A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 7 Mar 2010 23:10 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:720fa6a7-6744-4bf7-85fe-6050215ee277(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > sense. > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either > exists. What is a 'fixed ether'? _______________________ Non-existent.
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Mar 2010 23:15 On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:720fa6a7-6744-4bf7-85fe-6050215ee277(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I > > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > sense. > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either > > exists. > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > _______________________ > Non-existent. That is your 'belief'. The question was in physical model arena. Give or reference a basic hypothetical definition... Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 23:15 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ec6405e7-99b7-4137-9a8b-a97f41c4171d(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 7:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f0ae8888-de0b-4d93-862b-9b1d2cd005f3(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted >> >> > > experimentally. >> >> > > I >> >> > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is >> >> > > not >> >> > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has >> >> > > the >> >> > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make >> >> > > sense. >> >> >> > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to >> >> > the >> >> > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving >> >> > either >> >> > exists. >> >> >> What is a 'fixed ether'? >> >> >> Paul Stowe >> >> > Oh, and BTW, please derive the physical basis of the LTE within the >> > framework of SR. >> >> LTE? > > Lorentz Transform Equation => Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) Ok .. it is more standard to refer to the Lorentz Transforms as 'LT', rather than 'LTE' And Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) is not it. That's the value usually referred to as a gamma factor. Se Einstein's 1950 paper for a derivation from basic axioms (in particular the 'physical' speed of light as c). It also comes out naturally from the geomtry of space being minkowski rather than Euclidean (from which one gets the basis for Gallilean transforms). One does not need a 'physical' basis for Gallilean transforms (other than the assumed geometry of space), so one doesn't need one for Lorentz Transforms (other than the assumed geometry of spacetime)
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 23:18 "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vjadlF4daU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I >> just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not >> compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the >> assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make >> sense. > > http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE > LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY > WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT" I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer review? Who is this Ilja person?
From: Peter Webb on 7 Mar 2010 23:32
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9c1e1ae6-c9c1-497d-a293-35fb68100abb(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:720fa6a7-6744-4bf7-85fe-6050215ee277(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I > > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > sense. > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving > > either > > exists. > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > _______________________ > Non-existent. That is your 'belief'. The question was in physical model arena. Give or reference a basic hypothetical definition... _____________________________ A priveleged inertial reference frame. Of course, as I don't believe it exists, I am hardly in a position to extol its qualities. This seems to be what believers in a "fixed ether" mean by the term, but you would be better off asking them. I know as much about ether as I do about Unicorns. In fact, I don't even know if Unicorns are horses with a single spiral horn, or are a completely different species that just looks like a horse with a horn. If you really want to know, ask somebody who believes in Unicorns and/or the fixed ether what they are exactly. Paul Stowe |