A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 07:21 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:7ec422c5-c1be-4bb7-a26a-e694cc7a4e34(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:4618fc10-f129-4474-b8c4-3eb3466dc5ab(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless >> >> perhaps >> >> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but >> >> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would >> >> allow >> >> one to test for its presence or not. >> >> > I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in >> > principle. >> >> OK .. so you know how to falsify the hypothesis that aether exists? >> >> > The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with >> > is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of >> > electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space. >> >> Hypothetical, but not (as yet) falsifiable >> >> > But >> > there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the >> > strong, weak, and gravitational forces. >> >> > These other forces are so completely different in properties from >> > electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their >> > own aethers. >> >> Why not the same aether? Why does there need to be ANY aethers? How >> does >> this make the ( luminiferous ) aether falsifiable .. let alone the others >> (if any) ? > > You forget that the WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN AETHER was to provide a > mechanistic basis for the transmission of waves. I didn't forget anything > Classically, > supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to > come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties > to support all the known characteristics of light. It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting all matter and slowing all processes in particular :) Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to to explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect. However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify aether. >> > It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could >> > be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse >> > characteristics. >> >> Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR? >> >> > Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether, >> > there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers. >> >> You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is >> not >> a prediction of LET. > > Read Lorentz's original writings. Here on these newsgroups we > tend to forget that Lorentz was developing a theory of the > electron. LET is not an abstract mathematical theory. It is a > MECHANISTIC theory. You still haven't answered why there must be multiple aethers and why they need to have different properties. >> > These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other >> > in their mechanical properties, >> >> What mechanical properties does aether have? > > That is what advocates of an aether must supply. But you are the one claiming that such difference in properties can be used to falsify aether. But you don't know what the properties are. SO it seems like your claims that aether could be falsifiable have not substance (rather aetherial :):)) >> > and therefore the speed at which >> > waves propagate through them must differ. >> >> Why? > > Why not? Why not is not a good enough reason for using this to falsify the aether. >> > Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter >> > differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong >> > aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind >> > should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing >> > luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material >> > substances. >> >> Or even why it ANY aether should induce object compressions and process >> slowing due to movement through it > > That is an INTRINSIC assumption of LET. It is an assumption that it does that. But how and why ANY aether would do this (or why one sort of aether would and another not) is unanswered. If one is to falsify an aether one must know >> > ================================================================= >> > A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be >> > that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves, >> > and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds. >> >> No .. that does not follow >> >> > For >> > even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission >> > would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the >> > imagination. >> >> Not really. >> >> > Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable >> > due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as >> > the Lorentz transformations. >> >> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers >> (if >> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed). >> >> > The measured speed of transmission >> > of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in >> > different directions due to the Earth's motions through space. >> >> You are making your own assertions about what you think is the case >> falsifiable. Your assumptions can be false and LET still valid. >> >> So we're back at square one. > > No. Yes > Because you are mistakenly treating LET as an abstract > mathematical theory. It is not. Irrrelevant whether it is or is not. You still have not backed up your claim of a falsifiable aether with anything but handwaving and 'why not's
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 07:28 On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers (if > any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed). As a supporter of the "one aether hypothesis", please provide me with a mechanistic description of a single aether that can support both the inverse-squared (gravity and light) and diverse non-inverse-squared laws (strong and weak forces). Also, you will have to prove that W and Z particles travel at the speed of light. :-) Jerry
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 07:49 On Mar 8, 6:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:7ec422c5-c1be-4bb7-a26a-e694cc7a4e34(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > Classically, > > supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to > > come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties > > to support all the known characteristics of light. > > It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting all > matter and slowing all processes in particular :) > > Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to to > explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect. No. Present-day advocates of aether theory may invest the aether with godlike magical properties, but Lorentz did not do that. Lorentz's aether had a highly specific set of properties. > However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify > aether. Not within LET itself, but within the meta-theory of which LET must represent merely one of multiple media of highly diverse properties. Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity, for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that? Jerry
From: Peter Webb on 8 Mar 2010 08:31 Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity, for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that? ___________________________ That would be a somewhat stronger argument if we had ever actually detected a gravity wave. As it is, their absence may prove a MM moment for GR sooner or later.
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 08:56
On Mar 8, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity, >> for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that? > > ___________________________ > That would be a somewhat stronger argument if we had ever actually detected > a gravity wave. As it is, their absence may prove a MM moment for GR sooner > or later. Of course, Hulse Taylor makes the existence of gravitational waves all but certain. My contention is that aether theories impose no necessary constraint on the speed of gravitational waves versus light waves. There is no existing aether theory that explains them as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Aether theories as presently understood therefore predict different speeds for gravitational waves versus light waves. Note: PREdict, not POSTdict. The speed of gravitation has not been measured. If the speed of sound were measured to be the same in air, water and steel, that observation would disprove all current theories of sound. If the speed of gravitational waves is ever shown identical to the speed of light waves, that observation would disprove all current aether theories... Jerry |