Stupid aether question and challenge...(pronounced *kick me*)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

kud...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to
Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

There has been much discussion (and much petty
name-calling) in this group recently concerning
the question of the observability of the
alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates
have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I
have had time to read) have completely ignored
the fact that this is in reality a major
concession, since it does not claim that any
experimental data cited so often in defense of SR
refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that
the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity
because there is no means of distinguishing
between the predictions of SR and LET. This
is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims
that actual time dilation occurs as relative
velocities approach c, but we need only assume
that EM+ phenomena are affected by this. Thus,
a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
very simply rests on the one remaining force in
which their predictions differ, namely gravity.
The question implied by the title is, then,
simply this: If gravity does not have the same
relativistic symmetries as light and other
EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means
by which LET could be distinguished from SR
experimentally with presently available data?
In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
equivalence principle justify the logical leap
from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
a universal model, when the EP itself has only
a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?
Given two mathematically equivalent theories
in which one insists on the physical existence
of a medium for the propagation of light and
the other insists on the physical existence of
non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say
that Occam's razor would favor the former.
My challenge to both camps is to render Occam's
razor a moot point. In a nutshell, I would
appreciate it if there were only two types of
responses to this.

1. Etherists who acknowledge the EM+
indistinguishability of SR and LET who are
proposing 'critical experiments' performable
today or in the near future that can use
predictions of gravitational phenomena to
distinguish between the behavior predicted
by SR (the correction applies to gravity as
well) and LET (EM+ forces alone become
increasingly inefficient as relative velocities
approach c. Inertial and gravitational mass
mass remain unchanged.)

2. SRists, either doing the same or explaining
in a polite and courteous manner what precise
problems exist with the proposed tests.

NOTE:
Saying 'tests have proven idea X false' is not
sufficient and inappropriate. Quote your source,
and preferably the data itself if possible, and
explain why the data leads you to that
conclusion. Allow posters from both sides to
make clarifying statements about non-traditional
uses of words before insulting their
intelligence. The vast majority of dicussion
here appears to be squabbles over semantics,
and belongs in a thread about scientific
etymology or dev/null, one or the other.
Conversely, if you are befuddled by another's
use of a word, explain why, and what you
understand it to mean. There is no reason why
progress cannot be made on these ideas, even
in a newsgroup as seemingly chaotic as this.

In sincere hopes of an intelligent polylogue
concerning this topic,

Andy Juell

P.S. Parties interested in discussing related
issues are welcome to email me at
kud...@hotmail.com. Parties interested in
bashing me for suggesting that Einstein may
in fact have been merely human after all are
welcome to email me at Zomul...@aol.com,
with my apologies to anyone who may actually
use this adddress.

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

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to
kud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> There has been much discussion (and much petty
> name-calling) in this group recently concerning
> the question of the observability of the
> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates
> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> phenomena.

Yes.

But it really goes deeper than that: because of the mathematical
equivalence of the two theories no experiment whatsoever could
distinguish between them. The only possibility is to generalize
them differently and observe differences in the generalized
theories (e.g. postulate some additional properties for the LET
ether and observe _them_. Of course one has the problem of being
completely unable to show that the "ether" so observed is the LET
ether).


> The SR-advocates claim that
> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity
> because there is no means of distinguishing
> between the predictions of SR and LET.

It really goes deeper than that, because the aspect of SR which has
been so essential to the further development of modern physical
theories is its _Lorentz_symmetry_. This is a property which LET
has only accidentally, but SR has as a fundamental symmetry of
nature. But if it is not a _FUNDAMENTAL_ symmetry then there is
no basis for the requirement that any new theory be Lorentz
invariant -- such an omission would probably have made it
impossible to discover QED, much less QFTs and the standard model;
Lorentz invariance is _essential_ to them, and they are so
complicated it is doubtful they could have been found at all
without Lorentz invariance.

That, in a nutshell, is why SR is one of the pillars of modern
physics, and LET is essentially dead. Well, that and the fact that
nobody has ever made a definitive observation of the ether....


> SR, unlike LET, claims
> that actual time dilation occurs as relative
> velocities approach c, but we need only assume
> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this.

Not true. 1) LET also predicts this (for _observable_ quantities).
2) SR's first postulate proclaims that _all_ phenomena are included.
But in any case this is not really a topic for assumptions, it is
more properly a topic for experiments. So far, no significant
violation of local Lorentz symmetry has been found (the
insignificant ones are probably-flawed isolated experiments).


> Thus,
> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
> very simply rests on the one remaining force in
> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

Neither SR nor LET has any pretention whatsoever to describe gravity.
GR is clearly a vast generalization of SR -- you would need to
generalize both SR and LET, and presumably any difference in such a
generalization would be observable. Need I point out that this has
been done for SR, and the agreement with experiment is quite good,
so any generalization of LET has a difficult challenge here.

Ilja Schmelzer claims to have generalized LET in such
a manner. I'm not familiar with his theory.


> The question implied by the title is, then,
> simply this: If gravity does not have the same
> relativistic symmetries as light and other
> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means
> by which LET could be distinguished from SR
> experimentally with presently available data?

No. So far, the "presently available data" indicate that GR is an
accurate description of gravitational phenomena (e.g. more accurate
than Newtonian gravitation, or than Brans-Dicke). Make your own
conclusion from this and the fact that GR uses local Lorentz
invariance in an essential and fundamental way....


> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
> a universal model, when the EP itself has only
> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

There is a vast experimental literature on tests of the EP. It is
quite well supported by the observations. So there is not only
"lack of obvious refutation", there is also lack of _subtle_
refutation.

See:
Will, _Theory_and_Experiment_in_Gravitational_Physics_.
Will, "The Confrontation between General Relativity and
Experiment: A 1998 Update",
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9811036.


> Given two mathematically equivalent theories
> in which one insists on the physical existence
> of a medium for the propagation of light and
> the other insists on the physical existence of
> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say
> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

Hmmm. SR essentially assumes or implies Minkowski geometry. While
that is indeed "non-Euclidean", I see no a-priori reason why
Euclid should be preferred over Minkowski, and I see ENORMOUS
experimental observations which imply that Minkowski should be
preferred. Note also that SR has no implications like "the
physical existence of non-euclidean forms" -- SR is a _MODEL_,
and uses Minkoswki geometry in the _MODEL_; claiming "physical
existence" of this model is ludicrous.


Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com

Darrin Yarbrough

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

<kud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

>
> There has been much discussion (and much petty
> name-calling) in this group recently concerning
> the question of the observability of the
> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates
> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I
> have had time to read) have completely ignored
> the fact that this is in reality a major
> concession, since it does not claim that any
> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR
> refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that

> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity
> because there is no means of distinguishing
> between the predictions of SR and LET. This
> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims

> that actual time dilation occurs as relative
> velocities approach c, but we need only assume
> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this. Thus,

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
> very simply rests on the one remaining force in
> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.
> The question implied by the title is, then,
> simply this: If gravity does not have the same
> relativistic symmetries as light and other
> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means
> by which LET could be distinguished from SR
> experimentally with presently available data?
> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
> a universal model, when the EP itself has only
> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?
> Given two mathematically equivalent theories
> in which one insists on the physical existence
> of a medium for the propagation of light and
> the other insists on the physical existence of
> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say
> that Occam's razor would favor the former.
The tests have already been done, there is no aether. However, it would be
nice if more emphasis was placed on exactly what is present and where.
Meaning there is no absolute vacuum either. This does not indicate a prime
medium. Astronomers know about the presence of solar winds,, sound waves,
alfven waves, electromagnetic phenomena, magnetic phenomena. It seems there
is a virtual plethora of things in space, why add a medium?
The heliosphere (caused by the solar wind) has been detected as far out as
18 Astronomical units by Pioneer, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2. It is believed
to go as far out as 100 Astronomical units from the sun. Seemingly it is
impossible to consider light in vacuo in space.
"Previous sections have emphasized that on a large scale the solar wind
behaves like a compressible fluid and is capable of supporting relatively
thin fluid structures such as shocks."
Encyclopedia of the Solar System. Academic Press, copyright 1999.
It seems to me ridiculous to introduce a medium to the equation.
Similarly, it seems ridiculous to presume that light is traveling through
absolute vacuum while in space.
However, since both theories still are good approximate representations, the
medium can go out the window, it is not needed.

