Re: A little challenge for relativists.

Joe Fischer wrote: 
On Tue, John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Einstein did no(t)? assume 'no ether' he followed on from Lorentz. 

          You have some good reasoning today, but because you do not
have correct facts, your conclusions and assumptions are diametrically
opposite from what actually happened.

There was
a considerable amount of convincing evidence of the wave-like properties
of light and there was the pure elegance of Maxwell's work so it was not
unreasonable to assumed that Maxwell's ether theory was still correct
but that a modification is required to explain the MMX. What today we
would describe as coming up with a suitable fix. The fix comprises of
assuming the ether has additional properties. This line was followed
first by Lorentz and then by Einstein.


        This is total nonsense, unless all the published papers were fake.

        In almost every paper between 1901 and 1914, Einstein stated
that an ether is not needed, and suggested nature does not have fat
in the form of unneeded entities.

I have provided quotes to make my case. If you have quotes to substantiate your claim then quote them. Last time you made such a claim I recall you failed to come up with any. You sent me to three totally irrelevant web sites.

The fix leaves the rest of the
theory untouched so they could legitimately assume the correctness of
Maxwell's other prediction that the speed of light would be unaffected
by the speed of the source.


        You dwell too much on the speed of light, it became old hat
a hundred years ago.


I am discussing the origins of relativity i.e. history.


Lorentz's fix explained the measurement symmetry shown by the MMX.
Einstein described Lorentz as having made the greatest contribution to
the theory of electricity since Maxwell - praise indeed.


        Chances are Lorentz had other interests besides the results
of the MMX.      And you need to find a source for the many, many
papers in which Einstein diminished any idea of an ether and weigh
them against the one lecture which you seem to be fixated on.


No! You say he made comments regarding the ether - you produce them.

Everything I have read produces a completely consistent picture of what he was trying to do and that was to assume a new sort of ether which would still provide source independence but does not imply a fixed FoR stationary w.r.t the ether. - It is a pretty dumb idea I grant you.

Einstein's
objection was not to the ether as is clearly shown in his 1920 lecture.


         Completely not true, what he was trying to say is that the LET,
or any ether theory, must be a static medium and conform to Euclidean
geometry.

No what he was clearly saying in his 1920 lecture is that our view of an ether as a static medium was too restrictive. The ether he envisages was an ether 'without the immobility' of Lorentz's ether. His whole theory is based upon source independence that is why he needs an ether of some sort.

Ask yourself the following question.

What physical process prevents the physical processes which generate light from having any effect on its speed?


  And by 1912 he knew for sure that a static medium will
not and can not represent nature in the presence of gravity, and
where there is gravity, there is matter.



His question was if we assume an ether why should we assume that it
implies a special FoR stationary w.r.t the ether which we cannot detect.
From his view point:

1/ There is an ether 

            Based on one "public" lecture, and contrary to the 40,000
technical papers he wrote.

Prove it! Produce a quote. One will do. With 40,000 to chose from that shouldn't be difficult :o)

Answer the question:

What physical process prevents the physical processes which generate light from having any effect on its speed?


2/ The MMX had shown that it appears every observer is stationary w.r.t
the ether.

Ha Ha.

Laugh away my friend but the second postulate describes *exactly* what an observer stationary w.r.t the ether would experience i.e. light travelling every which way at the same speed c. *UNLESS* you assume an ether then the MMX shows that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source as follows:

There is a source an observer and the space in between. Maxwell's theory was that speed of light is c w.r.t something in the space in between (the ether). Take away the ether and you have a source and an observer. The speed of light cannot be constant w.r.t the observer because there is no conceivable causality whereby the observer's motion can effect the speed at which light leaves the source besides we know that light leaves the source whether there is an observer or not. Therefore with no ether the speed of light must be c relative to the source. That IS the no ether option. There isn't another no-ether option.

3/ Why not simply assume that to be the case?

Because most scientists have more than one cell in their brain.

Well that is what Einstein assumed not me. Personally I would have gone for the no ether source dependent theory. The second postulate describes *exactly* what each and every observer would experience if he is stationary w.r.t the ether i.e. light travelling every which way at the same speed c.


Why do we need to assume a
theoretical FoR which is undetectable.


