Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:30:02 +0100, John Kennaugh
<JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Paul Stowe writes
>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:32:08 GMT, dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Stowe:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:14:51 -0500, shuba <tim.shuba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>O'Barr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So LET does not remove any of the
>>>>>> math or the assumptions used in SR. It only explains
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, LET explains that its ether frame is not unique,
>>>>> and falsifies itself.
>>>>
>>>> Only in the grand delusions of Shuba's mind. Why should the
>>>> aether frame be physically unique?
>>>
>>> Say what? That is even dumber than the comments you usually post.
>>
>> Perhaps, but one notices that there's no answer to the simple
>> question posed.
>>
>> "Why should the aether frame be physically unique?"
>>
>> Within it lies the answer, so show how 'smart' Bozo the Bile is,
>> answer the simple question...
>
> My understanding is that in LET the ether frame was theoretically
> unique in the physical sense. It was this which Einstein objected
> to.
>
> "Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
> systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects,

...

> by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system?

It is because of the nature of matter that there IS no physical
uniqueness. But, I'm game, what's the physical uniqueness
(as opposed to theoretical uniqueness) and how does one go about
discern it? Indeed, in any medium there exists a rest state,
that is to say, a state where the momentum flux sums to zero (no
net current) at each point. However, just as we see in Earth's
atmosphere & oceans this state is not unique, nor is it the same
at all points in the medium. There is no uniqueness, even
theoretically, for this. If and ONLY IF you have some foreign
body which is independent and rigid wrt the medium can the rest
state be determined. Given in LET (and all true) aether theories
there is only the medium and all matter, fields, and energy are
just different manifestations of this, there exist no physical
uniqueness to discerning the so-called rest state of it. That,
to me, means there is no physical uniqueness even though,
conceptually we know it exists. Indeed, just like background
noise in Earth's oceans allows submarineers to determine speed
(knowing that, in the carrier medium, the speed of sound is c
and independent of all motion of sources & receivers) by
determining doppler we can most certainly to the same for space
and the CMBR. Of course, those same submarineers could play
Ostrich and 'screen out' that background noise and pretend it
ain't so :)

> For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical
> structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of
> experience, is intolerable."

So, he had a philosphical problem. Nature cares not about people's
personal hang-ups...

> In a very real sense the question:
>
>> "Why should the aether frame be physically unique?"
>
> Is the whole basis of Einstein's relativity so it is hardly a dumb
> question. He assumed that it wasn't necessary for the aether to
> have a unique frame. He postulated a symmetry whereby all observers
> had the same relationship with the aether namely that every observer
> is stationary w.r.t the ether. That is what the second postulate
> describes.

But, there's a very good reason, and physical basis for the Lorentz
contraction, and for it to be just as it is in aether theory. That
is the physical underpinning for Einstein's second postulate,
removing it from postulate status into an expected anecessary
physical process of the medium.

> As far as I can see the fundamental difference between LET and SR
> is that LET says that because of the interaction between the aether
> and ponderable matter ...

Right, and as we know now, matter ain't so ponderable. In fact,
QM says it's standing waves (or has this intrinsic nature).

> ... it *appears* to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t the
> ether whereas Einstein simplified this by saying in effect "let's
> assume every observer IS stationary w.r.t the aether". Which is
> why the maths of the two theories is the same. The problem comes in
> trying to translate this into some sort of physically credible model.

Not if you use the wave model it isn't...

> Einstein in his 1920 lecture shows his search for such an aether
> model but while he was specific as to what it *isn't* he was rather
> vague as to what it *is*.

We ain't do in physics yet, are we? Of course there's a lot more
to learn.

> "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
> the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
> consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
> namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith
> be expounded."
>
> He makes further similar statements but he does not as far as I can
> see 'expound' anything. The second postulate describes what an
> observer would observe if he were stationary w.r.t the ether. This
> requires that either every FoR has its own aether - which doesn't
> really work, or that Einstein's 'mobile ether' somehow allows every
> observer to actually be stationary w.r.t. it which doesn't work for
> me either. The aether, mobile or not, has to exert its influence
> upon light in order to justify the doctrine of source independence.
> It is hard to see how it can do that on the one hand and not to exert
> its influence in an absolute sense on the other.

But it does exert its influence in an absolute sense which forces
the Lorentz contraction in wave pattern of matter. It IS the fact
that c is independent AND that the fields that hold matter together
must mutually interact that forces this result. There IS a unique
distinction between LET & SR. LET says matter (more fundamentally,
field profiles) distort in the direction of motion by gamma. SR
say ALL of space-time does (even region deviod of field effects &
matter). The spaceships tied to a string paradox illuminates this
distinction.

> In the end of course Einstein declared his theory to be a 'principle
> theory' which does not attempt to answer the question and is surely an
> indication that he failed to get his 'mobile aether' concept to work.
>
> Surely therefore one answer to your question:
>
>> "Why should the aether frame be physically unique?"
>
> is that Einstein assumed it wasn't,...

Right, and a well thought out one too. To bad Bozo & Shubert are
too shallow and blinded by arrogance & mindset to realize this
simple fact.

> ... spent a lifetime trying to find an answer consistent with it not
> being unique and failed.

It all about looking at all possiblities. The big areospace firms
never achieved the prize for man powered flight either, they were
blinded by the mindset that they KNEW how to approach the problem.

In actuality, in their case, the solution was totally outside of
their expertise and mentality of HOW to approach the problem...

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... Newton wrote them down on paper, he did not invent the laws of physics. ... If matter has an attribute that is hidden, then how would we know about ... >>A quantum Aether unit has a distance between unbound Aether units of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Aether
    ... for all practical purpose the same in physics). ... The aether is one, it has no components. ... because even though it isn't matter it can act on matter. ... Empty space is the sit of the field, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • KOOKFIGHT
    ... Real matter cannot exist in imaginary space-time. ... The Aether Physics Model quantifies the ... The Aether Physics Model shows the Aether actually exists in five ... what I disagree with is the "wave packet" term. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evidences for the ether
    ... Real matter cannot exist in imaginary space-time. ... The Aether Physics Model quantifies the ... The Aether Physics Model shows the Aether actually exists in five ... what I disagree with is the "wave packet" term. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science and technology. ... It is whatever physics wants it to be. ... >>>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test ... >> physicists to explain it to them. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast