Re: The H&K Flying Circus

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:07:00 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:54:57 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:20:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



As this great genius has taught us, the laws of
nature are different for different phenomena.


Unlike Einstein worshippers, I still believe there are scientific questions to
be answered.

Like how an interferometer works?


I have discovered the real reason for the sagnac fringe shift.
It fully supports the BaTh.

Of course you have. Of course it does.
Interferometers are governed by hitherto unknown laws of nature,
newly discovered by you.
Since you assert the BaT CANNOT be wrong (how could it be?),
nature MUST obey and change it's laws accordingly.


Nature doesn't have to change one iota to obey the BaTh. It obviously does
already.



We know that the SR explanation is identical to that which would apply to a
'sound sagnac' in still air. In other words SR relies on aether theory to
explain sagnac.

Quite.
The speed of light is c in the ether frame.
The speed of light is c in all inertial frames.
The latter relies on the former.
Another world shattering Wilsonian discovery.


In aether theories, the speed of light will be MEASURED as 'c' in all inertial
frames.

That's wrong.
That only applies to LET where the Lorentz transform apply,
not to what commonly is meant by "ether theories" where
the Galilean transform apply.


How does SR differ from that?

SR is not different from LET when it comes to its predictions.

But you are clearly not thinking of LET by "ether theories":


You SRian sagnac explanation is identical to that which applies to sound in
air.

See?
In "ether theories", like the one Michelson thought was correct,
light behaves like "sound in air".
In SR and LET, it does not.


BE A MAN AND ADMIT IT.

I never disputed that SR's Sagnac explanation is identical
to that which applies to sound in _still_ air.
(That is non rotating air stationary to the centre of the ring.)
Quite the contrary, I have agreed to it before.


Thank you. Now tell the ever-stubborn Dishman.


It is your conclusion drawn from this that is
incredible naive:


SR is just another aether theory.

You don't get it, do you? :-)

Why is SR's Sagnac explanation different to that which
applies to sound in _moving_ air, Henri?
Could it be because there is no ether which could be
moving in SR?


It wouldn't matter if there was and it did.

The LET analysis of how an object moving in the aether will appear in the frame
of an observer also moving in the aether but at a diferent absolute speed is
exactly what SR says.


The two statements below are not identical, Henri.
The speed of light is c in the ether frame.
The speed of light is c in all inertial frames.

But you don't see the difference, do you? :-)


The difference is that SR has no physical significance at all. It merely
reverts to LET in any practical situation.

There are no differences between LET and SR when it
comes to what they predict.

But the state of motion of the ether of LET has
no physical consequences whatsoever.
All predictions are exactly the same regardless of
what speed you assume the ether to have.
(Which is very different from "sound in air".)
This ether is undetectable by principle.
If it is detected, then both SR and LET are falsified.
Does such an ether really exist?
The question is pure metaphysics, not physics.

So if you insist to call SR an ether theory like LET, do so.
It is a bit stupid, but of no practical consequence.

The important point is that SR/LET (with of without an
ethereal ether) is very well confirmed and never falsified.

As opposed to the ballistic theory.

We were talking about Sagnac.
SR/LET correctly predicts the observed fringe shifts.
The ballistic theory predicts no fringe shifts.
SR/LET is confirmed. The ballistic theory is falsified.
Insisting that SR is an ether theory cannot change that.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR inertial frame scope
    ... > like" interactions and do without the ether, nor so light behavior that is ... That all in Nature is related with all ... >> low hierarchy HIS represents a single body in a higher hierarchy HIS, ... admit the dilemma "absolute" or "relative". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR inertial frame scope
    ... bodies. ... That all in Nature is related with all ... >> The ether is a local immediate condensation of all the above, ... In the ether particles have their mass and inertia and assume ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The H&K Flying Circus
    ... Interferometers are governed by hitherto unknown laws of nature, ... 'sound sagnac' in still air. ... The speed of light is c in the ether frame. ... The speed of light is c in all inertial frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
    ... kenseto wrote: ... > Because the ether will give us the following: ... It will unite all the forces of nature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the ... in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make ... This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)