Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 06/12/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Electron-positron annihilation"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: What is the Standard Model"
- In reply to: Vern: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- Next in thread: luke: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:19:56 -0700
Vern <vthodge@bealenet.com> wrote in message
news:ojtyc.1126$G02.561@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> 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?"
Your texts may indeed state that. However, this is a historical falsehood.
For example, Maxwell's aether was explicitly used to derive 'Maxwell's
equations.' And it was a superfluid, and not stationary at all.
> > 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.
But that was the problem. 19th century physicists did *NOT* believe in a
solid, luminferous aether. Even physicists in the 1700's knew better. (I
believe one of the Bernoulli family had a decent preliminary treatment.)
You are fighting a straw man. One that was created (or is maintained)
solely to dismiss experimentally valid theories from competing with SR and
GR.
> <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
To my knowledge, none of the above lads *ever had* an opinion that the
aether was *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.
The speed difference is immaterial to the actual theories put forward by
Lorentz, Maxwell or Fitzgerald.
> >>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.
That *is* miniscule.
> If the term "stationary aether" is now understood to
> mean an aether which is isotropic in the CMBR frame,
That's not what I understand a stationary aether to mean (which doesn't mean
that you are wrong).
> then it was obvious
> to me that it's illogical to even consider that heavenly bodies could be
> moving though it that fast.
Your ideal of a stationary aether sets no prima facie limits on the speed of
objects through that aether.
> 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 ...
The gamma factor may never need to be applied at all. It depends upon your
theory.
> >>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 measurement *IS* a measureable effect of the aether.
> That stationary aether should be slowing us down!
But it *is seen* to slow us down!!!!! It's called Pioneer drag. Also
observed, measurable, and repeatable.
Pioneer drag affects all bodies moving through the aether, and is
proportional to their velocity. It does not affect orbiting bodies, because
orbiting bodies inherit another property of the aether ... finite
gravitational propagation speed. Which results in gravitational aberration
that counters and balances the Pioneer drag.
> > 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.
I don't see any trouble there at all.
> 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?
Stephen's description is not sufficiently detailed to answer this question.
He failed to specify whether this would indeed be a timing test, or whether
it would be a fringe-shift experiment that is asserted as a timing test.
The former should be able to identify motion w.r.t. the aether. The latter
will not. (Classical euclidian stationary aether is simply ignorance.)
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Electron-positron annihilation"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: What is the Standard Model"
- In reply to: Vern: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- Next in thread: luke: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
