Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 15 Apr 2010 18:43 On Apr 14, 3:36 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 11:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Tom Adams wrote: > > > does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > > The "equivalence" of LET and SR is rather restricted: within their mutual > > domain, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. But > > LET has a smaller domain of applicability: LET is restricted to geometry and > > electromagnetism, while SR is more generally applicable to any physical > > situation in which gravitation can be neglected. > > > In order to expand LET's domain to that of SR, it is necessary to postulate a > > set of additional ethers that "just happen" to behave exactly the same as the > > lumeniferous ether. That makes it very ugly to modern eyes. > > > Tom Roberts > > I was reading something today that implied that LET was even more > retrictrive than that. It only applied to electromagnetism. It was > only general if you assumed that electromagnetism was the only atomic > force. It's better not to listen to fables and distortions, but instead to read the sources which are freely available. As Lorentz explained (in section 8 of his 1904 relativity paper): " the forces between uncharged particles, as well as those between such particles and electrons are influenced by a translation in quite the same ways as electric forces in an electrostatic system. [...] whatever be the nature of the particles" Similarly, further on: "the proper relation between the forces and the accelerations will exist if the masses of all particles are influenced by a translation to the same degree as the e1ectromagnetic masses of the electrons." - http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lorentz.pdf His 1904 paper is often misrepresented as a "constructive theory", while it was based on his theory of electrons together with Poincare's PoR - which he poorly phrased as "many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system". In order to make that principle work for electromagnetics and matter, he had to generalize it for other physical phenomena as well. Note that one year later Einstein basically did the same, but in a better structured and more effective way. How much B.S. is told about these matters can be illustrated by comparing Lorentz's motivation of relativistic mass increase for neutral matter with Einstein's motivation for the same: "We remark that these results as to the [electron] mass are also valid for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small." - Einstein 1905 Harald > "Lorentzs reluctance to fully embrace the relativity principle (that > he himself did so much to uncover) is partly explained by his belief > that "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced... from the > equations of the electromagnetic field". If this were true, it would > be a valid reason for preferring Lorentz's approach. However, if we > closely examine Lorentz's electron theory we find that full agreement > with experiment required not only the invocation of Fitzgerald's > contraction hypothesis, but also the assumption that mechanical > inertia is Lorentz covariant. It's true that, after Poincare > complained about the proliferation of hypotheses, Lorentz realized > that the contraction could be deduced from more fundamental principles > (as discussed in Section 1.5), but this was based on yet another > hypothesis, the co-called molecular force hypothesis, which simply > asserts that all physical forces and configurations (including the > unknown forces that maintain the shape of the electron) transform > according to the same laws as do electromagnetic forces. Needless to > say, it obviously cannot follow deductively "from the equations of the > electromagnetic field" that the necessarily non-electromagnetic forces > which hold the electron together must transform according to the same > laws. (Both Poincare and Einstein had already realized by 1905 that > the mass of the electron cannot be entirely electromagnetic in > origin.) Even less can the Lorentz covariance of mechanical inertia be > deduced from electromagnetic theory. We still do not know to this day > the origin of inertia, so there is no sense in which Lorentz or anyone > else can claim to have deduced Lorentz covariance in any constructive > sense, let alone from the laws of electromagnetism." > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
From: BURT on 15 Apr 2010 18:53 On Apr 15, 3:30 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 quoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Allais Atoms don't contract. There are no flat atomic forms. Mitch Raemsch
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 19:55 On Apr 15, 1:33 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > I have used this analogy/explanation before, and quite recently, but its > worth repeating. Assuming you actually want to learn. Repeating the same nonsense does not constitute as teaching. <shrug> > There are two parts, the first is the relationship between the Lorentz model > and SR, and the second is the relationship of each of these with strong and > weak interactions. This is an example of mysticism in SR and GR. <shrug> > The predictions of orbits are *identical*. But they are clearly not the same > theory - Newton's law of gravity gave a very simple universal law which > predicts orbital dynamics exactly; Kepler gave a an exact empirical > observation. Newton's laws in a sense explain why Kepler's