Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:npe3a2lia22nqk4d4radfge332k1gn867e@xxxxxxxxxx
On 27 Jun 2006 15:57:50 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained
the MMX null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was
still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.

I heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try
that.
There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict
today,

but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
foolish
to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official"
in

physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
out
of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
the
official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
who
post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.

Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT
prove
that there could not be at least a local EM reference
frame...particularly when
Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.

If SR is correct then so must be LET.

Why would you say that? The two have completely different conceptual
underpinnings and different experimental predictions.

SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame

It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether
will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.

Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front.
He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens
to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).

I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE
actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
definition"
you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
apt
description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
that
it appears to be true.

Since when?
There is no believable proof of that Tom.

Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly
the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although
his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.

Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
research
and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
as non-physical as anything can be.

Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical
connection.
Contractions are actually REAL.

You mean it is real in the sense that something happens to the rod.
That is what you're calling REAL, and nothing else seems to work as
"real" for you.

SR says that if a clock or rod is sent into orbit, nothing actually
happens to
the clock or rod. It then claims that the clocks and rods DO are observed
to
change when measured by the original observer in the original frame and
using
the original length and time standards.

The contorted SR explanation for the above is as follows:
1. Rod contraction is a projected effect. Much like I see you to be shorter
from a distance and you see me to be shorter from a distance.
2. An observed clocks run slow is not due to the observed clock is running
at different rate than the observser's cl***. It is due to the flow of time
through the observed clock is slower (time dilation).

The correct ether theory (not the LET) explanation is as follows:
1. The physical length of identical rods remains the same in all frames. The
light path lengths of identical rods are different in different frames due
to the different states of absolute motion of the rods.
2. The rate of a clock (or the rate of passage of clock seconds) is
dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. The higher is the
state of absolute motion of the clock the lower is the rate of passage of
clock seconds for that clock. However this does not mean that time is
dilated as asserted by SR. It merely means that a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute motion.
BTW that's the reason why all observers measure the same math ratio for
speed of light as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving wih the ruler.

Ken Seto




.

Quantcast