A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 19:00

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!!!

> > 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: Paul Stowe on 8 Mar 2010 20:43

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...

> >> 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. In LET that is not changed regardless of
motion. In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a
simply derivation to show this.

> >> 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.

> > To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach
> > pigs to sing...
>
> > Paul Stowe

From: Paul Stowe on 8 Mar 2010 20:46

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, and, in fact, trying to use it is a
classic circular argument.

Paul Stowe

From: Paul Stowe on 8 Mar 2010 20:51

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.

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.