Re: The H&K Flying Circus

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:20:17 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

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



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.


That is because they are one and the same theory.

Quite.
If we forget the metaphysics, they are.
They have quite a different origin, though.
LET is basically the Lorentz transform, nothing else.
Lorentz pulled this transform "out of the blue"
with no other justification than it was the transform
that made Maxwell's equations invariant.
Einstein arrived at the transform from two postulates.

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.


How could it exist? Where would it end?

I tend to agree.
The ether of LET doesn't exist.
It is a pure metaphysical entity like angles.

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.


Hphpohhahahahahah!

Hysteria?

Yes Paul, we know there are plenty of 'supporting' papers written by
relativists for relativists and published in journals edited by relativists and
read by relativists.

Indeed.
Since there hardly is a physicist who isn't what you call
a "relativist", we could phrase it:
There are plenty of supporting papers written by
physicists for physicists and published in journals edited
by physicists and read by physicists.

And when we remember that the "supporting papers" are
descriptions of real experiments made in the real world,
confirming the predictions of SR and GR, it is clear
that relativity is well confirmed and never falsified.

Glad to see you agree.

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.


I have told you why the BaTh is NOT falsified by sagnac.

That doesn't change the fact that Sagnac falsifies the BaTh.
No question about it.

> I have also explained
that the SR explanation is identical to that for sound in air...ie, for an
aether type medium.
So either there IS an aether and SR is correct or there is no aether and SR is
indisputedly wrong.

Are you referring to the ether we agree doesn't exist? :-)

Call it whatever you like, Henri.
It is of no consequence.

The only thing that really matters is
that SR is confirmed by numerous experiments
and falsified by none.

The ballistic theory is falsified by numerous experiments.

That's why the ballistic theory is dead and SR is
the generally accepted theory.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The H&K Flying Circus
    ... the speed of the ether is of no consequence. ... the ballistic theory is not an ether theory. ... physicists for physicists and published in journals edited ... I was using 'genetic inbreeding' as an analogy for indoctrination handed down ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The H&K Flying Circus
    ... the speed of the ether is of no consequence. ... physicists for physicists and published in journals edited ... The ballistic theory predicts no fringe shifts. ... It is however a fact that Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... >The ballistic theory has been well and truly published many times in he past by ... >a many great physicists, the main one being Walter Ritz who died prematurely in ... >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Paradigmatic Change.
    ... Starting with the desire for ... "If you don't accept relativity it is because you don't understand it and if you are too stupid to understand it you can't be one of our gang." ... Physics took the route it took because of a reluctance to question belief in the ether having believed in it for 200 years and because Ritz, the only viable opposition, died prematurely in 1909. ... If following MMX physicists had concluded that there is no ether there would have been no Lorentz, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Paradigmatic Change.
    ... Starting with the desire for ... >>taught) Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity. ... > MMX physicists had concluded that there is no ether (what today would be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)