1 view

Skip to first unread message

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00

to

Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

There has been much discussion (and much petty

name-calling) in this group recently concerning

the question of the observability of the

alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I

have had time to read) have completely ignored

the fact that this is in reality a major

concession, since it does not claim that any

experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that

the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity

because there is no means of distinguishing

between the predictions of SR and LET. This

is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims

that actual time dilation occurs as relative

velocities approach c, but we need only assume

that EM+ phenomena are affected by this. Thus,

a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

very simply rests on the one remaining force in

which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

The question implied by the title is, then,

simply this: If gravity does not have the same

relativistic symmetries as light and other

EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means

by which LET could be distinguished from SR

experimentally with presently available data?

In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

equivalence principle justify the logical leap

from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

a universal model, when the EP itself has only

a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

Given two mathematically equivalent theories

in which one insists on the physical existence

of a medium for the propagation of light and

the other insists on the physical existence of

non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say

that Occam's razor would favor the former.

My challenge to both camps is to render Occam's

razor a moot point. In a nutshell, I would

appreciate it if there were only two types of

responses to this.

1. Etherists who acknowledge the EM+

indistinguishability of SR and LET who are

proposing 'critical experiments' performable

today or in the near future that can use

predictions of gravitational phenomena to

distinguish between the behavior predicted

by SR (the correction applies to gravity as

well) and LET (EM+ forces alone become

increasingly inefficient as relative velocities

approach c. Inertial and gravitational mass

mass remain unchanged.)

2. SRists, either doing the same or explaining

in a polite and courteous manner what precise

problems exist with the proposed tests.

NOTE:

Saying 'tests have proven idea X false' is not

sufficient and inappropriate. Quote your source,

and preferably the data itself if possible, and

explain why the data leads you to that

conclusion. Allow posters from both sides to

make clarifying statements about non-traditional

uses of words before insulting their

intelligence. The vast majority of dicussion

here appears to be squabbles over semantics,

and belongs in a thread about scientific

etymology or dev/null, one or the other.

Conversely, if you are befuddled by another's

use of a word, explain why, and what you

understand it to mean. There is no reason why

progress cannot be made on these ideas, even

in a newsgroup as seemingly chaotic as this.

In sincere hopes of an intelligent polylogue

concerning this topic,

Andy Juell

P.S. Parties interested in discussing related

issues are welcome to email me at

kud...@hotmail.com. Parties interested in

bashing me for suggesting that Einstein may

in fact have been merely human after all are

welcome to email me at Zomul...@aol.com,

with my apologies to anyone who may actually

use this adddress.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena.

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena.

Yes.

But it really goes deeper than that: because of the mathematical

equivalence of the two theories no experiment whatsoever could

distinguish between them. The only possibility is to generalize

them differently and observe differences in the generalized

theories (e.g. postulate some additional properties for the LET

ether and observe _them_. Of course one has the problem of being

completely unable to show that the "ether" so observed is the LET

ether).

> The SR-advocates claim that

> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity

> because there is no means of distinguishing

> between the predictions of SR and LET.

It really goes deeper than that, because the aspect of SR which has

been so essential to the further development of modern physical

theories is its _Lorentz_symmetry_. This is a property which LET

has only accidentally, but SR has as a fundamental symmetry of

nature. But if it is not a _FUNDAMENTAL_ symmetry then there is

no basis for the requirement that any new theory be Lorentz

invariant -- such an omission would probably have made it

impossible to discover QED, much less QFTs and the standard model;

Lorentz invariance is _essential_ to them, and they are so

complicated it is doubtful they could have been found at all

without Lorentz invariance.

That, in a nutshell, is why SR is one of the pillars of modern

physics, and LET is essentially dead. Well, that and the fact that

nobody has ever made a definitive observation of the ether....

> SR, unlike LET, claims

> that actual time dilation occurs as relative

> velocities approach c, but we need only assume

> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this.

Not true. 1) LET also predicts this (for _observable_ quantities).

2) SR's first postulate proclaims that _all_ phenomena are included.

But in any case this is not really a topic for assumptions, it is

more properly a topic for experiments. So far, no significant

violation of local Lorentz symmetry has been found (the

insignificant ones are probably-flawed isolated experiments).

> Thus,

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

> very simply rests on the one remaining force in

> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

Neither SR nor LET has any pretention whatsoever to describe gravity.

GR is clearly a vast generalization of SR -- you would need to

generalize both SR and LET, and presumably any difference in such a

generalization would be observable. Need I point out that this has

been done for SR, and the agreement with experiment is quite good,

so any generalization of LET has a difficult challenge here.

Ilja Schmelzer claims to have generalized LET in such

a manner. I'm not familiar with his theory.

> The question implied by the title is, then,

> simply this: If gravity does not have the same

> relativistic symmetries as light and other

> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR

> experimentally with presently available data?

No. So far, the "presently available data" indicate that GR is an

accurate description of gravitational phenomena (e.g. more accurate

than Newtonian gravitation, or than Brans-Dicke). Make your own

conclusion from this and the fact that GR uses local Lorentz

invariance in an essential and fundamental way....

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

There is a vast experimental literature on tests of the EP. It is

quite well supported by the observations. So there is not only

"lack of obvious refutation", there is also lack of _subtle_

refutation.

See:

Will, _Theory_and_Experiment_in_Gravitational_Physics_.

Will, "The Confrontation between General Relativity and

Experiment: A 1998 Update",

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9811036.

> Given two mathematically equivalent theories

> in which one insists on the physical existence

> of a medium for the propagation of light and

> the other insists on the physical existence of

> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say

> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

Hmmm. SR essentially assumes or implies Minkowski geometry. While

that is indeed "non-Euclidean", I see no a-priori reason why

Euclid should be preferred over Minkowski, and I see ENORMOUS

experimental observations which imply that Minkowski should be

preferred. Note also that SR has no implications like "the

physical existence of non-euclidean forms" -- SR is a _MODEL_,

and uses Minkoswki geometry in the _MODEL_; claiming "physical

existence" of this model is ludicrous.

Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00

to

<kud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

>

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I

> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity

> because there is no means of distinguishing

> between the predictions of SR and LET. This

> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims> that actual time dilation occurs as relative

> velocities approach c, but we need only assume

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

> very simply rests on the one remaining force in

> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

> The question implied by the title is, then,

> simply this: If gravity does not have the same

> relativistic symmetries as light and other

> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR

> experimentally with presently available data?

> simply this: If gravity does not have the same

> relativistic symmetries as light and other

> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR

> experimentally with presently available data?

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

> Given two mathematically equivalent theories

> in which one insists on the physical existence

> of a medium for the propagation of light and

> the other insists on the physical existence of

> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say

> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

> in which one insists on the physical existence

> of a medium for the propagation of light and

> the other insists on the physical existence of

> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say

> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

nice if more emphasis was placed on exactly what is present and where.

Meaning there is no absolute vacuum either. This does not indicate a prime

medium. Astronomers know about the presence of solar winds,, sound waves,

alfven waves, electromagnetic phenomena, magnetic phenomena. It seems there

is a virtual plethora of things in space, why add a medium?

The heliosphere (caused by the solar wind) has been detected as far out as

18 Astronomical units by Pioneer, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2. It is believed

to go as far out as 100 Astronomical units from the sun. Seemingly it is

impossible to consider light in vacuo in space.

"Previous sections have emphasized that on a large scale the solar wind

behaves like a compressible fluid and is capable of supporting relatively

thin fluid structures such as shocks."

Encyclopedia of the Solar System. Academic Press, copyright 1999.

It seems to me ridiculous to introduce a medium to the equation.

Similarly, it seems ridiculous to presume that light is traveling through

absolute vacuum while in space.

However, since both theories still are good approximate representations, the

medium can go out the window, it is not needed.

Darrin

Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00

to

"Darrin Yarbrough" <dda...@gte.net> wrote in message

news:Oer5yhqb$GA.236@cpmsnbbsa03...

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

In article <389A0AC5...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

>

>It really goes deeper than that, because the aspect of SR which has

>been so essential to the further development of modern physical

>theories is its _Lorentz_symmetry_. This is a property which LET

>has only accidentally, but SR has as a fundamental symmetry of

>nature. But if it is not a _FUNDAMENTAL_ symmetry then there is

>no basis for the requirement that any new theory be Lorentz

>invariant -- such an omission would probably have made it

>impossible to discover QED, much less QFTs and the standard model;

>Lorentz invariance is _essential_ to them, and they are so

>complicated it is doubtful they could have been found at all

>without Lorentz invariance.

Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory. It is

perfectly reasonable and indeed obvious to postulate that the different

forces may have elements (including symmetries in common) and therefore

it is idiotic to argue that without SR, theories of forces which also

incorporate Lorentz symmetries would have been significantly more

difficult to discover.

Feynman, let us note, was far from an ardent proponent of such

principles!

Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in the same way as

other forces, resorting instead to a geometric viewpoint that makes it

anomalous and unreconcileable with the rest of physics. So much for the

benefits of relativistic thinking...

- Gerry Quinn

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com пишет в сообщении <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> ...

Mark: LET and SR are NOT indistinguishable in e/m experiments. Sagnac

effect in LET is a consistent proof of variability of c in a rotating RF.

The absence of any positive results of numerous experiments designed to

measure the effect of the Earth's orbital speed on the phase of e/m waves,

together with the presence of aberration, is consistently explained by

quasi-LET, namely, by full ether drag by the Earth's gravitational field.

With the present day state-of-the-art , control experiments could easily be

performed, namely, the sensitivity of the orbital speed experiments could be

increased so as to measure rotation speed effects, or such experiments could

be carried out on satellites. Other experiments to discover the difference

in the effect of inertial motion on the speed of e/m and particles could

also be staged. I have repeatedly suggested this in my postings to the

group - no comment so far.

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR

> experimentally with presently available data?

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model,

SR has nothing to say about gravity. Einstein's theory

of gravitation is contained in the General Theory of

Relativity. The solaced SR is really a theory of

electrodynamics and is a reconciliation of mechanics

and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic fields and

forces.

Bob Kolker

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

>

> SR has nothing to say about gravity. Einstein's theory

> of gravitation is contained in the General Theory of

> Relativity. The solaced

solaced = so called. My spell checker has again run amok

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

In article <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

>

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena.

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

>

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena.

This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to include

the Principle of Relativity. Which is pointless.

> The etherists (in what of the posts I

> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET.

What concession? "Aetherists" don't need to avoid experimental data.

In fact -- if you had read some of the recent posts -- you might have

noticed that several of the more vocal local aetherists are the ones

pushing for experiments to detect differences between SR and theories

such as Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET).

It is the SR-ists that are "refusing to look" at these experiments

because they are "theoretically impossible".

This is really bizarre. For example. Let's presume we did one of the

recommended timing (not fringe) experiments. There are two possible

outcomes.

1) We don't find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

SR Interpretation: We told you so!

LET Interpretation: Darn! Back to the drawing board.

2) We do find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

SR Interpretation: AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!

LET Interpretation: Wow!

SR interpretation of LET: You're wrong too! Your math won't allow it.

SR'ists response. Really? Then we are BOTH WRONG. Nature wins. We

BOTH go back to the drawing board.

In any case, Science has advanced. Why do SR-ists avoid this situation?

> The SR-advocates claim that

> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity

> because there is no means of distinguishing

> between the predictions of SR and LET. This

> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims

> that actual time dilation occurs as relative

> velocities approach c, but we need only assume

> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this. Thus,

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

> very simply rests on the one remaining force in

> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

This merely shows your ignorance of LET. Lorentz ELECTRODYNAMIC theory

has nothing whatsoever to say about gravity. It is derived purely from

Maxwell's equations.

Besides, Lorentz notes (in 1904, yet) only that GEOMETRICAL tests of

light speed (fringe shifts) are unobservable. Timing tests are not.

Yet everyone since 1904 has been doing fringe tests. Go figure.

{snip}

--

greywolf42

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it

is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental in the sense that it is a

surprise -- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that

the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise comes in

that his transform equations actually form the Lorentz group, and his

ether_frame->moving_frame transforms actually apply between _any_ pair

of inertial frames.

The existence of a symmetry due to a transform group means that there

is an equivalence class of all frames (coordinates) related by the

group. In the case of the Lorentz group this is the class of all

inertial frames. But LET explicitly has one special frame, the ether

frame -- it is an inertial frame and so is a member of the equivalence

class implied by the Lorentz symmetry, yet it is also special. The

existence of this unique frame is why I say LET has no fundamental

Lorentz symmetry. You cannot obtain LET without it being unique.

> Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in the same way as

> other forces, resorting instead to a geometric viewpoint that makes it

> anomalous and unreconcileable with the rest of physics.

Huh??? It is the "geometric viewpoint" which underlies modern gauge

theories, of which QED, electro-weak theory, and the standard model

are all examples. These are at base _geometric_ theories (but

geometry in an abstract space). And GR is also such a gauge theory

(but geometry in ordinary spacetime).

One difference is in the gauge groups used: the standard model uses

U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), which is a linear matrix group; GR uses diff(M)

which is not. Another difference is in the vector space on which

this group operates: the standard model uses an abstract space while

GR uses the tangent space of the manifold M.

> So much for the

> benefits of relativistic thinking...

Irony fails you, aparently due to your lack of knowledge.

"Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in modern

physics, precisely in this area: searching for new fundamental

theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead of SR there would

be no justification for this approach; SR is a pillar of modern

physics and LET is essentially dead.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> If gravity does not have the same relativistic

> symmetries as light and other EM+ phenomena,

> would this not constitute a means by which LET

> could be distinguished from SR experimentally

Probably.

> with presently available data?

Maybe. It's not clear what LET model of gravity

you want to use for comparison, though. The basic

problem I see is that we can't isolate a ``purely

gravitational'' system that doesn't also have EM,

strong, and weak interactions going on. So you

would have to figure out how to separate out the

gravitational part of an observation.

Here's an example: let's consider a rotating neutron

star. This is basically a large collection of neutrons

that are bound gravitationally, but also couple to

each other by strng interactions. Suppose we use

this star as a ``clock'' by counting rotations. (If the

star is isolated, then in its rest frame it will rotate

at a constant speed, so it will be a good clock. In

fact, we can observe rotation rates of pulsars, and

they give us timing accuracies on the order of the

accuracies of good atomic clocks.)

Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this

``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation

when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.

Would you accept that as evidence against LET?

Or would you merely respond that the strong

interactions among the neutrons must somehow

be affecting the rotation rate?

(Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,

that would constitute strong evidence against SR.

The question is how much wiggle room your version

or interpretation of LET gives you.)

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

I'm not sure what your last phrase means. The

equivalence principle has been tested repeatedly

in the lab, and confirmed at an accuracy of about

a part in 10^12.

Steve Carlip

Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00

to

Mark Samokhvalov wrote:

> Mark: LET and SR are NOT indistinguishable in e/m experiments.

> Mark: LET and SR are NOT indistinguishable in e/m experiments.

Sure they are. SR and LET are mathematically equivalent (i.e. every

theorem of either is a theorem of both). This directly implies they

are experimentally indistinguishable, because every computation of

a measurement must be a theorem of the theory (applied using the

physical situation of the measurement).

> Sagnac

> effect in LET is a consistent proof of variability of c in a rotating RF.

And SR's prediction is exactly the same as LET's. And both are within

experimental resolutions of measurements. So I don't see why you think

this means anything.

> The absence of any positive results of numerous experiments designed to

> measure the effect of the Earth's orbital speed on the phase of e/m waves,

> together with the presence of aberration, is consistently explained by

> quasi-LET, namely, by full ether drag by the Earth's gravitational field.

Not really. LET has no need of any drag, because these experiments are

instantaneously at rest in some inertial frame, and the effects due to

gravitation are canceled out (by supporting the apparatus), and the

effects due to rotation are well below experimental resolutions.

It seems to me that adding ether drag to LET is a no-op, because in any

inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be c, regardless of

any _inertial_ ether motion. But the non-inertial motion would still be

below experimental resolutions.

> With the present day state-of-the-art , control experiments could easily be

> performed, namely, the sensitivity of the orbital speed experiments could be

> increased so as to measure rotation speed effects, or such experiments could

> be carried out on satellites. Other experiments to discover the difference

> in the effect of inertial motion on the speed of e/m and particles could

> also be staged.

It seems to me that the lunar laser ranging experiments are just what you

want. They have an accuracy in the earth-moon-earth distance of a few

centimeters (!). They are in excellent agreement with the predictions of

GR (including a solar-system model, of course, whose parameters are fit

to the data).