laws hold, and > allow them to be generalised, whereas Kepler just stated what he saw, and > offered no explanation of why the planets don't just fly off into space. Well, Newton did not offer any explanation of why gravitating mass, why action at a distance, why infinite speed of gravity, etc. So, your point is really naïve. <shrug> > While Kepler and Newton laws are mathematically identical, I bet there are > zero people designing satellite orbits using Kepler's laws instead of > Newton's, because Newton gave a far simpler mathematical formulation which > at some level obviously describes what is "really" going on. The mathematics of Keplers law just wont cover the orbital mechanics. If you claims so, show me. <shrug> > The relationship between Lorentz and SR is similar. No, they are exactly the same. No experiments can tell them apart. <shrug> > Lorentz is basically a > description of how space must contract for the MM theory to have a null > result. Einstein derived this independently and from a completely different > and simpler starting position (as Newton did with Kepler). SR essentially > explains why Lorentz is true, and again does this with fewer assumptions, > more generally, and more simply. Total bullshit. <shrug> > The argument concerning weak and strong nuclear forces essentially enters > the plot in the following manner. > > Lorentz knew light was composed of electric and magnetic fields, and as far > as he knew (thought) matter is held together by electric fields. So if > there was some resistance from the ether which affected electric fields, it > could affect matter and light equally, and hence make the equations for > physical length and light work the same way, as MM required. Now this > argument doesn't quite stack up anyway, as it assumes that masses are point > objects, and has other problems. But if you squint its sort of plausible, at > least. What does this have anything to do with the Lorentz transform? > However, the existence of strong and weak nuclear forces - which don't even > follow inverse square laws - kills this putative mechanism stone dead. Its > not just electric fields, matter and light that need to follow Lorentz > contraction, it is all these other fields unrelated to electromagnetism that > must also contract in the same manner. It is compelling evidence that the > effect derives from (informally) space shrinking, not the matter and forces > within it all being compressed the same by the ether. Also, what does this have anything to do with the Lorentz transform? > If you want to use a Lorentzian model for your own calculations, you go > right ahead. The Lorentz length rules for compressed ether are > mathematically equivalent to SR. But you will miss out on a much simpler and > insightful model, just as everybody today uses Newton's laws in preference > to Kepler's law of equal areas when thinking about planetary orbits. No, I just wont buy into your bullshit. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 20:00 On Apr 15, 3:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 14, 11:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Both LET and SR have the same mathematical basis. > > No, they do not. You are screwed up. <shrug> > Sharing a few identical equations does not mean they > have the same basis. You are indeed very screwed up. <shrug> > SR has a number of equations that LET does not. Again, show me the difference of SR and LET in mathematics. I will expect your avoidance in this issue. <shrug> > Those are exemplified, for example, in the Lorentz covariance of other > fundamental interactions. Steven D'Aprano's response elsewhere in this > string is appropriate, as is Peter Webb's. Both are bullshit masters just like yourself. <shrug> > It is your misapprehension that the Lorentz transformation is the sole > and fundamental basis for SR. In any application, show me one that applies the Lorentz transform using LET or SR. <shrug> > This, as Peter Webb pointed out... The rest of bullshit snipped.
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 21:18
ils dits, "les resultants 'de null,' n'est-pas!" > 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". thus: it's funny, that what he leads-off with in the "moving bodies" paper, is exactly the issue that he flubbed; there is a difference between those two experiments, as strange as that may seem. but, say el laroucheez, that mistake actually belongs to Maxwell's algebraization. you can find plenty of citation & dyscussion on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- sorry! > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm thus: thou casteth aspersions?... thou cans't read it?.... I must use all default "read more" nettiket time-space-wasters, to increase the apparent vastness o'the googolplex?... ah; I see, said the deafmute -- yes, Sir!... thus: nice analogy. now, if you simply insist upon *not* looking at light as both a wave & a photon -- since you can use either analogy by itself, to keep it in the range of mathematical tractability -- you will see that absurdities or just complications are avoided by sticking with the ordinary (spatial) wave "in time," as all of the ground- breakers in this field did, with the hold-out of Newton -- no/wrong theory -- and Einstein -- one "effect" in a device ... DING (Nobel !-) > Field lines don't really indicate anything moving. Kinks in the > field line move. thus: the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton (all terminology coined thereat). --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com |