Darrin

Darrin Yarbrough

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

"Darrin Yarbrough" <dda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Oer5yhqb$GA.236@cpmsnbbsa03...
> 18 Astronomical units(OOPS! From Pluto) by Pioneer, Voyager 1, and Voyager

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
In article <389A0AC5...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

>
>It really goes deeper than that, because the aspect of SR which has
>been so essential to the further development of modern physical
>theories is its _Lorentz_symmetry_. This is a property which LET
>has only accidentally, but SR has as a fundamental symmetry of
>nature. But if it is not a _FUNDAMENTAL_ symmetry then there is
>no basis for the requirement that any new theory be Lorentz
>invariant -- such an omission would probably have made it
>impossible to discover QED, much less QFTs and the standard model;
>Lorentz invariance is _essential_ to them, and they are so
>complicated it is doubtful they could have been found at all
>without Lorentz invariance.

Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is
not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory. It is
perfectly reasonable and indeed obvious to postulate that the different
forces may have elements (including symmetries in common) and therefore
it is idiotic to argue that without SR, theories of forces which also
incorporate Lorentz symmetries would have been significantly more
difficult to discover.

Feynman, let us note, was far from an ardent proponent of such
principles!

Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in the same way as
other forces, resorting instead to a geometric viewpoint that makes it
anomalous and unreconcileable with the rest of physics. So much for the
benefits of relativistic thinking...

- Gerry Quinn

Mark Samokhvalov

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

kud...@my-deja.com пишет в сообщении <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> ...

Mark: LET and SR are NOT indistinguishable in e/m experiments. Sagnac
effect in LET is a consistent proof of variability of c in a rotating RF.
The absence of any positive results of numerous experiments designed to
measure the effect of the Earth's orbital speed on the phase of e/m waves,
together with the presence of aberration, is consistently explained by
quasi-LET, namely, by full ether drag by the Earth's gravitational field.
With the present day state-of-the-art , control experiments could easily be
performed, namely, the sensitivity of the orbital speed experiments could be
increased so as to measure rotation speed effects, or such experiments could
be carried out on satellites. Other experiments to discover the difference
in the effect of inertial motion on the speed of e/m and particles could
also be staged. I have repeatedly suggested this in my postings to the
group - no comment so far.

Mark Samokhvalov

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

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

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR
> experimentally with presently available data?
> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
> a universal model,

SR has nothing to say about gravity. Einstein's theory
of gravitation is contained in the General Theory of
Relativity. The solaced SR is really a theory of
electrodynamics and is a reconciliation of mechanics
and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic fields and
forces.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

>
> SR has nothing to say about gravity. Einstein's theory
> of gravitation is contained in the General Theory of
> Relativity. The solaced

solaced = so called. My spell checker has again run amok

greyw...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
In article <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,
>
> There has been much discussion (and much petty
> name-calling) in this group recently concerning
> the question of the observability of the
> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates
> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> phenomena.

This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to include
the Principle of Relativity. Which is pointless.

> The etherists (in what of the posts I
> have had time to read) have completely ignored
> the fact that this is in reality a major
> concession, since it does not claim that any
> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR
> refutes LET.

What concession? "Aetherists" don't need to avoid experimental data.
In fact -- if you had read some of the recent posts -- you might have
noticed that several of the more vocal local aetherists are the ones
pushing for experiments to detect differences between SR and theories
such as Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET).

It is the SR-ists that are "refusing to look" at these experiments
because they are "theoretically impossible".

This is really bizarre. For example. Let's presume we did one of the
recommended timing (not fringe) experiments. There are two possible
outcomes.

1) We don't find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

SR Interpretation: We told you so!
LET Interpretation: Darn! Back to the drawing board.

2) We do find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

SR Interpretation: AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!
LET Interpretation: Wow!

SR interpretation of LET: You're wrong too! Your math won't allow it.

SR'ists response. Really? Then we are BOTH WRONG. Nature wins. We
BOTH go back to the drawing board.


In any case, Science has advanced. Why do SR-ists avoid this situation?

> The SR-advocates claim that
> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity
> because there is no means of distinguishing
> between the predictions of SR and LET. This
> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims
> that actual time dilation occurs as relative
> velocities approach c, but we need only assume
> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this. Thus,
> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
> very simply rests on the one remaining force in
> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

This merely shows your ignorance of LET. Lorentz ELECTRODYNAMIC theory
has nothing whatsoever to say about gravity. It is derived purely from
Maxwell's equations.

Besides, Lorentz notes (in 1904, yet) only that GEOMETRICAL tests of
light speed (fringe shifts) are unobservable. Timing tests are not.
Yet everyone since 1904 has been doing fringe tests. Go figure.

{snip}

--
greywolf42

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is
> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it
is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental in the sense that it is a
surprise -- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that
the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise comes in
that his transform equations actually form the Lorentz group, and his
ether_frame->moving_frame transforms actually apply between _any_ pair
of inertial frames.

The existence of a symmetry due to a transform group means that there
is an equivalence class of all frames (coordinates) related by the
group. In the case of the Lorentz group this is the class of all
inertial frames. But LET explicitly has one special frame, the ether
frame -- it is an inertial frame and so is a member of the equivalence
class implied by the Lorentz symmetry, yet it is also special. The
existence of this unique frame is why I say LET has no fundamental
Lorentz symmetry. You cannot obtain LET without it being unique.


> Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in the same way as
> other forces, resorting instead to a geometric viewpoint that makes it
> anomalous and unreconcileable with the rest of physics.

Huh??? It is the "geometric viewpoint" which underlies modern gauge
theories, of which QED, electro-weak theory, and the standard model
are all examples. These are at base _geometric_ theories (but
geometry in an abstract space). And GR is also such a gauge theory
(but geometry in ordinary spacetime).

One difference is in the gauge groups used: the standard model uses
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), which is a linear matrix group; GR uses diff(M)
which is not. Another difference is in the vector space on which
this group operates: the standard model uses an abstract space while
GR uses the tangent space of the manifold M.


> So much for the
> benefits of relativistic thinking...

Irony fails you, aparently due to your lack of knowledge.
"Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in modern
physics, precisely in this area: searching for new fundamental
theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead of SR there would
be no justification for this approach; SR is a pillar of modern
physics and LET is essentially dead.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Steve Carlip

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> If gravity does not have the same relativistic
> symmetries as light and other EM+ phenomena,

> would this not constitute a means by which LET

> could be distinguished from SR experimentally

Probably.

> with presently available data?

Maybe. It's not clear what LET model of gravity
you want to use for comparison, though. The basic
problem I see is that we can't isolate a ``purely
gravitational'' system that doesn't also have EM,
strong, and weak interactions going on. So you
would have to figure out how to separate out the
gravitational part of an observation.

Here's an example: let's consider a rotating neutron
star. This is basically a large collection of neutrons
that are bound gravitationally, but also couple to
each other by strng interactions. Suppose we use
this star as a ``clock'' by counting rotations. (If the
star is isolated, then in its rest frame it will rotate
at a constant speed, so it will be a good clock. In
fact, we can observe rotation rates of pulsars, and
they give us timing accuracies on the order of the
accuracies of good atomic clocks.)

Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this
``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation
when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.
Would you accept that as evidence against LET?
Or would you merely respond that the strong
interactions among the neutrons must somehow
be affecting the rotation rate?

(Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,
that would constitute strong evidence against SR.
The question is how much wiggle room your version
or interpretation of LET gives you.)

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only
> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

I'm not sure what your last phrase means. The
equivalence principle has been tested repeatedly
in the lab, and confirmed at an accuracy of about
a part in 10^12.

Steve Carlip

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
Mark Samokhvalov wrote:
> Mark: LET and SR are NOT indistinguishable in e/m experiments.

Sure they are. SR and LET are mathematically equivalent (i.e. every
theorem of either is a theorem of both). This directly implies they
are experimentally indistinguishable, because every computation of
a measurement must be a theorem of the theory (applied using the
physical situation of the measurement).


> Sagnac
> effect in LET is a consistent proof of variability of c in a rotating RF.

And SR's prediction is exactly the same as LET's. And both are within
experimental resolutions of measurements. So I don't see why you think
this means anything.


> The absence of any positive results of numerous experiments designed to
> measure the effect of the Earth's orbital speed on the phase of e/m waves,
> together with the presence of aberration, is consistently explained by
> quasi-LET, namely, by full ether drag by the Earth's gravitational field.

Not really. LET has no need of any drag, because these experiments are
instantaneously at rest in some inertial frame, and the effects due to
gravitation are canceled out (by supporting the apparatus), and the
effects due to rotation are well below experimental resolutions.

It seems to me that adding ether drag to LET is a no-op, because in any
inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be c, regardless of
any _inertial_ ether motion. But the non-inertial motion would still be
below experimental resolutions.


> With the present day state-of-the-art , control experiments could easily be
> performed, namely, the sensitivity of the orbital speed experiments could be
> increased so as to measure rotation speed effects, or such experiments could
> be carried out on satellites. Other experiments to discover the difference
> in the effect of inertial motion on the speed of e/m and particles could
> also be staged.

It seems to me that the lunar laser ranging experiments are just what you
want. They have an accuracy in the earth-moon-earth distance of a few
centimeters (!). They are in excellent agreement with the predictions of
GR (including a solar-system model, of course, whose parameters are fit
to the data).

It is also likely that LAGEOS measurements would also apply here. But I
don't have a reference for them, merely knowledge that they have been used
as a ~50%-accurate test of frame dragging in GR. That, of course, implies
an extremely-high accuracy of measurement also.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

GLOBARR

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
In <389B18D6...@lucent.com>
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Ref: <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<389A0AC5...@lucent.com>
<QHqm4.9102$J9....@news.indigo.ie>

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by
> Poincare. It is not "accidental" any more than any
> property of any theory.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to
LET, while it is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental

in the sense that it is a surprise . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
I see. Being `a surprise' fits Newton's rules of logic
number 4. I see! Being `a surprise' makes you a fool!
Being `a surprise' to you, or to me, or to anyone else, has
nothing to do with physics! Physics does not ever get
surprised by anything. And this makes you a fool to even say
that this has some kind of meaning!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .


-- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that
the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise
comes in that his transform equations actually form the
Lorentz group, and his ether_frame->moving_frame transforms
actually apply between _any_ pair of inertial frames.

O'Barr comments:
Well, a surprise or not to us, it is all true, and it forms
a physical explanation that is sufficient! How dare you not
acknowledge this!!!!! And it forms a physical explanation
that makes it superior to SR! And how dare you not
acknowledge this!!!!!!! What should we call a person who is
unwilling to acknowledge the obvious?

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .


The existence of a symmetry due to a transform group means
that there is an equivalence class of all frames
(coordinates) related by the group. In the case of the
Lorentz group this is the class of all inertial frames. But
LET explicitly has one special frame, the ether frame -- it
is an inertial frame and so is a member of the equivalence
class implied by the Lorentz symmetry, yet it is also
special. The existence of this unique frame is why I say LET
has no fundamental Lorentz symmetry. You cannot obtain LET
without it being unique.

O'Barr comments:
You do not say things exactly correct. For example, your
last statement could be improved if you had just said: You
cannot obtain LET without the ether. Trying to say that the
ether is `a frame,' or even a `unique' frame, is a gross
confusion between physical realities, and the math constructs
that are or can be associated with a frame within that
reality.
The ether is real, and in this real ether, inertial frames
can exist. These existing inertial frames can be at rest in
the ether, or in any state of motion in this ether up to c.
For you to then try to infer that one of these frames is
somehow required to be different or unique, or required
in order for there to be an ether, is not good thinking, and
not scientifically based on any fact. Surely you now know
this, and so why do you still talk as if you are confused on
any of this?

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in
> the same way as other forces, resorting instead to a
> geometric viewpoint that makes it anomalous and
> unreconcileable with the rest of physics.

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .


Huh??? It is the "geometric viewpoint" which underlies modern
gauge theories, of which QED, electro-weak theory, and the
standard model are all examples. These are at base
_geometric_ theories (but geometry in an abstract space). And
GR is also such a gauge theory (but geometry in ordinary
spacetime).

One difference is in the gauge groups used: the standard
model uses U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), which is a linear matrix group;
GR uses diff(M) which is not. Another difference is in the
vector space on which this group operates: the standard model
uses an abstract space while GR uses the tangent space of the
manifold M.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> So much for the
> benefits of relativistic thinking...

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .
Irony fails you, apparently due to your lack of knowledge.


"Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in
modern physics, precisely in this area: searching for new
fundamental theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead
of SR there would be no justification for this approach; SR
is a pillar of modern physics and LET is essentially dead.

O'Barr comments:
It really is important if a theory or point of view has
been fruitful or not. However, the past is the past. And
where we go from here cannot be fixed by the past. We can
and should take the best we now know, and if we can, chart
even better approaches. With the ether, we will not give up
one single success that was obtained with SR.
And let me tell you something: If I had any person in my
employ who would have not considered a theory because of some
imagined differences between SR and the ether, he would be
fired! What you say is the lamest excuse possible! It does
not even make sense. It does not speak well of you, and your
abilities to understand that there really are no true
differences between the ether and SR!

I believe that it is time for you to start making some
changes in your thinking. You are starting to sound
ridicules, all so that you can maintain some kind of a tie
with a lost cause!


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

Ken H. Seto

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 12:22:14 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
wrote:

>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is
>> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.
>

>Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it
>is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental in the sense that it is a

>surprise -- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that


>the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise comes in
>that his transform equations actually form the Lorentz group, and his
>ether_frame->moving_frame transforms actually apply between _any_ pair
>of inertial frames.

This simply means that Lorentz didn't have a fundamental explanation
why the symmetry exists. Similarly, SR does not have a fundamental
explanation why the symmetry exists. The SR postulates posit the
symmetry but that's far from the fundamental explanation. So for you
to keep on parroting that the symmetry in SR is fundamental and the
symmetriy in LET is accidental ( not fundamental) is simply ridiculus.

The fundamental explanation for the symmetry exists in all the
inertial frames belong to the aether concept as follows:
1. Lights are wave-packets in a stationary aether. Each wave-packet
moves in the direction to which it is aimed.. Each wave -packet moves
in the aether with a constant speed c as measured by a clock at the
rest frame of the aether.
2. A detector in the same moving frame of the source is receding from
all the light wave-packets generated by the source. At the same time,
a moving clock second will have more duration content. than a rest
clock second in the aether. This has the effect of canceling the
effect of the motion between the detector and the wave-packets. This
is the reason why the speed of light is a constant math ratio c in
all directions within any inertial frame.
3. The receding motion of a detector relative to the wave-packets in
the aether is related by the gamma factor. The v in the gamma factor
is the absolute moiton of the detector.
4. The symmetry of SR and LET is derived from the above.

Ken Seto


z@z

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally
indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on
absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to
SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)
is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock
synchronization.

