A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 20:51 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:db9b3abf-9d31-4978-a0b6-24351fc53fa6(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 6:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf-8577-063efc1a2c72(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an >> >> observed 'fact'. >> >> > And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it >> > as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the >> > behavior. >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime > > That's simply a silly idea... That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR >> >> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames >> >> of >> >> reference. >> >> > Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements. >> >> AS I said >> >> > Again >> > LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant. >> >> So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in >> the >> only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether >> frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks. >> There are no such distortions in SR > > No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation > velocity of the medium. Only in the absolute aether frame. > In LET that is not changed regardless of > motion. Yes .. it is. But it only appears to be travelling at c because we measure speed with contracted rulers and out-of-sync clocks. > In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a > simply derivation to show this. Indeed it is .. but that doesn't mean you are right. The gamma factor in LET is how much ones rulers shrink and how clocks slow etc .. resulting in incorrect measurements of speed. If you could use rulers and clocks unaffected by their motion in the aether, then you'd get very different non-isotropic speeds for light, according to LET >> >> No idea. >> >> > Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity >> > of LET... :) >> >> 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. > > Mea cupa,I stand corrected. In fact LET is a better foundation in > physical science than SR. The physical model (aetherial medium) on > which is LET is founded is perfectly compatible with GR. In fact, it > fits GR better given the fundamental hydrodynamical form of its > mathematics. It even easier to explain its behavior in a more unified > manner. How does aether theory work with GR (that has curved space-time) ? SR is a subset of GR .. LET is not.
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 20:56 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:178762e5-3ff8-4c52-8e4b-e6dc07a46d5a(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 8:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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: >> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:f0ae8888-de0b-4d93-862b-9b1d2cd005f3(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, PaulStowe<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'? >> >> >> >> PaulStowe >> >> >> > 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) > > Minkowski isn't fundamental, Yes .. it is .. Just because you think it isn't doesn't make it so. Minkowski geometry is as fundamental as Euclidien space. Probably more so, because the universe actually is properly modelled by Minkowski geometry. > and, in fact, trying to use it is a > classic circular argument. Nope. That was just a typical hypocritical aetherist response. According to aetherist the universe MUST be Euclidean and so they do not need to justify using that geometry as a basis. But when a physicist say the universe has Minkowski geometry instead, then the aetherist demands a justification for it. Neither geometry is more fundamental than the other ... just different. So either both need justification, or neither.
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 21:06 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3355b6f6-1826-4819-b7cb-b85913a5cae0(a)t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "PaulStowe" <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 > > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? There > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing > priveleged as in having different properties about it. In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame. In all other frames of reference, the compression of rulers and the slowing and change of sync in processes means we *measure* the speed incorrectly and get a value of isotropic c .. when *really* the speed is not isotropic c in that frame at all. If we could have a ruler and clock immune to the effects of movement through the aether (ie that stayed its correct length and kepy correct time) then we would see that. Perhaps we can find a way to make a region of space aether-free (though that would involve knowing the properties of aether and finding a way to stop it getting into a given region, or extracting it from there). Then putting our clocks and rulers in that space. That would then give correct measurements and show that the aether frame is indeed privileged (as LET claims it to be). But due to the nature of the effects of movement through the aether, we are destined to never be able to measure correct speeds or distances with our compressed rulers and slowed out-of-sync clocks. And worse, as that means we cannot really know which is the aether frame, we cannot even calculate the correct adjustments. How sad. But that's how things are according to LET.
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 21:12 On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can > give it any properties they want, False. That would be resorting to magic. The classsical aetherists firmly disbelieved in magic. The aethers that they devised always had solid grounding in mechanical analogy. Whether it be the vortices of Descartes, the cogwheels of Maxwell, or the ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage, the mechanisms employed in their models always had mechanical precedent. There is simply no mechanical precedent for a single medium capable of transmitting multiple vibratory modes spanning 38 orders of magnitude in strength, all of these vibratory modes traveling at the same speed, yet coupling differently to matter. Without any sort of mechanical precedent, classical aetherists would utterly reject your magical handwavings. > there is no reason why we need separate > aethers. There is also no reason why an aether should have to be responsible > for the weak and strong forces. Unless (as a clear supporter of multiple > aethers) you have a reason why aether must exist. Quite frankly, you have done nothing but present a series of special pleads, quite similar to how HW explains BaTh. Jerry
From: FrediFizzx on 8 Mar 2010 21:17
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "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? http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ Ilja Schmelzer is a serious independent researcher and is a long time poster to these sci.physics.* groups. Do a googlegroup search and you will find some interesting discussions in years past. Some of the general ideas of that paper linked above were recently peer reviewed in this article, http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/FOOP9262.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/2470867k22637651/ |