Re: How to describe LET!
- From: Bilge <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jun 2007 05:29:02 GMT
On 2007-06-18, Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How to describe LET!
A idea that is not only dead, but smells bad.
What is the best way to describe LET? Some try to.
infer that the simplest theory is the correct theory.
O.K. if one wanted to, they could describe LET this
way:
Description A:
****************************************************
In free space, in the rest frame of the ether, the
following is assumed:
1) The velocity of light is a constant c.
2) The change in the rates of all clocks and the
lengths of all rulers as a function of their absolute
velocity, is the same function.
***************************************************
Why can we get away with such simplicity? Let us
consider these things:
Since it is the ether that is in control of the
motion of light, then the velocity of light is not
affected by the source or the receiver of the light.
Thus, these two facts become automatic, and we do not
have to have separate assumptions to state these
facts. However, for completeness, there is nothing
wrong with having these facts pointed out.
Since light has a constant motion in the ether
(number 1 above), then a properly orientated light
clock will show the correct change in its time rate
as a function of its absolute velocity. With 2)
above, then a light clock requires all clocks to show
this same change in rate function. Even other light
clocks, in a different orientation, will have to see
this same effect, because we know that a light clock
sees no change in rate due to its orientation. This
means that a change in length has to occur. This
fully takes care of this entire problem, for both
time and distance.
But since the diameters of a spherical surface
charge change their lengths with their motions in the
ether, then from 2), we can also use this to assume
that all lengths change in this same way.
Thus, in a way, the above presentation will work
in several different ways. But let us state it in a
more normal way as follows:
Description B:
****************************************************
In free space, in the rest frame of the ether, the
following is assumed:
1) The velocity of light is a constant c.
2) The change in the lengths of all rulers as a
function of their absolute velocity, in the direction
of their velocity, is the same as the non-stressed
diameters of a spherical surface charge.
3) The change in the rates of all clocks, as a
function of their absolute velocity, is the same as a
light clock, where 1) and 2) apply.
***************************************************
Or as direct as possible:
Description C:
********************************************
In free space, in the rest frame of the ether, the
following is assumed:
1) The velocity of light is a constant c. It is
independent of the velocity of its source.
2) In the direction of its motion, the length of a
ruler is a function of its absolute velocity, v:
Lv = Lo (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 1)
Lv is the length when moving at v
Lo is the length when moving at 0.
It remains at its original length at right angle
to its motion.
3) The rate of a clock is a function of its absolute
velocity, v:
Rv = Ro (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 2)
Rv is the rate when moving at v
Ro is the rate when moving at 0.
*****************************************************
END OF DESCRIPTIONS
Before we leave this discussion, let us be sure to
know that the present day description of the forces
that hold all regular matter together depends upon an
exchange of virtual photons. Due to this fixed limit
or control on the absolute velocity of photons, then
the motions of objects being controlled by objects
which are themselves limited by velocity, certainly
should affect the range and effectiveness of such
forces. It certainly would be impossible to imagine
that there were no effects at all to be expected.
By using equations 1) and 2), then SR math is able
to be derived. This requires, among several things,
that c becomes a measured constant in all frames.
Along with the math, however, comes a full set of
definitions, limits and controls that are not
automatic in SR. You end up with only one real
physical frame in which all these changes and
relationships are caused and established and
correlated. By being in only one real physical
frame, then there are never any real breaks in
symmetry or jumps in times.
Under these conditions, the theory takes on a
maximum of simplicity: The simplest of 3-D space,
with a physical base, with the physical controlling
the math, with the physical limiting the math, with
the physical defining the math and what it really
means.
What this does is that it returns SR and all of
our existing science back to the way all other
science use to exist, rather than trying to change
all other physics into SR's 4-D approach. None of
the facts of science has actually changed, since the
math and the predictions remain the same, but the
interpretations have been simplified. All actions
can be given a normal, simple interpretation in terms
of these simple changes in the tools being used, and
not in some non-testable geometry of space.
EINSTEIN'S TRAIN EXAMPLE:
In the ether frame, the exact way in which all
frames measures c in their own frame is exactingly
and perfectly explained. By the numbers, we will
again look at Einstein's train example, with the
train moving at v on the tracks, as the ether would
explain it.
We will assume that the tracks are at rest in the
ether frame, and thus the clocks and rulers in the
track frame are perfect clocks and rulers, with
perfect absolute sync. Under these conditions, these
clocks could measure any velocity, from zero to c to
infinity. And every measurement would be perfect.
Every velocity that is measured in the track frame
can be directly added to any other velocity measured
in this frame. In other words, everything in this
frame is simple Newtonian mechanics.
Let the train, at rest, have a length of Lo. When
moving at v, the train will have a length of:
Lv = Lo(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5
In the ether frame, the time, to, that it takes
for light to go from the rear of the train to the
front of the train can be solved from the following.
We take the length of the train, as measured in the
track frame, add on to it the distance the front of
the train will move during this time, to, and set
this equal to the distance light would have moved
during this same time:
Lo*(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 + v*to = c*to
This allows us to solve for to:
to = Lo*(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 /(c-v)
Now tv, as measured in the train frame, will be
less than to, as measured in the track frame, due to
the differences in the rates of these clocks, as
given in equation 2).
tv = to * (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5
Or, = Lo * (1 - (v/c)^2) /(c-v)
Or, = Lo/c + Lo*v/c^2
At this point, we see that the differences in the
measurement of the speed of light between these two
frames, for none moving trains in each frame, differ
by this factor of Lo*v/c^2. If we sync the clocks in
the train's frame by the negative of this amount, we
would have the velocity of light in the train frame
to be the same as in the ether. And we have every
right to make such a sync. So when we sync all
clocks in the train frame by this function, we get
the measurement of light to be c. Since v was a
variable, a variable with no limits in its value,
then what we have done here is to establish the fact
that the measurement of light in all frames could be
c, if their clocks were properly synced in each
frame. A quick math check will show that this works
in both directions, and in fact, it works in all
three dimensions.
Please note, in the real world, we do not really
know v, and so our syncs are not done by calculating
a value and then using this value for each clock at
their measured position, but we have to use a
functional approach, we just set each clock to the
value that produces c, or we approximate it by using
a slow motion sync.
Now all this is being said for only one reason.
In LET, we know exactly why all frames are able to
measure c. We know exactly what rulers can do, and
what clocks can do, and what syncing can do. And
thus, we have a physical explanation for all these
things. The explanations are not guesses. They are
supported by all the measurements that have so far
been able to be made.
But in SR, no physical explanations exist. In
fact, every time you show that different frames are
showing the same value, that is a weakness, since you
cannot give any reasons for such measurements. And
so, every time you stress the fact that every frame
shows c, that does not improve your position. It
makes it all the more impossible. Without
explanations, without justification, your theory is
junk, it cannot be accepted by any thinking
individual. And only LET provides answers that are
reasonable, understandable, doable, in harmony with
all other sciences and evidences that exist.
Thank you for understanding.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
- References:
- How to describe LET!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- How to describe LET!
- Prev by Date: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Next by Date: Re: For everyone who thinks they can revolutionize science...
- Previous by thread: Re: How to describe LET!
- Next by thread: Re: How to describe LET!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