It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend
on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what
is REALLY simultanous.

SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility
to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR
simultaneity concept.

If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted
by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that
the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,
then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm
to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,
then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction
are expanded.

The SR simultaneity concept entails that the observer does not
observe with both eyes at the same (absolute) time. If he is
moving to the right, then a subjective instant consists e.g.
of ether time t0 when using the left eye and of ether time

t1 = t0 + 12 cm / c = t0 + 0.4 nanosec

when using the right eye. During this small interval the right
eye has moved further 12 cm. So the distance between the eyes
at an observer instant is 16 cm in the ether. Only because
the distance between the eyes is actually expanded by factor 2,
ether distances are contracted by the same factor wrt the
observer.

But not even this SR simulation is fully equivalent to the
corresponding original SR prediction.

SR simulation SR

object at |-------| |-------| |---|
rest | | |
| | |
distance | | |
| | |
observer |---| |-------| |---|

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

In Fig. 1 both object and observer are at rest wrt the rest
(ether) frame. In Fig. 2 and 3 the observer moves wrt the rest
frame. In the SR simulation the observer expands, whereas in SR
itself the object shrinks. The two cases are not equivalent
because the angles are different. Such differences result from
the fact that distances perpendicular to the velocity vector
do not change.

Inasfar as SR and LET are equivalent, they say nothing about
nature, and inasfar as they say something about nature, they
are not equivalent.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Time transformation and e.m. wave fonts:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=561141721

Both contraction and expansion in SR:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=578020546

Why the ether would be observable:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=580842416

Paul Stowe

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
In <87i201$si7$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net> "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> writes:
>
>The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally
>indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on
>absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to
>SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)
>is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock
>synchronization.
>
>It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend
>on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what
>is REALLY simultanous.

You've really hit the essence of the difference between the philosophy
at the core foundation of SR, and that of LET... In SR, basically
perception IS considered reality, in LET, perception is considered just
that, purely perception, with an independent underlying (primal or
ether frame) reality THAT IS independent of, and really IS the actual
reality.

>SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility
>to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR
>simultaneity concept.

Which Lorentz NEVER advocated, mentions, or suggests using. In fact,
his rendering of this concept EXPRESSLY DENIES reciprocal length
contraction, saying instead that contraction is a real process
expressly tied to the absolute velocity of the moving object relative
to the primal frame. This is not symmetrical and does not comply to
the principle of relativity.

Absolutely correct. While science isn't a 'popularity contest', as can
be seen lately, more and more people that evaluate this are coming to
this same conclusion. This key is, to devise tests that can measure
these differences.

Paul Stowe

Standeven

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

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

> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,
>
> There has been much discussion (and much petty
> name-calling) in this group recently concerning
> the question of the observability of the
> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates
> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I


> have had time to read) have completely ignored
> the fact that this is in reality a major
> concession, since it does not claim that any
> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that


> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity
> because there is no means of distinguishing
> between the predictions of SR and LET. This
> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims
> that actual time dilation occurs as relative
> velocities approach c, but we need only assume
> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this.

I assume you meant, "...but in LET we need only...".

> Thus, a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
> very simply rests on the one remaining force in
> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

Why do you think that they don't differ for the nuclear forces? LET for
electromagnetism
is a fairly reasonable theory, but the extension of it to the nuclear
forces seems ad hoc.


> The question implied by the title is, then, simply

> this: If gravity does not have the same relativistic


> symmetries as light and other EM+ phenomena, would
> this not constitute a means by which LET could be

> distinguished from SR experimentally with presently
> available data?


> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
> a universal model, when the EP itself has only
> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

Yes, since all physical principles have only a "lack of obvious
refutation" in their favor.


Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
GLOBARR wrote:
> [to me]:

> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in my
> employ who would have not considered a theory because of some
> imagined differences between SR and the ether, he would be
> fired!

The second rule of business: never work for an idiot. _I_ would never
have to worry about your firing me!


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> kud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Many SR-advocates
> > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> > phenomena.
> This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to include
> the Principle of Relativity.

It _is_ true, as has been pointed out to you many times. And no PoR
is needed, all that is needed is to apply _LORENTZ'S_ equations to
actually measured quantities. You in the past have failed to use
his equations, and have used your own erroneous ones.


> several of the more vocal local aetherists are the ones
> pushing for experiments to detect differences between SR and theories
> such as Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET).

Whih is hopeless, as they are indistinguishable. You need to learn
what _LET_ predicts, rather than claiming that your own guesses
are "LET".


> It is the SR-ists that are "refusing to look" at these experiments
> because they are "theoretically impossible".

Hmmm. For every one of your proposed experiments LET makes exactly
the same prediction as SR, so how can you possibly hope that _ANY_
actual observation in one of them could distinguish between them?


> This is really bizarre. For example. Let's presume we did one of the
> recommended timing (not fringe) experiments. There are two possible
> outcomes.
> 1) We don't find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.
> SR Interpretation: We told you so!
> LET Interpretation: Darn! Back to the drawing board.

Nope. LET interpretation is "We told you so!"


> 2) We do find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.
> SR Interpretation: AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!
> LET Interpretation: Wow!

Nope. LET interpretation is "AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!".

You _really_ should learn what LET says before spouting off about it.
The equations Lorentz presented in his 1904 paper are mathematically
quivalent to the equations of SR, and therefore predict exactly the
same result for _ANY_ experiment to which they can be applied.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

grunt

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
time is the sum of two equal opposite forces acting in
direct cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating
in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of
the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is
correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a
lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.
These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program
making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than
any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making
time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me
back at rgr...@yahoo.com


* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

grunt

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
time is the sum of two equal opposite forces acting in
direct cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating
in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of
the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is
correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a
lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.
These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program
making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than
any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making
time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me
back at rgr...@yahoo.com
In article <u6IIzSrb$GA.286@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Darrin

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00
to
Steve Carlip wrote:
> It's not clear what LET model of gravity
> you want to use for comparison, though.

I think there is some confusion here about what "LET" means.

In this newsroup for >3 years (and probably longer), LET has
stood for Lorentz Ether Theory, which is in essence a newsgroup-
created theory based upon the basic ideas and equations Lorentz
presented in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System
Moving with any Velocitty less than that of Light" (reprinted in
Dover's _Principle _of_Relativity_). The transform equations of
this theory can be summarized:
1) There is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.
2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their
direction of motion and clocks are slowed down; these combine
such that the ether-frame coordinates and the moving-frame
coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform (Lorentz gave
an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper, but it is
algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's 1905 paper).
Lorentz expanded on this in his monograph _Theory_of_Electrons_.

AFAIK Lorentz himself never called this "LET". That is
a sci.physics.relativity abbreviation designed to save
typing a circumloqution about what Lorentz and his
papers imply in discussions around here.

[I said ">3 years" as this was already established when I
started participating regularly here.]

Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general
class of theories.


There has been confusion around here for the past month or so
because several vocal contributors have made some mistakes and
have repeatedly claimed that it would be possible to distinguish
between LET and SR experimentally. The above synopsis of LET
shows this to be impossible if one has access only to moving
objects (i.e. without some God-given designation of the ether
frame). But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame
cannot be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by
any measurements.... And in fact it is clear that one could
anoint _ANY_ inertial frame as "the LET ether frame" and compute
_any_ experimental measurement using LET and obtain the exact
same values as a computation using SR. After all, the Lorentz
transforms _do_ form a group.


Like SR, LET makes no claim to describe gravitation. So the
challenge here in this thread is asking responders to go beyond
either theory. Naturally different people will do that
differently....


> [example of pulsar clocks]


> Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this
> ``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation
> when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.
> Would you accept that as evidence against LET?

No. It would confirm LET just as much as it confirms SR.


