". I

_always_ interpret such ambiguities in the moving frame, as

the ether frame cannot be identified.

O'Barr comments:

And again, if we are careful to recognize the

differences between `measured' and `real,' it would go a

long ways in helping us to understand the situation.

Roberts and Paul are of course not interested in helping us

in any of this. They are only demanding that the correct

*measurement* facts are forced upon us no matter what!!!!

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> No redefinition of length

> and time (to arbitrarily preserve constant c in

> all moving frames) is needed in LET.

Tom Roberts wrote:

But when one uses local (i.e. at rest in the observer's

frame) rulers and clocks one _does_ preserve "constant c"

in all frames. AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES AVAILABLE TO REAL

EXPERIMENTS.

O'Barr comments:

But because we are thinking human beings, we do have the

power to see below all this, and to understand exactly what

is really going on!!!!!

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote: . . .

> Now, you may be thinking that because SR requires

> "synchronization" all other theories do also. This is

> not true. "Slow transport" is irrelevant to recorded

> data.

Tom Roberts wrote:

If an experiment uses more than one clock, clock

synchronization is important for it. If clocks are moved

slowly, then one must consider how slow clock transport

affects the synchronization of the clocks. Whether

or not one records data is irrelevant to this.

O'Barr comments:

Synchronization is certainly an important key to our

understanding of what is going on. And synchronization is

most often an `artificial act' required by man. Lorentz

was, himself, not always sure of what all this involved,

and this is one reason why SR got `ahead' of the ether.

But it will not happen again. We now all clearly

understand all of this!

There are cases where man-made sync is not required.

Where light goes around the earth and returns to the same

clock, it returns to a clock that was not `re-synced,' and

thus we have a special situation. And in this case, with a

clock that is `automatically' synced, synced `on its own,'

we see the absolute velocity of the rotation of the earth!

Specifically, we see `c +/- v' for the speed of light!

Now this does not help us find our linear velocity

through the ether, but it does most perfectly confirm the

ether approach. It does not invalidate SR math, but it

sure `violates' the basic assumptions of SR, that all

measurements of the speed of light will be c. The

superiority of the ether approach is clearly indicated.

--

Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net

Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco

Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:

http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm

Read Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:

Thank you Dennis for a most excellent

post (as seen below.) What is so interesting

to me, is that the SR experts, if they were

true scientists and true thinking individuals,

would they not themselves be leading the way

in all these thoughts?

Would they not themselves be taking every

thought to their full limits, to see where

they could each be taken, etc. Why would they

'resist' every point and every concept without

considering what they mean? Why does every point

have to be repeated over and over, even when the

point is so clear and complete?

Surely they can see all these things, and

should be completely willing to let all these

things be seen and compared on their own.

Why are they so unwilling to consider these

things? By everything I know, these thoughts

make everything clearer and more complete and

more understandable. Why would anyone not want

to have such things??????

Thank you Dennis for a most excellent

post (as seen below.) What is so interesting

to me, is that the SR experts, if they were

true scientists and true thinking individuals,

would they not themselves be leading the way

in all these thoughts?

Would they not themselves be taking every

thought to their full limits, to see where

they could each be taken, etc. Why would they

'resist' every point and every concept without

considering what they mean? Why does every point

have to be repeated over and over, even when the

point is so clear and complete?

Surely they can see all these things, and

should be completely willing to let all these

things be seen and compared on their own.

Why are they so unwilling to consider these

things? By everything I know, these thoughts

make everything clearer and more complete and

more understandable. Why would anyone not want

to have such things??????

djm...@aol.com wrote:

>

> In article <37D91B27...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> > Paul Stowe wrote:

> > > In <7r70u1$dao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> greyw...@my-deja.com writes:

>

> > > ASR [Acoustical Special Relativity] [...] simply REMOVES Lorentz's

> > > assumption of length contraction in LET by saying [...]

> >

> > That makes ASR merely a different set of postulates for LET.

>

Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99

to

In article <37d5ba05...@news.erinet.com>,[I'm not LISTENING! I'm not LISTENING!]

You seem to have done that at all your teachers.