It is also likely that LAGEOS measurements would also apply here. But I

don't have a reference for them, merely knowledge that they have been used

as a ~50%-accurate test of frame dragging in GR. That, of course, implies

an extremely-high accuracy of measurement also.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

In <389B18D6...@lucent.com>

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Ref: <87ctob$vk5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>

<389A0AC5...@lucent.com>

<QHqm4.9102$J9....@news.indigo.ie>

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by

> Poincare. It is not "accidental" any more than any

> property of any theory.

Tom Roberts wrote:

Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to

LET, while it is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental

in the sense that it is a surprise . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:

I see. Being `a surprise' fits Newton's rules of logic

number 4. I see! Being `a surprise' makes you a fool!

Being `a surprise' to you, or to me, or to anyone else, has

nothing to do with physics! Physics does not ever get

surprised by anything. And this makes you a fool to even say

that this has some kind of meaning!

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

-- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that

the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise

comes in that his transform equations actually form the

Lorentz group, and his ether_frame->moving_frame transforms

actually apply between _any_ pair of inertial frames.

O'Barr comments:

Well, a surprise or not to us, it is all true, and it forms

a physical explanation that is sufficient! How dare you not

acknowledge this!!!!! And it forms a physical explanation

that makes it superior to SR! And how dare you not

acknowledge this!!!!!!! What should we call a person who is

unwilling to acknowledge the obvious?

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

The existence of a symmetry due to a transform group means

that there is an equivalence class of all frames

(coordinates) related by the group. In the case of the

Lorentz group this is the class of all inertial frames. But

LET explicitly has one special frame, the ether frame -- it

is an inertial frame and so is a member of the equivalence

class implied by the Lorentz symmetry, yet it is also

special. The existence of this unique frame is why I say LET

has no fundamental Lorentz symmetry. You cannot obtain LET

without it being unique.

O'Barr comments:

You do not say things exactly correct. For example, your

last statement could be improved if you had just said: You

cannot obtain LET without the ether. Trying to say that the

ether is `a frame,' or even a `unique' frame, is a gross

confusion between physical realities, and the math constructs

that are or can be associated with a frame within that

reality.

The ether is real, and in this real ether, inertial frames

can exist. These existing inertial frames can be at rest in

the ether, or in any state of motion in this ether up to c.

For you to then try to infer that one of these frames is

somehow required to be different or unique, or required

in order for there to be an ether, is not good thinking, and

not scientifically based on any fact. Surely you now know

this, and so why do you still talk as if you are confused on

any of this?

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Ironically, many people still refuse to treat gravity in

> the same way as other forces, resorting instead to a

> geometric viewpoint that makes it anomalous and

> unreconcileable with the rest of physics.

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

Huh??? It is the "geometric viewpoint" which underlies modern

gauge theories, of which QED, electro-weak theory, and the

standard model are all examples. These are at base

_geometric_ theories (but geometry in an abstract space). And

GR is also such a gauge theory (but geometry in ordinary

spacetime).

One difference is in the gauge groups used: the standard

model uses U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), which is a linear matrix group;

GR uses diff(M) which is not. Another difference is in the

vector space on which this group operates: the standard model

uses an abstract space while GR uses the tangent space of the

manifold M.

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> So much for the

> benefits of relativistic thinking...

Tom Roberts wrote: . . .

Irony fails you, apparently due to your lack of knowledge.

"Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in

modern physics, precisely in this area: searching for new

fundamental theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead

of SR there would be no justification for this approach; SR

is a pillar of modern physics and LET is essentially dead.

O'Barr comments:

It really is important if a theory or point of view has

been fruitful or not. However, the past is the past. And

where we go from here cannot be fixed by the past. We can

and should take the best we now know, and if we can, chart

even better approaches. With the ether, we will not give up

one single success that was obtained with SR.

And let me tell you something: If I had any person in my

employ who would have not considered a theory because of some

imagined differences between SR and the ether, he would be

fired! What you say is the lamest excuse possible! It does

not even make sense. It does not speak well of you, and your

abilities to understand that there really are no true

differences between the ether and SR!

I believe that it is time for you to start making some

changes in your thinking. You are starting to sound

ridicules, all so that you can maintain some kind of a tie

with a lost cause!

Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net

Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco

Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:

http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm

And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 12:22:14 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

wrote:

wrote:

>Gerry Quinn wrote:

>> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

>> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

>

>Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it

>is fundamental to SR. In LET it is accidental in the sense that it is a

>surprise -- Lorentz's physical assumptions contain no implication that

>the ether frame will be anything but unique, but the surprise comes in

>that his transform equations actually form the Lorentz group, and his

>ether_frame->moving_frame transforms actually apply between _any_ pair

>of inertial frames.

This simply means that Lorentz didn't have a fundamental explanation

why the symmetry exists. Similarly, SR does not have a fundamental

explanation why the symmetry exists. The SR postulates posit the

symmetry but that's far from the fundamental explanation. So for you

to keep on parroting that the symmetry in SR is fundamental and the

symmetriy in LET is accidental ( not fundamental) is simply ridiculus.

The fundamental explanation for the symmetry exists in all the

inertial frames belong to the aether concept as follows:

1. Lights are wave-packets in a stationary aether. Each wave-packet

moves in the direction to which it is aimed.. Each wave -packet moves

in the aether with a constant speed c as measured by a clock at the

rest frame of the aether.

2. A detector in the same moving frame of the source is receding from

all the light wave-packets generated by the source. At the same time,

a moving clock second will have more duration content. than a rest

clock second in the aether. This has the effect of canceling the

effect of the motion between the detector and the wave-packets. This

is the reason why the speed of light is a constant math ratio c in

all directions within any inertial frame.

3. The receding motion of a detector relative to the wave-packets in

the aether is related by the gamma factor. The v in the gamma factor

is the absolute moiton of the detector.

4. The symmetry of SR and LET is derived from the above.

Ken Seto

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally

indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on

absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to

SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)

is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock

synchronization.

indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on

absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to

SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)

is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock

synchronization.

It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend

on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what

is REALLY simultanous.

SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility

to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR

simultaneity concept.

If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted

by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that

the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,

then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm

to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,

then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction

are expanded.

The SR simultaneity concept entails that the observer does not

observe with both eyes at the same (absolute) time. If he is

moving to the right, then a subjective instant consists e.g.

of ether time t0 when using the left eye and of ether time

t1 = t0 + 12 cm / c = t0 + 0.4 nanosec

when using the right eye. During this small interval the right

eye has moved further 12 cm. So the distance between the eyes

at an observer instant is 16 cm in the ether. Only because

the distance between the eyes is actually expanded by factor 2,

ether distances are contracted by the same factor wrt the

observer.

But not even this SR simulation is fully equivalent to the

corresponding original SR prediction.

SR simulation SR

object at |-------| |-------| |---|

rest | | |

| | |

distance | | |

| | |

observer |---| |-------| |---|

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

In Fig. 1 both object and observer are at rest wrt the rest

(ether) frame. In Fig. 2 and 3 the observer moves wrt the rest

frame. In the SR simulation the observer expands, whereas in SR

itself the object shrinks. The two cases are not equivalent

because the angles are different. Such differences result from

the fact that distances perpendicular to the velocity vector

do not change.

Inasfar as SR and LET are equivalent, they say nothing about

nature, and inasfar as they say something about nature, they

are not equivalent.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Time transformation and e.m. wave fonts:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=561141721

Both contraction and expansion in SR:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=578020546

Why the ether would be observable:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=580842416

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

In <87i201$si7$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net> "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> writes:

>

>The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally

>indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on

>absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to

>SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)

>is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock

>synchronization.

>

>It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend

>on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what

>is REALLY simultanous.

>

>The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally

>indistinguishible from SR is SR itself. No theory based on

>absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to

>SR. The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)

>is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock

>synchronization.

>

>It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend

>on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what

>is REALLY simultanous.

You've really hit the essence of the difference between the philosophy

at the core foundation of SR, and that of LET... In SR, basically

perception IS considered reality, in LET, perception is considered just

that, purely perception, with an independent underlying (primal or

ether frame) reality THAT IS independent of, and really IS the actual

reality.

>SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility

>to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR

>simultaneity concept.

Which Lorentz NEVER advocated, mentions, or suggests using. In fact,

his rendering of this concept EXPRESSLY DENIES reciprocal length

contraction, saying instead that contraction is a real process

expressly tied to the absolute velocity of the moving object relative

to the primal frame. This is not symmetrical and does not comply to

the principle of relativity.