> (Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,
> that would constitute strong evidence against SR.
> The question is how much wiggle room your version
> or interpretation of LET gives you.)

LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at
least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

greyw...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00
to
In article <389D077B...@lucent.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > kud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Many SR-advocates
> > > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> > > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> > > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> > > phenomena.
> > This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to
include
> > the Principle of Relativity.
>
> It _is_ true, as has been pointed out to you many times. And no PoR
> is needed, all that is needed is to apply _LORENTZ'S_ equations to
> actually measured quantities. You in the past have failed to use
> his equations, and have used your own erroneous ones.
>

And as always, Tom, repetition of this claim does not make it true.

Every time you've done other than parrot this line, you've assumed the
PoR to "prove" they are identical.

And again as usual Tom, you cut out the meat of the argument without
responding to it -- because you don't want to "look."

Your style is really going down hill. You used to be a scientist.

If the timing experiment shows a difference -- according to your
(incorrect) view -- both LET and SR would have to be scrapped.

But you are afraid to look.

The evil "aetherists" wouldn't mind that much. They, at least, have
something that can be modified. SR can't.

--
greywolf42

Paul Stowe

unread,
Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00
to
In <389D0E32...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
writes:
>
>Steve Carlip wrote:
>> It's not clear what LET model of gravity
>> you want to use for comparison, though.
>
>I think there is some confusion here about what "LET" means.
>
>In this newsroup for >3 years (and probably longer), LET has
>stood for Lorentz Ether Theory, which is in essence a newsgroup-
>created theory based upon the basic ideas and equations Lorentz
>presented in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System
>Moving with any Velocitty less than that of Light" (reprinted in
>Dover's _Principle _of_Relativity_). The transform equations of
>this theory can be summarized:
>
> 1) There is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.

Check

> 2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their
> direction of motion and clocks are slowed down;

Check

> these combine such that the ether-frame coordinates and the
> moving-frame coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform
> (Lorentz gave an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper,

Can be related by..., specifically NOT considered physical, but just a
mathematical means of translational coordinate change. However, SR
does specifically assume physical significance to this. As alway, THIS
is the core difference which you refuse to see or consider.

> but it is algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's
> 1905 paper).

Nope, this later is true IF and ONLY IF you make a further assumption
NOT present in Lorentz' work. He recognized this, BUT never endorsed
this 'further assumption'. You will not see any of Lorentz work (even
though his career spans 15 years past Poncaire'/Einstein presentations)
which advocates OR uses this so-called grouping.

> Lorentz expanded on this in his monograph "Theory of Electrons".


>
> AFAIK Lorentz himself never called this "LET". That is
> a sci.physics.relativity abbreviation designed to save
> typing a circumloqution about what Lorentz and his
> papers imply in discussions around here.

Correct, LET more correctly stands for Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory,
Not Lorentz Ether Theory.

> [I said ">3 years" as this was already established when I
> started participating regularly here.]

Gee, a relative newbie

>Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general
>class of theories.

Yes it is, and you adamantly REFUSE to give credit to the 'physical'
differnces detween it and SR.

>There has been confusion around here for the past month or so
>because several vocal contributors have made some mistakes and
>have repeatedly claimed that it would be possible to distinguish
>between LET and SR experimentally.

That's because of the physical difference verses simple BLIND
application of mathematical coordinate changing convension. And you're
right, more and more people are 'seeing through' the smoke screen. Not
just me, but a half-dozen other have said TEST FOR THIS.

>The above synopsis of LET shows this to be impossible

Your 'synopsis' is as irrelevant as always. Even Krisher saw the
predicted sinusoidal pattern predicted by the physical process verses
your 'beloved' group theory.

>if one has access only to moving objects (i.e. without some God-given
>designation of the ether frame).

One does not need a 'God-given' frame, the observed CMBR fits the bill
and it is 'observable'.

>But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame cannot
>be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by any
>measurements....

Gee, the CMBR refutes that claim.

>And in fact it is clear that one could anoint _ANY_ inertial frame

>as "the LET ether frame" and compute any experimental measurement


>using LET and obtain the exact same values as a computation using SR.
>After all, the Lorentz transforms _do_ form a group.

But, As I demonstrated in a simple example, the non-linearity of gamma
severely distorts object to object observations, such that an actual
0.25c separation velocity say between two objects moving at 0.74c and
0.99 wrt the CMBR will appear to be separating from each other at
0.98c.

This IS SPECIFICALLY WHY Lorentz alway advocated working from a common
primal frame. Also Lorentz NEVER claims that such a frame is
undetectable, only that a round-trip type experiment (like specifically
the MMX) is incapable of testing for this frame.

>Like SR, LET makes no claim to describe gravitation. So the
>challenge here in this thread is asking responders to go beyond
>either theory. Naturally different people will do that
>differently....

Here we agree...

>> [example of pulsar clocks]
>> Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this
>> ``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation
>> when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.
>> Would you accept that as evidence against LET?
>
>No. It would confirm LET just as much as it confirms SR.

My question is, how would a distant observer 'see' this?

>> (Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,
>> that would constitute strong evidence against SR.
>> The question is how much wiggle room your version
>> or interpretation of LET gives you.)
>
>LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at
>least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.

Nope, as you have been told many times, the class based specifically on
the LET process has much greater 'wiggle' room.

Paul Stowe

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally
> indistinguishible from SR is SR itself.

That is demonstrably not true. There is an equivalence class of
theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR (and
LET is a member).


> No theory based on
> absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to
> SR.

I agree with that. But that is a different issue than being
experimentally indistinguishable. Why do you think I keep
specifying "experimentally indistinguishable" when I say they
are equivalent?

The equivalence class of theories which are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR is larger than just LET and SR. But all
that is needed to be a member of this class is that every computation
of an observable quantity be the same as an SR computation -- there
is no requirement whatsoever that these theories be "the same"
(however defined).

There is a narrower equivalence class of theories mathematically
equivalent to SR, of which LET is also a member. LET and SR differ
in their _interpretations_ of the quantities which appear in their
formulas, but do not differ in their formulas; because any
comparison between theory and experiment involves _only_ those
formulas, no experiment can distinguish between SR and LET -- the
interpretations of the quantities appearing in the formulas is
_irrelevant_ to that.


> The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)
> is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock
> synchronization.

Yes, it is more than a convention. It also embodies a convention.
<shrug>


> It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend
> on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what
> is REALLY simultanous.

Your first statement is clearly true. Your second contradicts the
first. The meaning of "simultaneous" depends upon how we set our
clocks, and Nature cannot care how we do that. _Nature_ has no
"simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.


> SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility
> to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR
> simultaneity concept.

Not true. One could also use _LORENTZ's_ equations. Oh, that _IS_
LET, isn't it. You and Paul keep trying to use "sound-bite"
approaches to LET (i.e. just use "time dilation" or "length
contraction" rather than using _LORENTZ'S_ equations). Your
approach is not LET, and is as invalid as are similar attempts
to apply SR.


> If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted
> by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that
> the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,
> then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm
> to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,
> then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction
> are expanded.

Your dredge up a red herring here -- just use _LORENTZ'S_ equations
and the question of "simultaneity" never comes up. Just note the
coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform
_USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and
you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will
observe. But somehow you have never personally done that....


> The SR simultaneity concept entails that the observer does not
> observe with both eyes at the same (absolute) time.

In the sense that LET predicts that such events are not simultaneous
in the ether frame. <shrug>


> [... example based upon an invalid analysis ...]

Why is it you never used _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ here? What
justification do you have to claim that what you say is indeed LET?
In actual fact it is not LET.


> Inasfar as SR and LET are equivalent, they say nothing about
> nature, and inasfar as they say something about nature, they
> are not equivalent.

Not true. But you need to use _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ and not your
own "sound bite" approach.


Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_
use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length
contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another. Your
approach to LET is invalid, and is not LET.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00
to
Paul Stowe wrote:
> [responding to z@z]

> You've really hit the essence of the difference between the philosophy
> at the core foundation of SR, and that of LET...

Yes. He did describe differences in _PHILOSOPHY_. However he failed
to show that they differ in their predictions of experimental results.


> >SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility
> >to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR
> >simultaneity concept.

> Which Lorentz NEVER advocated, mentions, or suggests using.

Perhaps. But his _EQUATIONS_ sure contain it (in the sense that they
predict the same measurements). This is, as I said above, a difference
in _PHILOSOPHY_, but does not correspond to any difference in
PREDICTIONS/COMPUTATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.


> In fact,
> his rendering of this concept EXPRESSLY DENIES reciprocal length
> contraction, saying instead that contraction is a real process
> expressly tied to the absolute velocity of the moving object relative
> to the primal frame. This is not symmetrical and does not comply to
> the principle of relativity.

Yes. Lorentz's approach differs from Einstein in philosophy, and in
interpretation of the transform equations. <shrug> But this does
not result in any difference in PREDICTIONS/CONMPUTATIONS OF
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.


> [... example of an invalid analysis claimed to be LET...]
> Absolutely correct. [...]

You share z's errors, that's all. <shrug> In particular, show us where
z used _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ in that analysis. That's the only way you
could demonstrate that the analysis truly uses LET. In actual fact, z's
analysis does not use LET, it uses his personal _GUESSES_....

As I have repeatedly pointed out, neither you nor z use
_LORENTZ'S_ equations of LET, you use your own _GUESSES_ of
how you believe things should behave. That is not LET.


> While science isn't a 'popularity contest', as can
> be seen lately, more and more people that evaluate this are coming to
> this same conclusion. This key is, to devise tests that can measure
> these differences.

All that is happening is that several people share the same mistakes.
<shrug>

There are no "differences" which can be measured between SR and LET.
The differences are all in philosophy and interpretation, neither
of which is subject to measurement. As physical theories used for
predicting/computing experimental results, SR and LET are equivalent
(indistinguishable); as a basis for describing or understanding the
world they are very different.

Remember, please, that by "LET" I mean the theory presented
by Lorentz in his 1904 paper. Z and Paul _claim_ that's what
they mean by "LET", but somehow they never actually use the
equations presented in that paper.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In <389D0E32...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> writes:
> > [in LET]

> > 2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their
> > direction of motion and clocks are slowed down;
> > these combine such that the ether-frame coordinates and the
> > moving-frame coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform
> > (Lorentz gave an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper,
> Can be related by..., specifically NOT considered physical, but just a
> mathematical means of translational coordinate change. However, SR
> does specifically assume physical significance to this.

I agree that LET and SR interpret this differently. But for the
comparison between theory and experiment it is irrelevant -- all one
does is use the mathematical relationships (theorems) of the theory
to predict/compute the experimental measurements (applying the physical
situation of the measurement), and then compare the computed _number_
to the actual measurement. It is impossible to measure the difference
between SR and LET because the difference is purely in philosophy and
interpretation, and those do not affect the _numbers_. That's why I
have always been quite careful to state that LET and SR are equivalent
in that they are experimentally indistinguishable.


> As alway, THIS
> is the core difference which you refuse to see or consider.

I see it, and I consider it, and I understand it. But you never seem
able to realize that this is important when considering the foundations
of the theories, but is _IRRELEVANT_ when comparing the theories to
experiments. You always discuss interpretations and I always discuss
comparison with experiment. Your failure to understand the difference
is why you keep claiming some experiment or other can distinguish the
two theories, and yet every attempt you make is seriously flawed and
turns out to be completely unable to distinguish between them.

Note that there is a mathematical theorem which states that SR and LET
are experimentally indistinguishable via any local experiment using
clocks, rulers, and light beams. Your attempts to ignore this theorem
are ridiculous. I discussed this in my post of 11/21/1999, Subject:
Theories Equivalent to SR (and in fact there is a much larger class
of theories to which this applies); see also Zhang's book
_Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_.

Simple demonstration: select some inertial frame to be LET's
ether frame, and use Lorentz's equations to predict/compute
some measurement in the moving system; this is LET's value.
Now SR is valid in any inertial frame, so apply SR in the
same inertial frame designated as LET's ether frame, using
the SR equations to predict/compute the same measurement in
the moving system; this is SR's value. Now it is mind-
numbingly obvious that these two values are the same, because
the original data came from the _same_ inertial frame, and
because the equations relating that frame to the moving
frame are identical. This obviously holds for _ANY_POSSIBLE_
_MEASUREMENT_ which is described by both theories (i.e. is
in their common domain of applicability).


> > but it is algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's
> > 1905 paper).
> Nope, this later is true IF and ONLY IF you make a further assumption
> NOT present in Lorentz' work.

You keep claiming this but have failed to show it. As I keep saying,
_ALL_ one does to compare an experiment to LET is to use _LORENTZ'S_
_EQUATIONS_ to predict/compute the measurements. And you continue to
refuse to do so. Using _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ requires no "further
assumption".


> He recognized this, BUT never endorsed
> this 'further assumption'. You will not see any of Lorentz work (even
> though his career spans 15 years past Poncaire'/Einstein presentations)
> which advocates OR uses this so-called grouping.

It is not necessary to apply the Lorentz group to compare LET to any
experiment. It is only necessary to use _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to
predict/compute the experimental measurements and then compare to
the actual measurements. But still, you refuse to use _LORENTZ'S_
_EQUATIONS_.


> >Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general
> >class of theories.
> Yes it is, and you adamantly REFUSE to give credit to the 'physical'
> differnces detween it and SR.

Not true. There are manifestly different physical interpretations
between LET and SR. But there are no _mathematical_ differences, and
there are no _OBSERVABLE_ differences. I keep stressing the differences
among these three properties of these theories, and you keep ignoring
them.


> That's because of the physical difference verses simple BLIND
> application of mathematical coordinate changing convension. And you're
> right, more and more people are 'seeing through' the smoke screen. Not
> just me, but a half-dozen other have said TEST FOR THIS.

Before one can "TEST FOR THIS", one needs to describe an experiment
for which the prediction of LET differs from the prediction of SR.
Haven't you noticet that your recent discovery of your arithmetic
error completely negates your claim that your proposed experiment
could distinguish between these two theories? Haven't you figured
out yet that the _algebraic_ relationship between the formulas of
LET and the formulas of SR precludes any such differences?


> Your 'synopsis' is as irrelevant as always. Even Krisher saw the
> predicted sinusoidal pattern predicted by the physical process verses
> your 'beloved' group theory.

Again, you keep claiming this, but what Krisher saw was well below
the accuracy of his clocks, is nowhere near sinusoidal, and does not
correspond to any physical anisotropy in the speed of light. Even if
you assume there is a sinusoidal signal in his data, it is clear that
the noise is equal or larger than the "signal". That's why they quoted
the error bars they did.


> >if one has access only to moving objects (i.e. without some God-given
> >designation of the ether frame).
> One does not need a 'God-given' frame, the observed CMBR fits the bill
> and it is 'observable'.

So you think your personal hopes and dreams are equivalent to "God".
<shrug>



> >But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame cannot
> >be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by any
> >measurements....
> Gee, the CMBR refutes that claim.

No, the CMBR is a radiation field, not an ether. To demonstrate it is
the LET ether you need a local experiment which can do so. See above --
there are none. You keep going in this same circle.


> >And in fact it is clear that one could anoint _ANY_ inertial frame
> >as "the LET ether frame" and compute any experimental measurement
> >using LET and obtain the exact same values as a computation using SR.
> >After all, the Lorentz transforms _do_ form a group.
> But, As I demonstrated in a simple example, the non-linearity of gamma
> severely distorts object to object observations, such that an actual
> 0.25c separation velocity say between two objects moving at 0.74c and
> 0.99 wrt the CMBR will appear to be separating from each other at
> 0.98c.