           Merely to relate position to (before 1909 Minkowski).

The second postulate describes exactly what an observer would experience
if he is stationary w.r.t the ether. The only difference between
Lorentz's theory and Einstein's is that Lorentz says it only appears to
an observer that he is stationary w.r.t the ether while Einstein says an
observer IS stationary w.r.t the observer. That is why the maths is the
same.


          SR is outdated, precisely for that reason, the fact that SR
is outdated because it requires a Euclidean FOR is one of the
big reasons ether is outdated.


I think you are somewhat confused.

Can we move on to something where gravity is possible? 

Happy to oblige:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." AE 1920 lecture


It would have been simple to assume no ether and source dependency if
all he wanted was symmetry. What he did was to try and reconcile
symmetry (the PoR) with the concept of the ether (the second postulate).
That is why it was so difficult. That is why he described the second
postulate as '..apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. He wanted
symmetry yet he wanted to retain the theoretical cause of asymmetry -
the ether. In order to reconcile the irreconcilable he had to ditch two
axioms of physics.


         You are being bouyed up by a swelling disillusionment, Einstein
did not want an ether, he wanted to ignore the concept.


Put a quote where your mouth is. Every quote I have found is consistent
with my statement.

Physics lost two axioms and entered an era where nothing would ever be
simple again all to retain the ether and now you guys want nothing to do
with the ether which so much was sacrificed for.


         The scientific community and the educational institutions
worlld wide since 1910 want nothing to do with an ether, and
they have not taught it in any classes.

Then they cannot have used the text book Einstein co-wrote in 1938
"Light is a wave travelling in the ether.....so its speed cannot be effected by motion of the source. .... MM showed it is not effected by the speed of the observer... so the speed of light is independent of [both]". Infeld/Einstein - "the evolution of Physics".

If there really is no
ether then physics took a wrong turn.


         there is no ether, and that is what the physics community
has said loud and clear by not professing an ether in classes.

Fine - then physics took a wrong turn. Post MMX they should have gone for the no ether, source dependent option as per Walter Ritz and not the 'every observer is stationary w.r.t the ether' source independent Einstein theory.

It should have followed the Walter
Ritz no ether, source dependent theory and not Einstein's ingenious
method of retaining the ether.


         Einstein did not retain the ether he was a leader in dispelling
the unworkable and unneeded, undetectable, unmeasurable, idiotic
idea.

Which is nevertheless absolutely essential to provide a physical process to prevent the physical processes which actually generate light from having any effect on its speed? He based his theory on source independence when there was no experimental evidence of source independence and when the only justification ever for source independence is that light travels in the ether, its speed is determined by the ether not the source. If you assume no ether then logically you have to assume source dependence.

Relativists seem somewhat confused. If one looks at Maxwell's equations
then he believed them to represent light travelling in the ether (he
died prior to the MMX). If you assume no ether then Maxwell's equations
become a solution to an unknown problem. You cannot use the general
solution without an ether but assuming you have faith that they must
still mean something you are left with two solutions.


         Why don't you take the 1920 lecture manuscript out from
under you pillow and burn the thing, you will then find a life free
from disillusion.

Why don't you stop trying to push your pseudo religious belief and start trying to think. Where are these quote explaining how Einstein got rid of the ether?

1/ One is if you assume the source is stationary w.r.t Maxwell's
ether in which case the speed relative to the source and the speed
relative to the ether are one and the same so you do not need the speed
relative to the ether -  The ether has disappeared from the maths.

It never was, it was always a figment of somebody's imagination.

Check your history. Maxwell died prior to the MMX and it was his interpretation of his equations that they represented a wave in the ether. There were two predictions relating to his theory, that the speed of light was c relative to the ether therefore the measured speed of light was unaffected by the speed of the source the other that the measured speed of light would depend on the speed of the observer relative to the ether. That is what indirectly the MMX was trying to show. This prediction failed. The speed of light does not vary w.r.t the speed of the observer. If that means there is no ether then the other prediction of Maxwell is also false. "...that the speed of light was c relative to the ether therefore the measured speed of light was unaffected by the speed of the source". ONLY by coming up with a 'fix' for Maxwell's ether theory could one justify continuing to base one's theory on source independence. That is what Lorentz did and Einstein followed on from Lorentz, tried to come up with a 'different sort of ether without the immobility of Lorentz's' - and failed. What he did NOT do is dismiss Lorentz's theory, go back to MMX and start again assuming no ether. That is what Ritz did not what Einstein did.


