Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"

From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 11/03/04 

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:28:49 +0100

"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in message
news:4187e107@sys13.hou.wt.net...
> "Lanifq" <lanifq@aol.com> wrote the usual spam.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&th=2bca6a3a3def1d44&seekm=c45b45b3.0406180402.37101aa7%40posting.google.com&scoring=d#link1
>
> > The existence of the Aether can be verified, however, if information
> > can be transferred between physically separated locations at a
> > velocity that exceeds the velocity of light!

Note: reference is made here to the ether concept of Lorentz, thus (roughly
speaking) a non-material absolute frame of reference that serves as medium
to transmit fields, radiation and matter.

> Superluminality merely points to an absolute frame of reference. It's
> a trivial and uncontested fact in the scientific literature that many
> spacetimes have an absolute frame of reference:
SNIP
> However, mechanistic philosophy is obviously false:
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2283#2283

In that you cite Feynman to back you up, but also:
"Visualizing an EM field as something objectively occupying space and
pretending it has a real existence on its own is purely a creation of the
human mind."

with which Feynman explictitly disagreed (somewhere in his physics books, I
once cited that in another post).

> Consequently, superluminality and an absolute frame of reference
> doesn't even come close to verifying the existence of a luminiferous
> aether.

The ether concept of Lorentz that was referred to differs from the
luminiferous ether concept. The subject heading is about "absolute
velocity", which means relative to an "absolute frame of reference".

Apart of that, I still think that the existence of superluminal signals
would mess up relativity. Not?

Harald

Relevant Pages