A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 21:26 "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vlpefFe0lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "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/ Sounds like its you. Self-publishing on private web-sites generally tends to be the activity of crackpots because reputable journals won't publish them
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 21:31 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:f255dcd6-6a97-422a-9010-6f85836a9300(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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. No .. That's what they can do. As we have never observed aether, they can assign any property they like to it in order to discredit possible refutations (if there were any). No magic invovled. [snip nonsense about magic] > 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. But the aether of LET is not like any other medium. So that other things that are NOT aether are different to aether does not matter to LET advocates. > Without any sort of mechanical precedent, classical aetherists > would utterly reject your magical handwavings. No .. they wouldn't .. Because it is what they do already. >> 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. Nope .. I have shown your arguments false, and that one CANNOT (or at least not yet) make the existence of aether falsifiable. You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about supposed other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or not once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that.
From: Paul Stowe on 8 Mar 2010 22:53 On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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 Something physical may be represented by a geometric description. But, to say that something physical results from, a.k.a. is caused by geometry, is putting the cart before the horse, its intellectually silly. It's certainly not my problem since I won't buy into it. > >> >> 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 (inherited from the physical medium model) light speed is the actual propagation speed of all disturbances/perturbations, PERIOD! It a physical property and if it like all other known media, it not universally constant. However, if you're moving c doesn't change. Then, if your measuring devices are not tied to those very same processes and are, in fact independent of and uninfluenced you can get MMX predicted result. The ONLY difference is the travel length along the axis of motion. That's enough to discriminate the asymmetry and properly realize you're moving. Again however, by our definition of speed as the observed or measured change in distance divided by observed or measured change in time, if round trip length is always uniform that very same definition guarantees that everyone will 'measure' the same value. >> 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. Maybe we have semantic issue but its not due to 'out-of-synch' clocks. All physical processes are regulated by the properties and processes of the medium c doesn't change, go faster and clocks must tick slower because the it simply takes that fixed speed of c to travel the longer paths that all propagating energy must take. > > 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 Well, that only because of our accepted definitions is it not??? > >> >> 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. Spacetime is curved because the energy density (directly related to pressure) varies from on region to another. This, in turn varies all fundamental, including c. Thus, c isn't constant and this is modeled as curvature. Paul Stowe
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 22:53 On Mar 8, 8:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about supposed > other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good > luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a > testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or not > once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that. Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether. I have repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST. What would it have taken to convince, for example, Michelson, or Arago, or Cauchy? You, on the other hand, have repeatedly resorted to utter crackpot arguments that would have been recognized as such by any of the premier classical aetherists, like Stokes, Cauchy, or Lorentz. To the classical aetherists, physical explanations about the nature of light needed to be grounded firmly in mechanical plausibility. You have REPEATEDLY departed from any such limits to your imaginings. Jerry
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 23:05
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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 > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description. And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry. > But, to say that something physical results from, a.k.a. is caused by > geometry, is putting the cart before the horse, its intellectually > silly. It's certainly not my problem since I won't buy into it. It is your problem if you don't understand it .. not mine. What physically makes the universe behave as modelled by euclidean geometry ?? >> >> >> 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 (inherited from the physical medium model) light speed is the > actual propagation speed of all disturbances/perturbations, PERIOD! No .. only in the medium. It is MEASURED by compressed rulers and slwoed out-of-sync clocks to be c in other frames, but isn't. You really don't know LET well, do you. > It a physical property and if it like all other known media, it not > universally constant. However, if you're moving c doesn't change. It does according to LET. Because the tools we use to measure it are not distorted by the motion. > Then, if your measuring devices are not tied to those very same > processes and are, in fact independent of and uninfluenced you can get > MMX predicted result. The ONLY difference is the travel length along > the axis of motion. That's enough to discriminate the asymmetry and > properly realize you're moving. Again however, by our definition of > speed as the observed or measured change in distance divided by > observed or measured change in time, if round trip length is always > uniform that very same definition guarantees that everyone will > 'measure' the same value. Yes .. due to distorted rulers and slowed-down out of sync clocks. The actual speed is not what is measured (in LET). Those distorted measurements in different frame are related by lorentz transforms. However, in LET, reality is Euclidean geometry and galillean transforms. We are simply unable to correctly measure reality and so the world appears in this distorted way >>> 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. > > Maybe we have semantic issue but its not due to 'out-of-synch' > clocks. Yes .. it is > All physical processes are regulated by the properties and > processes of the medium c doesn't change, go faster and clocks must > tick slower because the it simply takes that fixed speed of c to > travel the longer paths that all propagating energy must take. That was just gibberish .. try again >> > 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 > > Well, that only because of our accepted definitions is it not??? But its not reality .. as LET would have us belief. We are measuring things incorrectly. We can do physics with those measurements, because we know how the distorted rulers and clocks relate between frames of reference. But its all an illusion. REAL reality doesn't work that way (according to LET) .. there is an underlying reality we cannot measure using our current tools. Of course .. if we could make a ruler out of a material that wasn't affected by and dependent on EM fields .. just pure neutral matter .. then we could measure that reality. >> >> >> 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. > > Spacetime is curved because the energy density (directly related to > pressure) varies from on region to another. This, in turn varies all > fundamental, including c. Thus, c isn't constant and this is modeled > as curvature. So it is changes in aether 'pressure' or 'density' (which is undetectable anyway) that cause it? Hmm. Sounds like witchcraft to me. |