Absolutely correct. While science isn't a 'popularity contest', as can

be seen lately, more and more people that evaluate this are coming to

this same conclusion. This key is, to devise tests that can measure

these differences.

Paul Stowe

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Dear Concerned Posters/Lurkers,

>

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I

> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET. The SR-advocates claim that

> the ether is a superfluous theoretical entity

> because there is no means of distinguishing

> between the predictions of SR and LET. This

> is simply not the case. SR, unlike LET, claims

> that actual time dilation occurs as relative

> velocities approach c, but we need only assume

> that EM+ phenomena are affected by this.

I assume you meant, "...but in LET we need only...".

> Thus, a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

> very simply rests on the one remaining force in

> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

Why do you think that they don't differ for the nuclear forces? LET for

electromagnetism

is a fairly reasonable theory, but the extension of it to the nuclear

forces seems ad hoc.

> The question implied by the title is, then, simply

> this: If gravity does not have the same relativistic

> symmetries as light and other EM+ phenomena, would

> this not constitute a means by which LET could be

> distinguished from SR experimentally with presently

> available data?

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

Yes, since all physical principles have only a "lack of obvious

refutation" in their favor.

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

GLOBARR wrote:

> [to me]:

> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in my

> employ who would have not considered a theory because of some

> imagined differences between SR and the ether, he would be

> fired!

> [to me]:

> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in my

> employ who would have not considered a theory because of some

> imagined differences between SR and the ether, he would be

> fired!

The second rule of business: never work for an idiot. _I_ would never

have to worry about your firing me!

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > Many SR-advocates

> > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> > phenomena.

> kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > Many SR-advocates

> > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> > phenomena.

> This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to include

> the Principle of Relativity.

> the Principle of Relativity.

It _is_ true, as has been pointed out to you many times. And no PoR

is needed, all that is needed is to apply _LORENTZ'S_ equations to

actually measured quantities. You in the past have failed to use

his equations, and have used your own erroneous ones.

> several of the more vocal local aetherists are the ones

> pushing for experiments to detect differences between SR and theories

> such as Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET).

Whih is hopeless, as they are indistinguishable. You need to learn

what _LET_ predicts, rather than claiming that your own guesses

are "LET".

> It is the SR-ists that are "refusing to look" at these experiments

> because they are "theoretically impossible".

Hmmm. For every one of your proposed experiments LET makes exactly

the same prediction as SR, so how can you possibly hope that _ANY_

actual observation in one of them could distinguish between them?

> This is really bizarre. For example. Let's presume we did one of the

> recommended timing (not fringe) experiments. There are two possible

> outcomes.

> 1) We don't find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

> SR Interpretation: We told you so!

> LET Interpretation: Darn! Back to the drawing board.

Nope. LET interpretation is "We told you so!"

> 2) We do find a measurable difference in the one-way speed of light.

> SR Interpretation: AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!

> LET Interpretation: Wow!

Nope. LET interpretation is "AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhh!".

You _really_ should learn what LET says before spouting off about it.

The equations Lorentz presented in his 1904 paper are mathematically

quivalent to the equations of SR, and therefore predict exactly the

same result for _ANY_ experiment to which they can be applied.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

time is the sum of two equal opposite forces acting in

direct cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating

in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of

the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is

correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a

lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.

These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program

making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than

any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making

time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me

back at rgr...@yahoo.com

direct cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating

in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of

the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is

correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a

lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.

These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program

making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than

any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making

time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me

back at rgr...@yahoo.com

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

time is the sum of two equal opposite forces acting in

direct cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating

in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of

the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is

correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a

lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.

These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program

making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than

any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making

time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me

back at rgr...@yahoo.com

In article <u6IIzSrb$GA.286@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Darrindirect cancelation producing a finite universe oscilating

in an infinite back drop. please reply to my analysis of

the universe and either thrash or explain to me why it is

correct. I have no education but I am a genius and have a

lot of theories that I would like to share with you all.

These theories will revelutionize the worlds energy program

making it possible to tap a supply of energy greater than

any fussion reactor could ever hope to achieve even making

time travel possible if you want the details than e-mail me

back at rgr...@yahoo.com

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00

to

Steve Carlip wrote:

> It's not clear what LET model of gravity

> you want to use for comparison, though.

> It's not clear what LET model of gravity

> you want to use for comparison, though.

I think there is some confusion here about what "LET" means.

In this newsroup for >3 years (and probably longer), LET has

stood for Lorentz Ether Theory, which is in essence a newsgroup-

created theory based upon the basic ideas and equations Lorentz

presented in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System

Moving with any Velocitty less than that of Light" (reprinted in

Dover's _Principle _of_Relativity_). The transform equations of

this theory can be summarized:

1) There is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.

2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their

direction of motion and clocks are slowed down; these combine

such that the ether-frame coordinates and the moving-frame

coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform (Lorentz gave

an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper, but it is

algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's 1905 paper).

Lorentz expanded on this in his monograph _Theory_of_Electrons_.

AFAIK Lorentz himself never called this "LET". That is

a sci.physics.relativity abbreviation designed to save

typing a circumloqution about what Lorentz and his

papers imply in discussions around here.

[I said ">3 years" as this was already established when I

started participating regularly here.]

Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general

class of theories.

There has been confusion around here for the past month or so

because several vocal contributors have made some mistakes and

have repeatedly claimed that it would be possible to distinguish

between LET and SR experimentally. The above synopsis of LET

shows this to be impossible if one has access only to moving

objects (i.e. without some God-given designation of the ether

frame). But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame

cannot be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by

any measurements.... And in fact it is clear that one could

anoint _ANY_ inertial frame as "the LET ether frame" and compute

_any_ experimental measurement using LET and obtain the exact

same values as a computation using SR. After all, the Lorentz

transforms _do_ form a group.

Like SR, LET makes no claim to describe gravitation. So the

challenge here in this thread is asking responders to go beyond

either theory. Naturally different people will do that

differently....

> [example of pulsar clocks]

> Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this

> ``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation

> when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.

> Would you accept that as evidence against LET?

No. It would confirm LET just as much as it confirms SR.

> (Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,

> that would constitute strong evidence against SR.

> The question is how much wiggle room your version

> or interpretation of LET gives you.)

LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at

least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00

to

In article <389D077B...@lucent.com>,

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > > Many SR-advocates

> > > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> > > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> > > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> > > phenomena.

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > kud...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > > Many SR-advocates

> > > have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> > > is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> > > involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> > > phenomena.

> > This is not true. Unless you first redefine "true-blue LET" to

include

> > the Principle of Relativity.

>

> It _is_ true, as has been pointed out to you many times. And no PoR

> is needed, all that is needed is to apply _LORENTZ'S_ equations to

> actually measured quantities. You in the past have failed to use

> his equations, and have used your own erroneous ones.

>

include

> > the Principle of Relativity.

>

> It _is_ true, as has been pointed out to you many times. And no PoR

> is needed, all that is needed is to apply _LORENTZ'S_ equations to

> actually measured quantities. You in the past have failed to use

> his equations, and have used your own erroneous ones.

>

And as always, Tom, repetition of this claim does not make it true.

Every time you've done other than parrot this line, you've assumed the

PoR to "prove" they are identical.

And again as usual Tom, you cut out the meat of the argument without

responding to it -- because you don't want to "look."

Your style is really going down hill. You used to be a scientist.

If the timing experiment shows a difference -- according to your

(incorrect) view -- both LET and SR would have to be scrapped.

But you are afraid to look.

The evil "aetherists" wouldn't mind that much. They, at least, have

something that can be modified. SR can't.

--

greywolf42

Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00

to

In <389D0E32...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>

writes:

writes:

>

>Steve Carlip wrote:

>> It's not clear what LET model of gravity

>> you want to use for comparison, though.

>

>I think there is some confusion here about what "LET" means.

>

>In this newsroup for >3 years (and probably longer), LET has

>stood for Lorentz Ether Theory, which is in essence a newsgroup-

>created theory based upon the basic ideas and equations Lorentz

>presented in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System

>Moving with any Velocitty less than that of Light" (reprinted in

>Dover's _Principle _of_Relativity_). The transform equations of

>this theory can be summarized:

>

> 1) There is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.

>Steve Carlip wrote:

>> It's not clear what LET model of gravity

>> you want to use for comparison, though.

>

>I think there is some confusion here about what "LET" means.

