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: 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/

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