Re: Fatal error in Lorentz Ether Theory



On Jan 22, 6:36 am, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Adherents of LET often make statements such as "Lorentz ether theory
does not know any paradoxes of relative motion" [1]. Even some of
those who adhere to Special Relativity use LET in order to defend
SR from paradoxes. They argue that LET, based only on time dilation
and length contraction, makes the same predictions as SRT without the
seemingly paradox SR simultaneity concept.

The perported equivalence between SR and LET however stems from an
astonishingly huge error, exemplified in this text [2]:

"... two mirrors in parallel motion, with a pulse of light bouncing
between them. In this case the motion of the mirrors actually does
diminish the frequency of bounces, relative to the stationary ether
frame, because the light must travel further between each reflection.
Thus the time intervals 'expand' (i.e., dilate). Given this time
dilation of the local moving coordinates, it's fairly obvious
that there must be a corresponding change in the effective space
coordinate (since spatial lengths are directly related to time
intervals by dx = v*dt). In other words, if an observer moves at
speed v relative to the ground, and passes over an object of length
L at rest on the ground, the length of the object as assessed by the
moving observer is affected by his measure of time. Since he is
moving at speed v, the length of the object is v*dt, where dt is the
time it takes him to traverse the length of the object - but which
"dt" will he use? Naturally if he bases his length estimate on the
measure of the time interval recorded on a ground clock, he will
have dt = L/v, so he will judge the object to be v*(L/v) = L
units in length. However, if he uses his own effective time as
indicated on his own co-moving transverse light clock, he will
have dt' = dt * (1 - v^2)^1/2, so the effective length is
v * [(L/v) * (1 - v2)^1/2] = L * (1 - v^2)^1/2. Thus, effective
length contraction (and no transverse expansion) is logically
unavoidable given the effective time dilation."

Generally accepted premisses of LET are:

- the ether is rigid
- moving time dt' dilates/expands with respect to ether time dt:
dt = dt' * gamma
- moving length dx' in direction of motion contracts wrt the ether:
dx = dx' / gamma

However, the basic reasoning exemplified in the above quoted text
implies instead of contraction of moving objects the exact contrary:
contraction of the rigid ether with respect to moving objects. In
LET (inasfar as it is not "a clever restatement" of SR), contraction
results from the motion through the ether [3], so contraction of the
ether with respect to moving objects is impossible.

References:

[1] The Twin Paradox in Special Relativity and in Lorentz Ether Theory,
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3KHO.pdf
[2] Reflections on Relativity, 1.5 Corresponding States,
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s1-05/1-05.htm
[3] "... assuming that the electron, deformable and compressible, is
subject to a kind of exterior constant pressure whose effect ..."
Poincaré, June 1905, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4e5049b2c4a76432

No one gives a *** about LET, so feel free to find as many real or
imagined errors as you wish.

.

Quantcast