>

>In this newsroup for >3 years (and probably longer), LET has

>stood for Lorentz Ether Theory, which is in essence a newsgroup-

>created theory based upon the basic ideas and equations Lorentz

>presented in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System

>Moving with any Velocitty less than that of Light" (reprinted in

>Dover's _Principle _of_Relativity_). The transform equations of

>this theory can be summarized:

>

> 1) There is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.

Check

> 2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their

> direction of motion and clocks are slowed down;

Check

> these combine such that the ether-frame coordinates and the

> moving-frame coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform

> (Lorentz gave an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper,

Can be related by..., specifically NOT considered physical, but just a

mathematical means of translational coordinate change. However, SR

does specifically assume physical significance to this. As alway, THIS

is the core difference which you refuse to see or consider.

> but it is algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's

> 1905 paper).

Nope, this later is true IF and ONLY IF you make a further assumption

NOT present in Lorentz' work. He recognized this, BUT never endorsed

this 'further assumption'. You will not see any of Lorentz work (even

though his career spans 15 years past Poncaire'/Einstein presentations)

which advocates OR uses this so-called grouping.

> Lorentz expanded on this in his monograph "Theory of Electrons".

>

> AFAIK Lorentz himself never called this "LET". That is

> a sci.physics.relativity abbreviation designed to save

> typing a circumloqution about what Lorentz and his

> papers imply in discussions around here.

Correct, LET more correctly stands for Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory,

Not Lorentz Ether Theory.

> [I said ">3 years" as this was already established when I

> started participating regularly here.]

Gee, a relative newbie

>Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general

>class of theories.

Yes it is, and you adamantly REFUSE to give credit to the 'physical'

differnces detween it and SR.

>There has been confusion around here for the past month or so

>because several vocal contributors have made some mistakes and

>have repeatedly claimed that it would be possible to distinguish

>between LET and SR experimentally.

That's because of the physical difference verses simple BLIND

application of mathematical coordinate changing convension. And you're

right, more and more people are 'seeing through' the smoke screen. Not

just me, but a half-dozen other have said TEST FOR THIS.

>The above synopsis of LET shows this to be impossible

Your 'synopsis' is as irrelevant as always. Even Krisher saw the

predicted sinusoidal pattern predicted by the physical process verses

your 'beloved' group theory.

>if one has access only to moving objects (i.e. without some God-given

>designation of the ether frame).

One does not need a 'God-given' frame, the observed CMBR fits the bill

and it is 'observable'.

>But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame cannot

>be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by any

>measurements....

Gee, the CMBR refutes that claim.

>And in fact it is clear that one could anoint _ANY_ inertial frame

>as "the LET ether frame" and compute any experimental measurement

>using LET and obtain the exact same values as a computation using SR.

>After all, the Lorentz transforms _do_ form a group.

But, As I demonstrated in a simple example, the non-linearity of gamma

severely distorts object to object observations, such that an actual

0.25c separation velocity say between two objects moving at 0.74c and

0.99 wrt the CMBR will appear to be separating from each other at

0.98c.

This IS SPECIFICALLY WHY Lorentz alway advocated working from a common

primal frame. Also Lorentz NEVER claims that such a frame is

undetectable, only that a round-trip type experiment (like specifically

the MMX) is incapable of testing for this frame.

>Like SR, LET makes no claim to describe gravitation. So the

>challenge here in this thread is asking responders to go beyond

>either theory. Naturally different people will do that

>differently....

Here we agree...

>> [example of pulsar clocks]

>> Now suppose we find that time, as measured by this

>> ``clock,'' undergoes the standard SR time dilation

>> when the neutron star is in motion relative to us.

>> Would you accept that as evidence against LET?

>

>No. It would confirm LET just as much as it confirms SR.

My question is, how would a distant observer 'see' this?

>> (Just to be clear---if we *didn't* see time dilation,

>> that would constitute strong evidence against SR.

>> The question is how much wiggle room your version

>> or interpretation of LET gives you.)

>

>LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at

>least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.

Nope, as you have been told many times, the class based specifically on

the LET process has much greater 'wiggle' room.

Paul Stowe

Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally

> indistinguishible from SR is SR itself.

> The only theory which is (in principle) experimentally

> indistinguishible from SR is SR itself.

That is demonstrably not true. There is an equivalence class of

theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR (and

LET is a member).

> No theory based on

> absolute simultaneity such as LET can be fully equivalent to

> SR.

I agree with that. But that is a different issue than being

experimentally indistinguishable. Why do you think I keep

specifying "experimentally indistinguishable" when I say they

are equivalent?

The equivalence class of theories which are experimentally

indistinguishable from SR is larger than just LET and SR. But all

that is needed to be a member of this class is that every computation

of an observable quantity be the same as an SR computation -- there

is no requirement whatsoever that these theories be "the same"

(however defined).

There is a narrower equivalence class of theories mathematically

equivalent to SR, of which LET is also a member. LET and SR differ

in their _interpretations_ of the quantities which appear in their

formulas, but do not differ in their formulas; because any

comparison between theory and experiment involves _only_ those

formulas, no experiment can distinguish between SR and LET -- the

interpretations of the quantities appearing in the formulas is

_irrelevant_ to that.

> The SR time transformation t' = gamma * (t - v/c^2 x)

> is more than a rather arbitrary convention concerning clock

> synchronization.

Yes, it is more than a convention. It also embodies a convention.

<shrug>

> It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend

> on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what

> is REALLY simultanous.

Your first statement is clearly true. Your second contradicts the

first. The meaning of "simultaneous" depends upon how we set our

clocks, and Nature cannot care how we do that. _Nature_ has no

"simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.

> SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility

> to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR

> simultaneity concept.

Not true. One could also use _LORENTZ's_ equations. Oh, that _IS_

LET, isn't it. You and Paul keep trying to use "sound-bite"

approaches to LET (i.e. just use "time dilation" or "length

contraction" rather than using _LORENTZ'S_ equations). Your

approach is not LET, and is as invalid as are similar attempts

to apply SR.

> If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted

> by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that

> the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,

> then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm

> to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,

> then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction

> are expanded.

Your dredge up a red herring here -- just use _LORENTZ'S_ equations

and the question of "simultaneity" never comes up. Just note the

coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform

_USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and

you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will

observe. But somehow you have never personally done that....

> The SR simultaneity concept entails that the observer does not

> observe with both eyes at the same (absolute) time.

In the sense that LET predicts that such events are not simultaneous

in the ether frame. <shrug>

> [... example based upon an invalid analysis ...]

Why is it you never used _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ here? What

justification do you have to claim that what you say is indeed LET?

In actual fact it is not LET.

> Inasfar as SR and LET are equivalent, they say nothing about

> nature, and inasfar as they say something about nature, they

> are not equivalent.

Not true. But you need to use _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ and not your

own "sound bite" approach.

Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_

use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length

contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another. Your

approach to LET is invalid, and is not LET.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/7/00

to

Paul Stowe wrote:

> [responding to z@z]

> You've really hit the essence of the difference between the philosophy

> at the core foundation of SR, and that of LET...

> [responding to z@z]

> You've really hit the essence of the difference between the philosophy

> at the core foundation of SR, and that of LET...

Yes. He did describe differences in _PHILOSOPHY_. However he failed

to show that they differ in their predictions of experimental results.

> >SR predicts reciprocal length contraction. The only possibility

> >to simulate this result in LET consists in using the SR

> >simultaneity concept.

> Which Lorentz NEVER advocated, mentions, or suggests using.

Perhaps. But his _EQUATIONS_ sure contain it (in the sense that they

predict the same measurements). This is, as I said above, a difference

in _PHILOSOPHY_, but does not correspond to any difference in

PREDICTIONS/COMPUTATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

> In fact,

> his rendering of this concept EXPRESSLY DENIES reciprocal length

> contraction, saying instead that contraction is a real process

> expressly tied to the absolute velocity of the moving object relative

> to the primal frame. This is not symmetrical and does not comply to

> the principle of relativity.

Yes. Lorentz's approach differs from Einstein in philosophy, and in

interpretation of the transform equations. <shrug> But this does

not result in any difference in PREDICTIONS/CONMPUTATIONS OF

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

> [... example of an invalid analysis claimed to be LET...]

> Absolutely correct. [...]

You share z's errors, that's all. <shrug> In particular, show us where

z used _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ in that analysis. That's the only way you

could demonstrate that the analysis truly uses LET. In actual fact, z's

analysis does not use LET, it uses his personal _GUESSES_....