Yes, your attempt at a Galilean analysis of a relativistic situation
is flawed.


> This IS SPECIFICALLY WHY Lorentz alway advocated working from a common
> primal frame. Also Lorentz NEVER claims that such a frame is
> undetectable, only that a round-trip type experiment (like specifically
> the MMX) is incapable of testing for this frame.

So why can't you describe any experiment which could observe it? All
you have given so far are clearly-flawed attempts.


> >LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at
> >least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.
> Nope, as you have been told many times, the class based specifically on
> the LET process has much greater 'wiggle' room.

I am talking about _LET_, not some "class based specifically on the LET
process" you have in mind. As I keep saying: what you are trying to do
IS NOT LET. LET is the theory presented by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
You are not Lorentz, and this is not 1904.

The "wiggle room" in LET is completely removed by his transform
equations. Equivalently the "wiggle room" is removed by the fact
that in LET Maxwell's vacuum equations are valid in any inertial
frame "moving with less than the speed of light". Like SR, LET
(in vacuum) has only a single free parameter, c, and it is
determined quite accurately by experiment.


You are well advised to try to keep all the "wiggle room" you can -- you
will need it. But that is not LET.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

GLOBARR

unread,
Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to
In <389D046...@lucent.com>
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Ref: <389B18D6...@lucent.com>
<20000204212008...@ng-ch1.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) comments:
Tom wrote' [to me],' with the 'me' being himself, as he saw it,
and then quoted my words of a previous post:

> [to me]:
> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in
> my employ who would have not considered a theory because of
> some imagined differences between SR and the ether, he
> would be fired!

Tom Roberts then wrote:
The second rule of business: never work for an idiot. _I_
would never have to worry about your firing me!

O'Barr comments:
I certainly did not mean this to be taken personally. I
had all SR experts in mind, when it was stated, although I
see nothing wrong with it being taken personally. I
certainly would demand logical thinking, and if you are smart
enough to know that you could not or would not meet such
simple requirements, then you would sure be saving us both
a lot of time and effort by not working for me. Thanks!!!!!

In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR. The ether
explains SR. The ether gives us physical explanations.
The ether gives us physical causes. The ether provides us
with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in
the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually
found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken
every time we turn around! We do not have to say and
believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether, as
you have to do in SR. If only one of these good things were
true, it would be sufficient to cause one to turn to the ether!
And yet they are all true! And not one single good thing
is lost by going to the ether! How could it be better than
this??????

Joe Fischer

unread,
Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00
to
GLOBARR (glo...@aol.com) wrote:
: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.

In all this stupidity, the ether doesn't exist.
That should be "Stupid Ether" Question.

: The ether explains SR.

What ether? Have a few therapy sessions. :-)

: The ether gives us physical explanations.

The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should
be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some
way. The idea is too old to have any value.

: The ether gives us physical causes.

Find something else to delude yourself about.

: The ether provides us


: with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in
: the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually
: found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken
: every time we turn around! We do not have to say and
: believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether,

Create an ether newsgroup, keep track of what
is developed from discussions there, and come back here
in about 50 years and post the results.

What a short post that will be.

Joe Fischer

--
3
3

Paul Stowe

unread,
Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00
to
In <38a0...@news.iglou.com> joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) writes:
>
>GLOBARR (glo...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.
>
> In all this stupidity, the ether doesn't exist.
>That should be "Stupid Ether" Question.
>
>: The ether explains SR.
>
> What ether? Have a few therapy sessions. :-)
>
>: The ether gives us physical explanations.
>
> The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should
>be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some
>way. The idea is too old to have any value.
>
>: The ether gives us physical causes.
>
> Find something else to delude yourself about.
>
>: The ether provides us
>: with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in
>: the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually
>: found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken
>: every time we turn around! We do not have to say and
>: believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether,

What's wrong Joey (or should I say Kenny), you don't 'like' the fact
that more & more people are re-discovering the advantages of the
physical medium concept?

> Create an ether newsgroup, keep track of what
>is developed from discussions there, and come back here
>in about 50 years and post the results.

They already exist, but what the good of closeting oneself in a self
congradulatory group? Hell if one wanted to do that they could be just
like Nathan Urban and others and use a kill-file. Don't you know what
a 'kill-file' is?

> What a short post that will be.

Actually aether theory has provided the most unique set of answers to
open 'anomalies' that conventional theories haven't. Including the
observed deceleration of the deep space probes.

But of course, I think you know this, and are scared to death that the
theory IS valid and thus will become popular, while you pathetic
expanding matter idea dies it natural, long overdue death. Hell you
can't even explain an orbit, much less tides with it. Let's not even
think about RFD.

Paul Stowe

Wayne Throop

unread,
Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00
to
: pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe)
: What's wrong Joey (or should I say Kenny), you don't 'like' the fact

: that more & more people are re-discovering the advantages of the
: physical medium concept?

What's the advantage, when Paul Stowe demonstrably cannot even calculate
the results of simple experiments using his own theories of light transmission
in a "medium"?

Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

z@z

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
: = Tom Roberts
:: = Wolfgang G.

:: It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend


:: on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what
:: is REALLY simultanous.
:
: Your first statement is clearly true. Your second contradicts the
: first. The meaning of "simultaneous" depends upon how we set our
: clocks, and Nature cannot care how we do that. _Nature_ has no
: "simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.

What? Nature has no "simultanous"??? Do you really assume that
clocks are more fundamental than simultaneity? Don't you know
that all actions-at-a-distance of classical mechanics require
absolute simultaneity. Even SR requires (a modified form of)
simultaneity.

The statement "the laws of nature themselves do not depend
on the way we synchronize clocks" contradicts "the laws of
nature depend on what is REALLY simultanous" only if we
assume that what is "REALLY simultanous" can be nothing more
than the result from (in principle arbitrary) clock
synchronization.

:: If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted


:: by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that
:: the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,
:: then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm
:: to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,
:: then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction
:: are expanded.
:
: Your dredge up a red herring here -- just use _LORENTZ'S_ equations
: and the question of "simultaneity" never comes up.

I do correctly apply the Lorentz equations. The distance between
the eyes of the moving person is contracted by gamma wrt an
observer at rest.

The perception by the moving observer DEPENDS on the fact, that
he uses both eyes SIMULTANOUSLY. This simultaneity depends on
NATURE and not on an arbitrary synchronization of two clocks
implanted into the eyes.

The correct application of the Lorentz transformation leads
exactly to the conclusions I have drawn in my previous post:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582025137

: Just note the


: coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform
: _USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and
: you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will
: observe.

Yes, but if you do this, then you give up the simultaneity concept
advocated by both Lorentz and Poincaré. Don't you see that to
the mathematical coordinates and their transformations must
correspond concrete entities in nature?

: Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_


: use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length
: contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another.

Nonsense. It is you who claim that a whole class of theories
(including e.g. Franco Selleri's "inertial transformation" based
on a time transformation entailing absolute simultaneity) are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR and LET.

So it is YOUR claim that "length contraction" and "time dilation"
are the only empirically relevant concepts of SR.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

robert...@hotmail.com

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
In article <38a0...@news.iglou.com>,
joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) wrote:

> The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should
> be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some
> way. The idea is too old to have any value.

I cannot let this pass. Age has nothing to do with goodness or badness
of a physical theory. Archimedes theory of hydrostatic forces is as
good today as it was over 2000 years ago. There are oldies and goodies
and oldies and baddies. Age is irrelevent.

Bob Kolker

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is
>> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.
>
> Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it
> is fundamental to SR.

