A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 16:31 On Mar 9, 3:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7vlpefFe0lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > >news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:7vjadlF4daU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>> "Inertial" <relativ...(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 Hey Inertial, FrediFizzx isn't a pseudo of Ilja Schmeltzer and Springer isn't a "self-publishing" company either. ;-) But this thread's blunder of Physical Review stresses the fact that we shouldn't attach too much value to "reputable" journals either. They merely serve as imperfect filter - a bit like spam filters. :)
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 16:34 On Mar 10, 1:31 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Mar 9, 3:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7vlpefFe0lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > >news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:7vjadlF4daU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >>> "Inertial" <relativ...(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 > > Hey Inertial, FrediFizzx isn't a pseudo of Ilja Schmeltzer and > Springer isn't a "self-publishing" company either. ;-) > But this thread's blunder of Physical Review stresses the fact that we > shouldn't attach too much value to "reputable" journals either. They > merely serve as imperfect filter - a bit like spam filters. :) Once again, it is NOT the (reputable) Physical Review, it is the fringe Physical Letters A
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 16:36 On Mar 10, 12:21 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 12:56 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > Some experiments show smart attempts to sidestep that problem by > > basing themselves on physical effects that are consistent with > > "Einstein synchronization"; and some less smart experiments (such as > > by Gagnon et al) are based on faulty reasoning. > > Gagnon et al. performed a smart experiment that bypassed the issue > of clock synchronization in the measurement of OWLS anisotropy. > What wasn't smart was their ANALYSIS, which relied on a defective > test theory. Gagnon et al. thought their experiment was able to > distinguish between LET and SR. It couldn't, although it should > have been able to detect a classical (i.e. pre-MMX) aether if one > existed. > > Jerry Absolutely correct. The analysis can be done using RMS or SME and it results into a perfectly valid experiment. I think that Gagnon ran his experiment a few months before RMS came out, so he could not benefit from it.
From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 16:38 On Mar 9, 1:16 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: [..] > 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. According to SRT, "space" is not affected by speed (and if understand correctly, space is hardly affected according to GRT). The experiments agree to very high precision with SRT - which disproves your simple model. Harald
From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 16:58
On Mar 10, 5:00 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 9, 9:05 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Bad answer: EM waves are TRANSVERSE whereas gravitational wave are > > LONGITUDINAL waves. The same medium cannot propagate both, so, you > > need AT LEAST two different "aethers" > > Actually, solids support the propagation of both transverse (s) > and longitudinal (p) waves. But the speed of s and p waves are > different, so you STILL need two aethers for light and gravity. Ah - finally a good point! :-) |