As I have repeatedly pointed out, neither you nor z use

_LORENTZ'S_ equations of LET, you use your own _GUESSES_ of

how you believe things should behave. That is not LET.

> While science isn't a 'popularity contest', as can

> be seen lately, more and more people that evaluate this are coming to

> this same conclusion. This key is, to devise tests that can measure

> these differences.

All that is happening is that several people share the same mistakes.

<shrug>

There are no "differences" which can be measured between SR and LET.

The differences are all in philosophy and interpretation, neither

of which is subject to measurement. As physical theories used for

predicting/computing experimental results, SR and LET are equivalent

(indistinguishable); as a basis for describing or understanding the

world they are very different.

Remember, please, that by "LET" I mean the theory presented

by Lorentz in his 1904 paper. Z and Paul _claim_ that's what

they mean by "LET", but somehow they never actually use the

equations presented in that paper.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00

to

> > [in LET]

> > 2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their

> > direction of motion and clocks are slowed down;

> > 2) Objects which move wrt the ether are contracted along their

> > direction of motion and clocks are slowed down;

> > these combine such that the ether-frame coordinates and the

> > moving-frame coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform

> > (Lorentz gave an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper,

> Can be related by..., specifically NOT considered physical, but just a

> mathematical means of translational coordinate change. However, SR

> does specifically assume physical significance to this.

> > moving-frame coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform

> > (Lorentz gave an unusual definition of them in his 1904 paper,

> Can be related by..., specifically NOT considered physical, but just a

> mathematical means of translational coordinate change. However, SR

> does specifically assume physical significance to this.

I agree that LET and SR interpret this differently. But for the

comparison between theory and experiment it is irrelevant -- all one

does is use the mathematical relationships (theorems) of the theory

to predict/compute the experimental measurements (applying the physical

situation of the measurement), and then compare the computed _number_

to the actual measurement. It is impossible to measure the difference

between SR and LET because the difference is purely in philosophy and

interpretation, and those do not affect the _numbers_. That's why I

have always been quite careful to state that LET and SR are equivalent

in that they are experimentally indistinguishable.

> As alway, THIS

> is the core difference which you refuse to see or consider.

I see it, and I consider it, and I understand it. But you never seem

able to realize that this is important when considering the foundations

of the theories, but is _IRRELEVANT_ when comparing the theories to

experiments. You always discuss interpretations and I always discuss

comparison with experiment. Your failure to understand the difference

is why you keep claiming some experiment or other can distinguish the

two theories, and yet every attempt you make is seriously flawed and

turns out to be completely unable to distinguish between them.

Note that there is a mathematical theorem which states that SR and LET

are experimentally indistinguishable via any local experiment using

clocks, rulers, and light beams. Your attempts to ignore this theorem

are ridiculous. I discussed this in my post of 11/21/1999, Subject:

Theories Equivalent to SR (and in fact there is a much larger class

of theories to which this applies); see also Zhang's book

_Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_.

Simple demonstration: select some inertial frame to be LET's

ether frame, and use Lorentz's equations to predict/compute

some measurement in the moving system; this is LET's value.

Now SR is valid in any inertial frame, so apply SR in the

same inertial frame designated as LET's ether frame, using

the SR equations to predict/compute the same measurement in

the moving system; this is SR's value. Now it is mind-

numbingly obvious that these two values are the same, because

the original data came from the _same_ inertial frame, and

because the equations relating that frame to the moving

frame are identical. This obviously holds for _ANY_POSSIBLE_

_MEASUREMENT_ which is described by both theories (i.e. is

in their common domain of applicability).

> > but it is algebraically identical to the one in Einstein's

> > 1905 paper).

> Nope, this later is true IF and ONLY IF you make a further assumption

> NOT present in Lorentz' work.

You keep claiming this but have failed to show it. As I keep saying,

_ALL_ one does to compare an experiment to LET is to use _LORENTZ'S_

_EQUATIONS_ to predict/compute the measurements. And you continue to

refuse to do so. Using _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ requires no "further

assumption".

> He recognized this, BUT never endorsed

> this 'further assumption'. You will not see any of Lorentz work (even

> though his career spans 15 years past Poncaire'/Einstein presentations)

> which advocates OR uses this so-called grouping.

It is not necessary to apply the Lorentz group to compare LET to any

experiment. It is only necessary to use _LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to

predict/compute the experimental measurements and then compare to

the actual measurements. But still, you refuse to use _LORENTZ'S_

_EQUATIONS_.

> >Note please that LET is a _specific_ ether theory, and not a general

> >class of theories.

> Yes it is, and you adamantly REFUSE to give credit to the 'physical'

> differnces detween it and SR.

Not true. There are manifestly different physical interpretations

between LET and SR. But there are no _mathematical_ differences, and

there are no _OBSERVABLE_ differences. I keep stressing the differences

among these three properties of these theories, and you keep ignoring

them.

> That's because of the physical difference verses simple BLIND

> application of mathematical coordinate changing convension. And you're

> right, more and more people are 'seeing through' the smoke screen. Not

> just me, but a half-dozen other have said TEST FOR THIS.

Before one can "TEST FOR THIS", one needs to describe an experiment

for which the prediction of LET differs from the prediction of SR.

Haven't you noticet that your recent discovery of your arithmetic

error completely negates your claim that your proposed experiment

could distinguish between these two theories? Haven't you figured

out yet that the _algebraic_ relationship between the formulas of

LET and the formulas of SR precludes any such differences?

> Your 'synopsis' is as irrelevant as always. Even Krisher saw the

> predicted sinusoidal pattern predicted by the physical process verses

> your 'beloved' group theory.

Again, you keep claiming this, but what Krisher saw was well below

the accuracy of his clocks, is nowhere near sinusoidal, and does not

correspond to any physical anisotropy in the speed of light. Even if

you assume there is a sinusoidal signal in his data, it is clear that

the noise is equal or larger than the "signal". That's why they quoted

the error bars they did.

> >if one has access only to moving objects (i.e. without some God-given

> >designation of the ether frame).

> One does not need a 'God-given' frame, the observed CMBR fits the bill

> and it is 'observable'.

So you think your personal hopes and dreams are equivalent to "God".

<shrug>

> >But another consequence of LET is that its ether frame cannot

> >be distinguished from the class of inertial frames by any

> >measurements....

> Gee, the CMBR refutes that claim.

No, the CMBR is a radiation field, not an ether. To demonstrate it is

the LET ether you need a local experiment which can do so. See above --

there are none. You keep going in this same circle.

> >And in fact it is clear that one could anoint _ANY_ inertial frame

> >as "the LET ether frame" and compute any experimental measurement

> >using LET and obtain the exact same values as a computation using SR.

> >After all, the Lorentz transforms _do_ form a group.

> But, As I demonstrated in a simple example, the non-linearity of gamma

> severely distorts object to object observations, such that an actual

> 0.25c separation velocity say between two objects moving at 0.74c and

> 0.99 wrt the CMBR will appear to be separating from each other at

> 0.98c.

Yes, your attempt at a Galilean analysis of a relativistic situation

is flawed.

> This IS SPECIFICALLY WHY Lorentz alway advocated working from a common

> primal frame. Also Lorentz NEVER claims that such a frame is

> undetectable, only that a round-trip type experiment (like specifically

> the MMX) is incapable of testing for this frame.

So why can't you describe any experiment which could observe it? All

you have given so far are clearly-flawed attempts.

> >LET has _exactly_ as much "wiggle room" as SR. I.e. _none_ (at

> >least in this respect). If SR is refuted, so is LET.

> Nope, as you have been told many times, the class based specifically on

> the LET process has much greater 'wiggle' room.

I am talking about _LET_, not some "class based specifically on the LET

process" you have in mind. As I keep saying: what you are trying to do

IS NOT LET. LET is the theory presented by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.

You are not Lorentz, and this is not 1904.

The "wiggle room" in LET is completely removed by his transform

equations. Equivalently the "wiggle room" is removed by the fact

that in LET Maxwell's vacuum equations are valid in any inertial

frame "moving with less than the speed of light". Like SR, LET

(in vacuum) has only a single free parameter, c, and it is

determined quite accurately by experiment.

You are well advised to try to keep all the "wiggle room" you can -- you

will need it. But that is not LET.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00

to

In <389D046...@lucent.com>

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Ref: <389B18D6...@lucent.com>

<20000204212008...@ng-ch1.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) comments:

Tom wrote' [to me],' with the 'me' being himself, as he saw it,

and then quoted my words of a previous post:

> [to me]:

> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in

> my employ who would have not considered a theory because of

> some imagined differences between SR and the ether, he

> would be fired!