2/ The other is if you assume the observer is stationary w.r.t the ether
and get rid of the speed relative to the ether, and the ether, from the
maths that way.


        Which is moronic, the ether cannot move in all directions at once
for observers moving in all directions.

I agree entirely but that is what relativity is based upon nevertheless. Maxwell's equations assuming the observer is always stationary w.r.t Maxwell's ether.

IF you believe that light is a wave travelling in the ether THEN AND ONLY THEN do you interpret the MMX as making it appear to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t the ether. Lorentz's theory says this is an illusion, every observer only appears to be stationary w.r.t the ether because measurements are distorted. Einstein saw no reason to assume it was an illusion and assumed every observer IS stationary w.r.t the ether and derived the same maths. Second postulate describes each observer stationary w.r.t the ether. Lorentz's theory says the clock is effected in accordance with the Lorentz transforms, Einstein that it is time which is effected - result is the same mathematically.

If they didn't assume that light was a wave travelling in the ether they would not have had to come up with their variations on trying to explain why MMX shows that it appears to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t. the ether. The alternative would be to interpret MMX as showing there is no ether and that therefore the only thing the speed of light can be constant w.r.t is the source and as the observer (detector) in the MMX is always a fixed distance from the source it doesn't matter where the apparatus is or which way it points = null result. That is not what Einstein assumed.

Without an ether 2/ is a mathematical solution which can easily be ruled
out on physical grounds. If you assume nothing in between source and
observer then firstly there is no way the fact that the observer is
moving away from the source can possibly effect the speed at which light
leaves the source and secondly it would be absurd to have a mathematical
solution which cannot model light leaving the source when there is no
observer because we know it does.


         Really not saying anything at all, it does not even resemble
the thoughts of a physicist.


A book full of maths will not alter history nor alter one jot any of the
arguments stated above.


         Right, and history shows an ether was no longer taught
after Einstein began publishing his thoughts.

Apart from in the text book which Einstein himself co-wrote in 1938. Bit of a bummer that to your argument

[....] 

I have the greatest sympathy with educators like Morin having to present
a current belief system which doesn't make sense. I note that he makes
no attempt to present the history. I find his honest approach rather
refreshing:


          And everybody but the ethernuts find your writing approaches
the sublime disillusionment.

" 'The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame'. 

         No it doesn't, it is measured to have the same value by
all observers regardless of their velocity or direction of motion.

..... it is easy to understand what the statement says (even if you
think it's too silly to be true)".


          I think it is silly for anybody to read what you write, it
is all based on one lecture transcript, and the words could
even be those of the transcriber.


I am quoting from the very latest Harvard text book ....... D'oh


          Get a life, read some technical papers, ignore public
lectures and pop books where science is concerned.

           Use the computer, use google, only visit college sites,
and save any reference to ether.

            Actually, it would be odd to not find a single college
that teaches ether considering how many ethernuts have
posted here in the past.

Let's see your quotes. You said there were 40,000 of them :o) I ask for one which says there is no ether and explains why Einstein still felt justified in assuming source independence.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >|>> "The Einstein Hoax" ... >| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by>| the physical process of propagating in a medium so cannot be affected ... He accepts that>| most theories in physics are what he describes as 'constructive>| theories'. ... The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... Choice 1 - Assume that there is no ether. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... Implication is that two clocks at different latitudes will not keep time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson and Morley
    ... This was the moving observer. ... and that isn't the way physics went. ... The answer is that physicists had believed in the ether for more than ... Relativity is now a 'principle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone good with Tensors?
    ... prior to Einstein, and they are just generalizations of vectors. ... Einstein's own words in 1920 from the link I gave: "GR without an ETHER ... anyone interested in relativity would not read it. ... And this generalization necessitated the generalization of what was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins logic
    ... It is the second postulate ... > relativity has nothing to do with light. ... All your babbling about Einstein said this or Einstein ... > of MMX which relativists claim shows there is no ether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast