Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 15 Apr 2010 17:24 On Apr 13, 4:31 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tom Adams: > > On Apr 13, 7:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to > > postulate the existence of ether based on > > the principles of Machian empiricism. > > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory > > work? > > It works in the domain of SR, but not GR. There are aether theories > that are being worked out for GR's domain, but they so far make > observable predictions that are falsified (or at least appear to be). > > > Does the theory of length contraction > > caused by motion relative to the ether > > produce a theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > Yes. They are identical in terms of observables. > > David A. Smith Dear David, Einstein called GRT an ether theory, which makes your claim sound like a contradiction in terms. But probably you were referring to ILja's Schmeltzer's variant of GRT. How was that (apparently) falsified? Best regards, Harald
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 17:35 what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot be explained by such bland theories. if you can't take the heat, get out of the fryin'pan! > There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not > discernable from the error bars. This has been done to death. Others > that tried to repeat it, that did not make the same mistakes, got a > null result. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Vernadsky_W00-01.pdf
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 18:15 On Apr 15, 3:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 14, 11:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > If the mathematics of LET and SR is IDENTICAL, how can one be more > > restrictive over the other when applied to electromagnetism? Someone > > is not using his, her, or its head. <shrug> > > Someone cannot read what was typed. They are identical when applied > strictly to electromagnetism. The difference is that LET *is* > restricted to electromagnetism, where SR is not. Hmmm... As usual, PD only argues with mysticism on its side. <shrug>
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 18:30 thus quoth: Anomalous regularities in optical theodolite measurements, with the same tidal periodicity. Over the years, a number of pendulum experiments were performed by scientists around the world to verify his findings. However, the results were mixed[4]. Allais's explanation for his observations contradicts the theory of relativity. Subsequently, in order to compare the optical anomaly with established experimental results, Prof. Allais performed a statistical analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton Miller and claimed to find periodicities corresponding with the sidereal day, the equinoxes and other celestial events. According to Allais, the anomalous effects demonstrate an insofar unknown anisotropy of space, as well as an absolute velocity effect. He disagrees with Robert S. Shankland's analysis of Miller's data, which many physicists consider as a conclusive dismissal of the subject. Shankland attributed the deviations from relativity predictions to systematic errors of readings and thermal instabilities, despite Miller's claims to the contrary. Actually, some physicists, like Alan Kostelecky, are testing the possibility of space anisotropy (not directly related to Allais's fringe work). This type of mainstream research is currently ongoing.[5] Roger Balian wrote a note to rebut Allais's interpretation of Miller's result[6], which was in turn rebutted by Allais[7] Not only is Allais interested in physics; he also writes about physics history. In the relativity priority dispute, he sees Albert Einstein as a plagiarist and he denies the validity of the mainstream experimental data.[8] He often mixes the two subjects in the same papers. [edit]Notable quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Allais
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 18:41
Albert Einstein - Revue "Science", 1925 "Si les observations du Dr Miller étaient confirmées, la théorie de la relativité serait en défaut. L'expérience est le juge suprème". > Hmmm... As usual, PD only argues with mysticism on its side. <smirk> |