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

Ref: <389B18D6...@lucent.com>

<20000204212008...@ng-ch1.aol.com>

Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) comments:

Tom wrote' [to me],' with the 'me' being himself, as he saw it,

and then quoted my words of a previous post:

> [to me]:

> And let me tell you something: If I had any person in

> my employ who would have not considered a theory because of

> some imagined differences between SR and the ether, he

> would be fired!

Tom Roberts then wrote:

The second rule of business: never work for an idiot. _I_

would never have to worry about your firing me!

O'Barr comments:

I certainly did not mean this to be taken personally. I

had all SR experts in mind, when it was stated, although I

see nothing wrong with it being taken personally. I

certainly would demand logical thinking, and if you are smart

enough to know that you could not or would not meet such

simple requirements, then you would sure be saving us both

a lot of time and effort by not working for me. Thanks!!!!!

In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR. The ether

explains SR. The ether gives us physical explanations.

The ether gives us physical causes. The ether provides us

with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in

the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually

found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken

every time we turn around! We do not have to say and

believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether, as

you have to do in SR. If only one of these good things were

true, it would be sufficient to cause one to turn to the ether!

And yet they are all true! And not one single good thing

is lost by going to the ether! How could it be better than

this??????

Feb 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/8/00

to

GLOBARR (glo...@aol.com) wrote:

: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.

: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.

In all this stupidity, the ether doesn't exist.

That should be "Stupid Ether" Question.

: The ether explains SR.

What ether? Have a few therapy sessions. :-)

: The ether gives us physical explanations.

The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should

be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some

way. The idea is too old to have any value.

: The ether gives us physical causes.

Find something else to delude yourself about.

: The ether provides us

: with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in

: the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually

: found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken

: every time we turn around! We do not have to say and

: believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether,

Create an ether newsgroup, keep track of what

is developed from discussions there, and come back here

in about 50 years and post the results.

What a short post that will be.

Joe Fischer

--

3

3

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

In <38a0...@news.iglou.com> joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) writes:

>

>GLOBARR (glo...@aol.com) wrote:

>: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.

>

> In all this stupidity, the ether doesn't exist.

>That should be "Stupid Ether" Question.

>

>: The ether explains SR.

>

> What ether? Have a few therapy sessions. :-)

>

>: The ether gives us physical explanations.

>

> The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should

>be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some

>way. The idea is too old to have any value.

>

>: The ether gives us physical causes.

>

> Find something else to delude yourself about.

>

>: The ether provides us

>: with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in

>: the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually

>: found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken

>: every time we turn around! We do not have to say and

>: believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether,

>

>GLOBARR (glo...@aol.com) wrote:

>: In all seriousness, the ether is superior to SR.

>

> In all this stupidity, the ether doesn't exist.

>That should be "Stupid Ether" Question.

>

>: The ether explains SR.

>

> What ether? Have a few therapy sessions. :-)

>

>: The ether gives us physical explanations.

>

> The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should

>be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some

>way. The idea is too old to have any value.

>

>: The ether gives us physical causes.

>

> Find something else to delude yourself about.

>

>: The ether provides us

>: with limits to the math. The ether gives us symmetry in

>: the measurements, the exact symmetry that is actually

>: found! We do not have to say that the symmetry is broken

>: every time we turn around! We do not have to say and

>: believe in stupid and impossible things with the ether,

What's wrong Joey (or should I say Kenny), you don't 'like' the fact

that more & more people are re-discovering the advantages of the

physical medium concept?

> Create an ether newsgroup, keep track of what

>is developed from discussions there, and come back here

>in about 50 years and post the results.

They already exist, but what the good of closeting oneself in a self

congradulatory group? Hell if one wanted to do that they could be just

like Nathan Urban and others and use a kill-file. Don't you know what

a 'kill-file' is?

> What a short post that will be.

Actually aether theory has provided the most unique set of answers to

open 'anomalies' that conventional theories haven't. Including the

observed deceleration of the deep space probes.

But of course, I think you know this, and are scared to death that the

theory IS valid and thus will become popular, while you pathetic

expanding matter idea dies it natural, long overdue death. Hell you

can't even explain an orbit, much less tides with it. Let's not even

think about RFD.

Paul Stowe

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

: pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe)

: What's wrong Joey (or should I say Kenny), you don't 'like' the fact

: that more & more people are re-discovering the advantages of the

: physical medium concept?

: What's wrong Joey (or should I say Kenny), you don't 'like' the fact

: that more & more people are re-discovering the advantages of the

: physical medium concept?

What's the advantage, when Paul Stowe demonstrably cannot even calculate

the results of simple experiments using his own theories of light transmission

in a "medium"?

Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

: = Tom Roberts

:: = Wolfgang G.

:: = Wolfgang G.

:: It is clear that the laws of nature themselves do not depend

:: on the way we synchronize clocks. They depend however on what

:: is REALLY simultanous.

:

: Your first statement is clearly true. Your second contradicts the

: first. The meaning of "simultaneous" depends upon how we set our

: clocks, and Nature cannot care how we do that. _Nature_ has no

: "simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.

What? Nature has no "simultanous"??? Do you really assume that

clocks are more fundamental than simultaneity? Don't you know

that all actions-at-a-distance of classical mechanics require

absolute simultaneity. Even SR requires (a modified form of)

simultaneity.

The statement "the laws of nature themselves do not depend

on the way we synchronize clocks" contradicts "the laws of

nature depend on what is REALLY simultanous" only if we

assume that what is "REALLY simultanous" can be nothing more

than the result from (in principle arbitrary) clock

synchronization.

:: If an observer moves at v = sqrt(0.75)c, then he is contracted

:: by gamma = 2 wrt the ether. If he is looking in such a way that

:: the line between his eyes is parallel to the velocity vector,

:: then the distance between his eyes is contracted from e.g. 8 cm

:: to 4 cm. If ether simultaneity is relevant to this observer,

:: then he observes that ether distances in the moving direction

:: are expanded.

:

: Your dredge up a red herring here -- just use _LORENTZ'S_ equations

: and the question of "simultaneity" never comes up.

I do correctly apply the Lorentz equations. The distance between

the eyes of the moving person is contracted by gamma wrt an

observer at rest.

The perception by the moving observer DEPENDS on the fact, that

he uses both eyes SIMULTANOUSLY. This simultaneity depends on

NATURE and not on an arbitrary synchronization of two clocks

implanted into the eyes.

The correct application of the Lorentz transformation leads

exactly to the conclusions I have drawn in my previous post:

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582025137

: Just note the

: coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform

: _USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and

: you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will

: observe.

Yes, but if you do this, then you give up the simultaneity concept

advocated by both Lorentz and Poincaré. Don't you see that to

the mathematical coordinates and their transformations must

correspond concrete entities in nature?

: Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_

: use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length

: contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another.

Nonsense. It is you who claim that a whole class of theories

(including e.g. Franco Selleri's "inertial transformation" based

on a time transformation entailing absolute simultaneity) are

experimentally indistinguishable from SR and LET.

So it is YOUR claim that "length contraction" and "time dilation"

are the only empirically relevant concepts of SR.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

In article <38a0...@news.iglou.com>,

joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) wrote:

joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) wrote:

> The ether is non-existent, the idea sucks, and should

> be forgotten until such time that it is productive in some

> way. The idea is too old to have any value.

I cannot let this pass. Age has nothing to do with goodness or badness

of a physical theory. Archimedes theory of hydrostatic forces is as

good today as it was over 2000 years ago. There are oldies and goodies

and oldies and baddies. Age is irrelevent.

Bob Kolker

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:

>> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

>> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

>

> Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it

> is fundamental to SR.

>> Lorentz invariance is a symmetry of LET discovered by Poincare. It is

>> not "accidental" any more than any property of any theory.

>

> Yes, and no. Lorentz symmetry is not at all fundamental to LET, while it

> is fundamental to SR.

But this is not an advantage. Fundamental means unexplained.

> Irony fails you, aparently due to your lack of knowledge.

> "Relativistic thinking" has been _enormously_ fruitful in modern

> physics, precisely in this area: searching for new fundamental

> theories. And I repeat: if one used LET instead of SR there would

> be no justification for this approach;

Complete nonsense. First, scientists do not need justifications to

propose new theories. Second, Poincare has used this approach and

extended the Lorentz symmetry of EM to kinematics, and proposed that

the same has to be done with gravity.

