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 9 Mar 2010 17:44

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c368db00-b8ab-43c9-9a17-dd257c591e1a(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9a5eb50c-6ed1-4435-9493-0a0fef9039df(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame.
>>
>> > ...then all the modern tests that put severe constraints on light
>> > speed anisotropy falsify LET.
>>
>> No .. because we measure the speed as isotropic due to the distorted
>> rulers
>> and malfunctioning clocks that movement thru the aether causes (according
>> to
>> LET).
>>
>
> You are contradicting yourself ,

Nope

> in the earlier post you claimed
> (correctly) that LET predicts light speed to be isotropic ONLY in the
> preferrential frame of the "aether".

That's right. It does.

> In ALL other frame, light speed
> is ANISOTROPIC.

It is .. but we can't measure it correctly, due to distorted clocks and
rulers we use (according to LET) .. and movement through the aether distorts
those clocks and rulers by just the right amount so that we measure
isotropic c with them.

> So, you are now contradicting yourself and your new post is wrong.

Nope .. please .. read it again without your 'Dono is superior to all and
never wrong' glasses on.


From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:57

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5f94889b-e02a-4b8e-91bc-edcdf876e3bd(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 2:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> No reason they cannot. No reason why gravity waves and EM waves cannot
>> both
>> travel at c. Any test showing that the do both travel at c will simply
>> refute your assertion that they must be different .. it won't refute
>> aether
>> theory itself. And if necessary, aether will be modified yet again to
>> account for it.
>
> Bad answer:

Good 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"

Water transmits a combination of the two.
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

And, of course, aether can have whatever properties Aetherists want to
assign to it .. seeing we can never detect it. It is already a solid and a
fluid, massless, no viscosity, transparent, incompressible, continuous at
all scales. Each property was added as an observation or experiment was
performed that would have refuted the aether. Its properties are basically
ad-hoc.

Aetherists can (and have done similar before) simply say that one of its
properties is the ability to transmit both types of waves .. and their proof
is simple: Both light and gravity waves are propagated, and it MUST be via
the aether, so the aether must have that property.

Or they will agree that there are two types of aether that co-exist, but
because they are both aethers one of the things they share is a propagation
speed of c.

The thing is .. seeing we have absolutely zero evidence of an aether and
cannot directly measure its properties .. aetherists have pretty much free
reign in saying what an aether can or cannot do and what properties it does
and does not have.


From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:59

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:22303455-6302-4e10-8b26-d2053e239a43(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> 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 .

I agree.

Yet there are still aetherists out there persisting with the notion .. but
(not surprisingly) relatively few of them :)


From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 18:00

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:67867321-a1b9-454e-96fb-bc8a0bd0783a(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> 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

Yeup .. all good stuff. None refute what LET claims.

> PS: Jerry and Tom Roberts, there is a lot of newer papers that you
> might want to add to your respective websites.


From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 18:41

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e37617e7-52f9-4fbd-a740-bac32eb220dd(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Mar, 05:34, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Did you look at the diagrams on the Wikipedia page on the twins paradox
>> as I
>> suggested?
>>
>> This shows *exactly* what the moving and stationary clocks see as
>> happening
>> at all stages of the thought experiment.
>
> This isn't the twins paradox,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Of course it is the twins paradox. Do you even know what the twins paradox
is ? Lets see what the web page says

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity,
in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and
returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on
Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as
traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity,
paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How the
seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin
really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained
within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been
verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in
airplanes.[1][2]"


> so it would be strange to find the
> answer to my question there. Also, I've read that page in the past,
> and I don't recall it having relevant detail.

Clearly you are either lying about reading it, or you didn't understand it.



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
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