Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)

From: Vern (vthodge_at_bealenet.com)
Date: 06/12/04 

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:50:16 -0400

greywolf42 wrote:

>Vern:
>Plain text, please. Not HTML.
>Don't top-post, please.
>
>
Sorry, I'll see if I can figure out how to post in plain text.

<snipped some previous content>

>>Sorry to have made an unsubstantiated claim. As I understand it, when a
>>stationary luminiferous aether was considered by classical physicists,
>>it was assumed to be stationary w.r.t a sun-centered frame, not a frame at
>>rest with the CMBR.
>>
>>
>
>Your history is incorrect.
>
I believe standard texts state something to the effect that 19th century
physicists believed the luminiferous aether was stationary w.r.t the Sun
and the Earth was moving through the aether as it orbited the Sun.
Isn't that the same as saying "stationary w.r.t a sun-centered frame?"

> Plus, it does not matter where any individual
>(working with a 'stationary' aether) centered his aether. You made a broad
>claim about *all* stationary aether theories. A contradiction based upon a
>given set of assumptions can only be applied to those specific assumptions.
>
>
I said in my first reply to Old Physics, "Isn't a stationary ether ruled
out by common sense?" Then in my second reply to Old Physics I said,
"[T]here is no conceivable aether as a medium for light transmission
which is stationary w.r.t the CMBR frame and which is also congruent
with the high velocities of heavenly bodies w.r.t the same frame." The
only aether I was talking about is the lumiferous aether believed in by
19th century physicists before the advent of Einstein's relativity.
Sorry if that was misleading.

<snipped the only thing I apparently did get right>

>>If Lorentz had known that was the
>>velocity of the Earth w.r.t a stationary aether, do you think that he
>>would have ruled out a stationary aether just on the basis of
>>common sense?
>>
>>
>
>Huh? Lorentz was an aether 'supporter' for his entire life. He *never*
>ruled out a stationary aether. And he never relied on 'common sense.' (See
>his 1904 paper.) Where *did* you come up with that 'common sense' claim?
>
>
I guess in a clumsy way I was trying to state that it makes no sense to
me that there could be a stationary ether now that stationary takes on a
different meaning due to the discovery of the CMBR. So I was wondering
if Lorentz, or even Maxwell or FitzGerald of any of the 19th century
believers in the aether would have changed their opinion about it being
stationary had they known that the Earth was moving through it at
approximately 1/500 of the speed of light instead of approximately
1/10,000 of the speed of light.

>>What
>>conceivable type of stationary aether could transmit light waves and yet
>>not be affected by or cause only miniscule effects on planetary bodies
>>moving though it at those velocities?
>>
>>
>
>Any number of valid theories were proposed. Those speeds are miniscule,
>compared to the speed of light (and typical speeds within the aether).
>
>
I don't think the speed the Earth is moving w.r.t the CMBR is miniscule
compared to the speed of light because it's approximately 1/500 of the
speed of light. If the term "stationary aether" is now understood to
mean an aether which is isotropic in the CMBR frame, then it was obvious
to me that it's illogical to even consider that heavenly bodies could be
moving though it that fast. But now that I've tried to talk it through,
I'm beginning to see where it might not be so illogical. Supposedly you
have to reach a speed of about 1/3 the speed of light before the gamma
factor is applied and the velocities of the celestial bodies are much
less than that, even measuring w.r.t the CMBR, but still ...

>>On the other hand, an aether with vortex
>>systems associated with celestial bodies, not too unlike Maxwell's aether
>>for EM phenomena, could account for the fact that no gross aether winds
>>are detected.
>>
>>
>
>But gross aether winds *are* detected. That's what the CMBR anisotropy
>tells us.
>
By gross I meant that before with the MMX they were looking for an
effect caused by a movement of the Earth through the aether at
approximately 30 kilometers per second, but now it's known that the
velocity is approximately 370 kilometers per second, more than ten times
as fast, yet still no observable effect. That stationary aether should
be slowing us down!

> Since you invoked Lorentz, you should at least be aware that his
>1904 paper quite thoroughly explained why MMX-type fringe shift experiments
>don't 'work' as the pure mathemeticians would like.
>
>
What I find troubling is that the Lorentz contraction formula seems to
account for the effect no matter how fast we're supposed to be moving
through a stationary aether.

Trying to get back to the original post and topic, is the experiment
that Old Man is suggesting only measuring an effect caused by the
orbital velocity of the Earth?

Vern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: threat to ones worldview
    ... aether. ... because this theory came first) by special relativity. ... If you want a dynamic explanation of how it works, ... speeds. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... speeds we are used to. ... It cannot mutate into waves for part of the journey because by their very nature waves spread out and their energy density reduces. ... The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... Essentially what Einstein assumed was that EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY
    ... rigid aether in the Y-direction. ... Apparently all theoretical physicists have their own flavour, ... The rod is shorter, yes, but not by the same amount. ... :> If, however, an absolute reference frame existed and the above speeds ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is Proper Time?
    ... There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. ... In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'. ... reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c. ... if the observers are moving at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... rejecting BaTh. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. ... mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)