> SR is a pillar of modern physics and LET is essentially dead.

LET was dead because there was no ether theory of gravity. This time

is over.

Ilja

--

I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de> , http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

kud...@my-deja.com writes:

> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> alleged Lorentzian ether. Many SR-advocates> There has been much discussion (and much petty

> name-calling) in this group recently concerning

> the question of the observability of the

> have claimed, and correctly, that true-blue LET

> is indistinguishable from SR by any experiment

> involving only measurements of EM(+S/W nuclear)

> phenomena. The etherists (in what of the posts I

> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET.

> have had time to read) have completely ignored

> the fact that this is in reality a major

> concession, since it does not claim that any

> experimental data cited so often in defense of SR

> refutes LET.

Some have. "Etherist" are not a homogeneous group. For example, I

have much more in common with "SR advocates" than, for example, with

Ken Seto.

> a distinguishing experiment between LET and SR

> very simply rests on the one remaining force in

> which their predictions differ, namely gravity.

> The question implied by the title is, then,

> simply this: If gravity does not have the same

> relativistic symmetries as light and other

> EM+ phenomena, would this not constitute a means

> by which LET could be distinguished from SR

> experimentally with presently available data?

No, because as LET, as SR are not about gravity.

It was certainly the most powerful argument in favour of relativity

that there was a relativistic theory of gravity (GR) but no ether

theory of gravity. Now such an ether theory of gravity exists, see

http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/index.html, and because in

this theory the GR equations appear in some limit, the agreement with

experiment is at least as good as for GR.

> experimentally with presently available data?

> In short, does the supposed beauty of GR's

> equivalence principle justify the logical leap

> from SR as a mathematical correction to SR as

> a universal model, when the EP itself has only

> a lack of obvious refutation in its favor?

Don't understand. The lack of refutation is all

experiment can give.

> Given two mathematically equivalent theories

> in which one insists on the physical existence

> of a medium for the propagation of light and

> the other insists on the physical existence of

> non-euclidean forms, I would be inclined to say

> that Occam's razor would favor the former.

Occam's razor is a hard thing, because to decide what is "simpler" is

not easy. If somebody proposes that IHO theory 1 is simpler it seems

impossible to prove him wrong.

> 1. Etherists who acknowledge the EM+

> indistinguishability of SR and LET who are

> proposing 'critical experiments' performable

> today or in the near future that can use

> predictions of gravitational phenomena to

> distinguish between the behavior predicted

> by SR (the correction applies to gravity as

> well) and LET (EM+ forces alone become

> increasingly inefficient as relative velocities

> approach c. Inertial and gravitational mass

> mass remain unchanged.)

This is impossible in this sense, because nor LET nor SR predict

something for gravity. It is possible only based on a certain ether

theory of gravity in comparison with GR. For my ether theory

I have done this.

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> : = Tom Roberts

> : _Nature_ has no

> : "simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.

> What? Nature has no "simultanous"??? Do you really assume that

> clocks are more fundamental than simultaneity?

> : = Tom Roberts

> : _Nature_ has no

> : "simultaneous", only humans and their clocks do.

> What? Nature has no "simultanous"??? Do you really assume that

> clocks are more fundamental than simultaneity?

No, I assume Nature herself uses local interactions, so she

_never_ needs to worry about simultaneity -- interactions either

ocur here-and-now or they don't. What is happening elsewhere or

elsewhen does not affect the interaction here-and-now at all.

Here when I say "local interaction" I mean occuring at a

specific event in spacetime. Note that all modern

fundamental field theories have only such local

interactions.

> Don't you know

> that all actions-at-a-distance of classical mechanics require

> absolute simultaneity.

Of course I do. I _also_ know that no such classical theory has any

chance of being an accurate description of Nature. They are all

_approximations_. I know this because we have better and more

accurate relativistic and quantum theories which reduce to those

classical theories in the appropriate limit.

> Even SR requires (a modified form of)

> simultaneity.

I wouldn't say that, I would say that SR describes how clocks

will behave, and correspondingly how humans can/will interpret

their behavior as simultaneity.

> The statement "the laws of nature themselves do not depend

> on the way we synchronize clocks" contradicts "the laws of

> nature depend on what is REALLY simultanous" only if we

> assume that what is "REALLY simultanous" can be nothing more

> than the result from (in principle arbitrary) clock

> synchronization.

But "simultaneous" does indeed inherently depend upon clocks. And

upon human interpretation of their readings. Nature uses no clocks,

and never looks at any clock readings, and never does anything

except locally (at least so far as we know today). When considering

what happens at a specific event in spacetime, Nature does not

bother to look elsewhere or elsewhen; but she does this

_independently_ everywhere and everywhen so it is complicated....

Your attempt to impose some sort of "REALLY simultaneous" on Nature

is a denial that Nature operates locally.

> I do correctly apply the Lorentz equations. The distance between

> the eyes of the moving person is contracted by gamma wrt an

> observer at rest.

But you did not apply Lorentz's equations, as I said. In particular

you are attempting to use "ether simultaneity" to this moving

observer's "length-contracted" eyes -- you have forgotten that

Lorentz's equations also predict a difference in simultaneity

for that pair of moving eyes.

You keep applying "length contraction" and claim it is what LET

predicts, all the while fighting mightily to AVOID applying

Lorentz's actual equations. What you are doing is not LET.

> The perception by the moving observer DEPENDS on the fact, that

> he uses both eyes SIMULTANOUSLY. This simultaneity depends on

> NATURE and not on an arbitrary synchronization of two clocks

> implanted into the eyes.

But ther _ARE_ "two clocks implanted into the eyes", because the

brain of the person using those eyes to observe must integrate

the perceptions of both eyes into a coherent whole. This is _VERY_

_MUCH_ more complicated than "Nature", who only uses local

interactions to make an incoming light ray stimulate neurons in

the retina, and then uses local interactions to make those

neurons stimulate others in the optic nerve, ....

> The correct application of the Lorentz transformation leads

> exactly to the conclusions I have drawn in my previous post:

> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582025137

That article is wrong -- you _NEVER_ used a Lorentz transform, you

just used words and an invalid attempt to apply "length contraction"

to a case where it is not the whole story.

> : Just note the

> : coordinates of every relevant event in the ether frame, transform

> : _USING_LORENTZ'S_EQUATIONS_ to the observer's moving frame, and

> : you obtain LET's prediction of what the moving observer will

> : observe.

> Yes, but if you do this, then you give up the simultaneity concept

> advocated by both Lorentz and Poincaré.

Hmmm. Lorentz sure advocated the transforms of his 1904 paper, and

they imply such observations. Just because Lorentz himself did not

understand or accept all of the implications of this theory is no

reason for you to misapply his equations. The point is to apply LET

as Lorentz presented it in his 1904 paper.

It is OK for you to attempt to apply other concepts of Lorentz (and

others), just don't call that "LET", because that name is already

in use around here, and has been for many years. Of course you will

probably have extreme difficulty reconciling that with experiments....

> Don't you see that to

> the mathematical coordinates and their transformations must

> correspond concrete entities in nature?

Sure, that is _THE_HOPE_. But the basic discussion is about what

LET and SR predict, not really about what nature actually does.

We don't _KNOW_ what Nature actually does, but we can and do know

what LET and SR predict, and you keep getting it wrong.

> : Haven't you noticed: in every article you write you _NEVER_

> : use Lorentz's equations, you always try to apply "length

> : contraction" or "time dilation" in one way or another.

> Nonsense.

Then reference any article you have ever written which actually

contains a Lorentz transform and a valid application of it. Every

article of yours which I have seen merely attempts to apply

"length contraction" or "time dilation" -- while those are valid

in _SPECIFIC_PHYSICAL_SITUATIONS_, they are not valid in general,

and you keep trying to use them in situations where they don't apply

or don't give the complete picture.

> It is you who claim that a whole class of theories

> (including e.g. Franco Selleri's "inertial transformation" based

> on a time transformation entailing absolute simultaneity) are

> experimentally indistinguishable from SR and LET.

Yes. Because they are.

> So it is YOUR claim that "length contraction" and "time dilation"

> are the only empirically relevant concepts of SR.

Not true. You seem inordinately hung up on those two concepts. They

are not at all the full implications of the Lorentz transform or

of _ANY_ of those other theories, either. And I have never claimed

they were. Please refrain from attempting to put words into my

mouth.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages