A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 10:06 On Mar 9, 4:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > If and when the speed of gravitation is ever measured, if the > speed turns out to be identical to the speed of light, that > would be an incredible finding that casts severe questions on > the viability of aether theories in general. Aether theories > explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties > of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason > whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed. > Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't. > > Jerry > > ___________________________ > The confirmation of the existence of the strong and weak forces and QM > generally is itself a strong argument against LET at a number of levels. > > The argument that Lorentz put forward is based upon in the absence of > gravity there are physical objects, and electromagnetism. Maxwell's eqns > transformed according to the Lorentz equations. As experiments had shown > that physical objects and EM transform the same way, and everybody was > pretty confident about Maxwell, the obvious (and correct) answer was that > physical objects must also obey a Lorentz transform. The putative mechanism > was that the movement through the ether compressed physical objects. > > Now, that's all well and good, but how do you reconcile this with the > existence of other fields, such as the strong and weak forces? It has long > been known that radioactive decay rates (from say cosmic rays) and other > processes that are mediated by the strong and weak force follow exactly the > same transformations eg time dilation. > > So now this ether is doing more than compress physical objects to make them > have the same transformation rules as EM, it is also compressing weak fields > and strong fields in exactly the same way to force them to align with EM. > > By the time you have run this kludge three times (for physical objects, > strong force, weak force) to align them with Maxwell, its pretty obvious > that its much, much simpler to assume space itself is changing. Nice post .
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 10:15 On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of light. > > > I can provide you with an extensive list. > > Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by the > effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes. http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html PS: Jerry and Tom Roberts, there is a lot of newer papers that you might want to add to your respective websites.
From: PD on 9 Mar 2010 10:16 On Mar 8, 6:00 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 8, 4:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 8, 4:06 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, > > > > and gravitational forces. > > > > Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904. > > > > > However, it is right to expect that if LET > > > > *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it > > > > *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces. > > > > Why? > > > Because the other forces are just as manifestly covariant as > > electromagnetism. See below. > > > > Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be > > > applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various > > > alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le > > > Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory. > > > > If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the > > > propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads > > > to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct > > > properties. > > > Indeed. Especially since the weak force is mediated by carriers that > > generally do not travel at c, and the interaction is STILL Lorentz > > covariant. > > KLUNK!!! > (sound of jaw dropping on the floor...) > > Now THAT is interesting!!!! > > Reference? That's worth making a special trip to the university > library!!! Any book on introductory particle physics theory will suffice. Cheng & Lie, Griffiths, Hey, Halzen, Langacker.... > > > > > > The fact is, no plausible unified aether theory exists. There is > > > no reason whatsoever for aether theories to predict a common > > > speed of propagation for any of the fundamental forces. > > > > > You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz > > > > covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the > > > > Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained. > > > > However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance > > > > of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of > > > > application. > > > > Yes. > > > > > You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the > > > > electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance > > > > of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would > > > > be an obviously obstinate stance. > > Jerry
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 11:20 On Mar 9, 9:15 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of light.. > > > > I can provide you with an extensive list. > > > Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by the > > effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes. > > http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html > > PS: Jerry and Tom Roberts, there is a lot of newer papers that you > might want to add to your respective websites. I -own- a lot of newer papers. But I keep the number on my web site very limited because, after all, they do represent a violation of copyright. So long as I keep the numbers very limited, I don't expect Federal agents to be knocking on my door... :0 Jerry
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 11:30
On Mar 9, 6:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> If and when the speed of gravitation is ever measured, if the >> speed turns out to be identical to the speed of light, that >> would be an incredible finding that casts severe questions on >> the viability of aether theories in general. Aether theories >> explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties >> of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason >> whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed. >> Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't. >> >> Jerry >> > ___________________________ > The confirmation of the existence of the strong and weak forces and QM > generally is itself a strong argument against LET at a number of levels. > > The argument that Lorentz put forward is based upon in the absence of > gravity there are physical objects, and electromagnetism. Maxwell's eqns > transformed according to the Lorentz equations. As experiments had shown > that physical objects and EM transform the same way, and everybody was > pretty confident about Maxwell, the obvious (and correct) answer was that > physical objects must also obey a Lorentz transform. The putative mechanism > was that the movement through the ether compressed physical objects. > > Now, that's all well and good, but how do you reconcile this with the > existence of other fields, such as the strong and weak forces? It has long > been known that radioactive decay rates (from say cosmic rays) and other > processes that are mediated by the strong and weak force follow exactly the > same transformations eg time dilation. > > So now this ether is doing more than compress physical objects to make them > have the same transformation rules as EM, it is also compressing weak fields > and strong fields in exactly the same way to force them to align with EM. > > By the time you have run this kludge three times (for physical objects, > strong force, weak force) to align them with Maxwell, its pretty obvious > that its much, much simpler to assume space itself is changing. Nicely expressed post. Jerry |