But this is not an advantage. Fundamental means unexplained.

> Irony fails you, aparently due to your lack of knowledge.

> "Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in modern
> physics, precisely in this area: searching for new fundamental
> theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead of SR there would
> be no justification for this approach;

Complete nonsense. First, scientists do not need justifications to
propose new theories. Second, Poincare has used this approach and
extended the Lorentz symmetry of EM to kinematics, and proposed that
the same has to be done with gravity.

> SR is a pillar of modern physics and LET is essentially dead.

LET was dead because there was no ether theory of gravity. This time
is over.

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

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
kud...@my-deja.com writes:
> There has been much discussion (and much petty
> name-calling) in this group recently concerning
> the question of the observability of the
> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET
> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment
> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)
> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I
> have had time to read) have completely ignored
> the fact that this is in reality a major
> concession, since it does not claim that any
> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR
> refutes LET.

Some have. "Etherist" are not a homogeneous group. For example, I
have much more in common with "SR advocates" than, for example, with
Ken Seto.

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR
> very simply rests on the one remaining force in
> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.
> The question implied by the title is, then,
> simply this: If gravity does not have the same
> relativistic symmetries as light and other
> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means
> by which LET could be distinguished from SR
> experimentally with presently available data?

No, because as LET, as SR are not about gravity.

It was certainly the most powerful argument in favour of relativity
that there was a relativistic theory of gravity (GR) but no ether
theory of gravity. Now such an ether theory of gravity exists, see
http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/index.html, and because in
this theory the GR equations appear in some limit, the agreement with
experiment is at least as good as for GR.

> experimentally with presently available data?
> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's
> equivalence principle justify the logical leap
> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as
> a universal model, when the EP itself has only
> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

Don't understand. The lack of refutation is all
experiment can give.

> Given two mathematically equivalent theories
> in which one insists on the physical existence
> of a medium for the propagation of light and
> the other insists on the physical existence of
> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say
> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

Occam's razor is a hard thing, because to decide what is "simpler" is
not easy. If somebody proposes that IHO theory 1 is simpler it seems
impossible to prove him wrong.

> 1. Etherists who acknowledge the EM+
> indistinguishability of SR and LET who are
> proposing 'critical experiments' performable
> today or in the near future that can use
> predictions of gravitational phenomena to
> distinguish between the behavior predicted
> by SR (the correction applies to gravity as
> well) and LET (EM+ forces alone become
> increasingly inefficient as relative velocities
> approach c. Inertial and gravitational mass
> mass remain unchanged.)

This is impossible in this sense, because nor LET nor SR predict
something for gravity. It is possible only based on a certain ether
theory of gravity in comparison with GR. For my ether theory
I have done this.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> : = Tom Roberts
> : _Nature_ has no

> : "simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.
> What? Nature has no "simultanous"??? Do you really assume that
> clocks are more fundamental than simultaneity?

No, I assume Nature herself uses local interactions, so she
_never_ needs to worry about simultaneity -- interactions either
ocur here-and-now or they don't. What is happening elsewhere or
elsewhen does not affect the interaction here-and-now at all.

Here when I say "local interaction" I mean occuring at a
specific event in spacetime. Note that all modern
fundamental field theories have only such local
interactions.


> Don't you know
> that all actions-at-a-distance of classical mechanics require
> absolute simultaneity.

Of course I do. I _also_ know that no such classical theory has any
chance of being an accurate description of Nature. They are all
_approximations_. I know this because we have better and more
accurate relativistic and quantum theories which reduce to those
classical theories in the appropriate limit.


> Even SR requires (a modified form of)
> simultaneity.

I wouldn't say that, I would say that SR describes how clocks
will behave, and correspondingly how humans can/will interpret
their behavior as simultaneity.


> The statement "the laws of nature themselves do not depend
> on the way we synchronize clocks" contradicts "the laws of
> nature depend on what is REALLY simultanous" only if we
> assume that what is "REALLY simultanous" can be nothing more
> than the result from (in principle arbitrary) clock
> synchronization.

But "simultaneous" does indeed inherently depend upon clocks. And
upon human interpretation of their readings. Nature uses no clocks,
and never looks at any clock readings, and never does anything
except locally (at least so far as we know today). When considering
what happens at a specific event in spacetime, Nature does not
bother to look elsewhere or elsewhen; but she does this
_independently_ everywhere and everywhen so it is complicated....

Your attempt to impose some sort of "REALLY simultaneous" on Nature
is a denial that Nature operates locally.


> I do correctly apply the Lorentz equations. The distance between
> the eyes of the moving person is contracted by gamma wrt an
> observer at rest.

But you did not apply Lorentz's equations, as I said. In particular
you are attempting to use "ether simultaneity" to this moving
observer's "length-contracted" eyes -- you have forgotten that
Lorentz's equations also predict a difference in simultaneity
for that pair of moving eyes.

You keep applying "length contraction" and claim it is what LET
predicts, all the while fighting mightily to AVOID applying
Lorentz's actual equations. What you are doing is not LET.


> The perception by the moving observer DEPENDS on the fact, that
> he uses both eyes SIMULTANOUSLY. This simultaneity depends on
> NATURE and not on an arbitrary synchronization of two clocks
> implanted into the eyes.

But ther _ARE_ "two clocks implanted into the eyes", because the
brain of the person using those eyes to observe must integrate
the perceptions of both eyes into a coherent whole. This is _VERY_
_MUCH_ more complicated than "Nature", who only uses local
interactions to make an incoming light ray stimulate neurons in
the retina, and then uses local interactions to make those
neurons stimulate others in the optic nerve, ....


> The correct application of the Lorentz transformation leads
> exactly to the conclusions I have drawn in my previous post:
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582025137

That article is wrong -- you _NEVER_ used a Lorentz transform, you
just used words and an invalid attempt to apply "length contraction"
to a case where it is not the whole story.


> : Just note the
> : coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform
> : _USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and
> : you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will
> : observe.
> Yes, but if you do this, then you give up the simultaneity concept
> advocated by both Lorentz and Poincaré.

Hmmm. Lorentz sure advocated the transforms of his 1904 paper, and
they imply such observations. Just because Lorentz himself did not
understand or accept all of the implications of this theory is no
reason for you to misapply his equations. The point is to apply LET
as Lorentz presented it in his 1904 paper.

It is OK for you to attempt to apply other concepts of Lorentz (and
others), just don't call that "LET", because that name is already
in use around here, and has been for many years. Of course you will
probably have extreme difficulty reconciling that with experiments....


> Don't you see that to
> the mathematical coordinates and their transformations must
> correspond concrete entities in nature?

Sure, that is _THE_HOPE_. But the basic discussion is about what
LET and SR predict, not really about what nature actually does.
We don't _KNOW_ what Nature actually does, but we can and do know
what LET and SR predict, and you keep getting it wrong.


> : Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_
> : use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length
> : contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another.
> Nonsense.

Then reference any article you have ever written which actually
contains a Lorentz transform and a valid application of it. Every
article of yours which I have seen merely attempts to apply
"length contraction" or "time dilation" -- while those are valid
in _SPECIFIC_PHYSICAL_SITUATIONS_, they are not valid in general,
and you keep trying to use them in situations where they don't apply
or don't give the complete picture.


> It is you who claim that a whole class of theories
> (including e.g. Franco Selleri's "inertial transformation" based
> on a time transformation entailing absolute simultaneity) are
> experimentally indistinguishable from SR and LET.

Yes. Because they are.


> So it is YOUR claim that "length contraction" and "time dilation"
> are the only empirically relevant concepts of SR.

Not true. You seem inordinately hung up on those two concepts. They
are not at all the full implications of the Lorentz transform or
of _ANY_ of those other theories, either. And I have never claimed
they were. Please refrain from attempting to put words into my
mouth.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages