Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 30, 1:37 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:42 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:13 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2:18 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
To stir things up again........there is an aether frame!
Surprisingly, this results actually.... from the postulate
c=universal constant in all IRFs, of SRT!
So,in my opinion
c=const makes perfect sense if one admits that
light propagation takes place between certain physical
points of a medium (even if we are not able yet to mark them ),
which has nothing to do with the state of movement
of a given IRF nor with the subsequently attributed or even measured
particular
values of coordinates in different IRFs.
All the misunderstanding arises from our inability to mark points
in the aether frame, as we are using only frames moving versus the
aether,
in my view.
To make a more clearer point here, let us
imagine
that we could do the "marking" of aether points.
And then let us admit ..universal time as well.
Then, let us consider 2 points, A and B, in the aether frame
and the light (EM wave) covering the distance between them:
*-------------------------------------*
A B
*----------------------------------------------------------x'
frame S' coordinate axis
O' ----> V
The d=AB distance would be then the same in all IRFs, no
matter how they move.
Then, if light is emitted from A and it reaches B, its speed
must be the same in all frames : given distance covered in a given
time.
( S' is moving versus A and B, but AB distance stays the same in all
frames)
(If A can not be marked, then O' will stay as reference instead, which
will
give a shrinked distance O'B, supposing that B is marked)
We can not mark *yet* the points of a vacuum, still the simple
fact that
the speed of light is the same in all IRfs, is understandable
under the above assumptions, as a simple
physical fact and not like some mysterious property of matter as we
used
to think.
More than that, from the above, if it is true, results
that .....the speed of all
physical objects is constant in all IRFs!
Do not rush to cry..........Fault!
Think of an object, covering the same distance AB in the aether, as
light does
in our example. The speed defined *this way* does not depend on the
particular IRF. (remember...here, time is considered universal)
That is why, I was saying that "this way" of defining a speed
gives a FRAME INDEPENDENT value !
Now, vice-versa......if a speed...be it the speed of light or not,
is frame independent (for light is an experimental fact, is it not?)
then.......
aether must exist!!!!!
Best regards, LL
Sigh.
If you believe there is an aether, then you need to specify some
circumstances in which it would predict a different measurable result
than is predicted by relativity. Then it would be a simple matter to
put it to experimental test.
So what is the prediction of your aether that distinguishes it from
relativity in some measurable way?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I did think of some experiments to show that aether does exist.
I have to ponder over them again, as many physicists like
DR Gagnon, DG Torr, PT Kolen, T Chang (in phys Rev. A, vol 38, nr 4,
1998)
and others have said, the experiments/tests performed until now were
"generally incapable of revealing effects which might violate special
relativity
, due to cancellation effects which were not anticipated
in the design of experiments"
I have studied many of the experiments done for
this purpose and I agree with the above citation.
Uh-huh. Work's been done since then, you know.
Still, I think, it must be some way to go around the difficulties.
[You know: If there is a will, then there is a way! :-) ]
Then, I find that to many absurdities arise from
the absoluteness of relativity!
For example, if I move my finger, in the finger's frame, appears that
I
have changed the energy of the whole Universe with an infinite amount
etc.
Yes, indeed. There is not a thing wrong with physical variables
changing value simply by change of reference frame. Happens all the
time.
If there is no absolute reference frame , then there is no way to tell
apart
reality from appearance
It's not appearance. These physical properties REALLY DO have
different values in different reference frames.
, and each different IRF may have its
very own reality which can not be unified with the many other
realities.
Nor does it have to. Nowhere is it said that there is one true value
of a physical property that is independent of reference frame.
That will make you a supporter of my idea as presented below, won't
it?
No, not really. What I've told you has been known for 300 years. Where
have you been?
It's not like this is anything new.
http://laszlo.lemhenyi.com/The_duality_of_Lorentz_transformation.pdf
:-)
Or.... you will back now and say that.....*that* is too much
relativism!
As Einstein have said, we did not proved that aether does not
exist.
On the same idea, if one could find a universal formulae for the
resistance
air shows against the movement of objects, people could simply ignore
air as a
physical factor further on, replacing it with an abstract
"forcefield".
So then , there is no air , if there is no need for it?
Regards, LL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Regards, LL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: xray4abc
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- References:
- If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: xray4abc
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: PD
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: xray4abc
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: PD
- Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- From: xray4abc
- If c=const, then aether must exist!
- Prev by Date: Re: Lying Bonehead can't read.
- Next by Date: Re: Clock synchronization - misinterpretation?
- Previous by thread: Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- Next by thread: Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
