Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

shevek4_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 15 Feb 2005 08:24:19 -0800

globarr@yahoo.com wrote:
> Subject: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
>
> Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
> sci.astro, sci.philosophy.tech
>
> Message-ID:
> <1108420518.403592.167700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> References:
> <ZtUOd.3720$aW6.1977@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
> <1108187867.417417.102500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
> shevek4 <shev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> >> Jack Sarfatti <sarfa...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> . . .
>
> shevek wrote:
> >Thanks for your post.
> >A few questions for you.
> >
> >1) What is "absolute" about a local LET rest frame?
> >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just
> >that - still relative.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> . remove 3 dots for e-mail
> Your use of the words 'local' and 'rest' might be
> confusing. In any general inertial measurement
> frame, especially as used in SR, the ether, being
> real and physical, will have, in general, a local
> velocity. Thus, it would not be at rest. Therefore,
> it would not be possible to say, as you did above, 'a
> local LET rest frame,' unless you were specifically
> in the frame in which the ether would have no net
> velocity. That is, you would have to be in the
> absolute rest frame in order to have the local LET
> frame to be an ether rest frame.
> Were you asking this question for a reason?

Sorry about my confusing wording. My point is just that the local
velocity of the ether is just another velocity with which to compare
others to. It is no more "absolute" than any other velocity. To call
it absolute is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion, I was asking for some
verification of this or some argument as to why the ether frame is
somehow "absolute" - and compared to what.

> Obviously, in any measurement frame, the
> measurements in that frame will be exactly as said in
> SR, and there will not be any direct evidence of
> anything being absolute, but only relative. The
> power of LET is not to change any of the measurement
> results, but only to provide to us a reasonable,
> logical, physically understandable explanation of why
> we measure what is measured. Did you wish to
> indicate anything different than this?

Agreed. The ether changes properties from point to point in space..
different flow speeds, pressure tensor, and more. These changes
manifest themselves as force fields. Nothing 'absolute' about it.

>
>
> shevek wrote:
> >2) Did Krisher et al. rule out a LET local rest
> >frame at rest with respect to the CMBR?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> You will have to ask someone else about this. It
> is reasonable to assume that as our measurements
> extend to larger and larger portions of our universe,
> that its average motion should be expected to
> approach the rest frame of the ether. But it sure
> would not have to do this. It would be expected but
> could not be demanded.
>

That experiment tries to measure an ether flow speed through the earth.
 The "local" measurement in this case is local to the earth. The way I
understand it the experiment ruled out a flow through the earth of 300
km/s (as expected from CMBR motion), but was not accurate enough to
rule out a flow of 30 km/s (as expected from orbital motion).

> shevek wrote:
> >3) Do you feel an acceptance of the LET approach
> >will require abandonment of SR? Even though you
> >state the math is the same?
> >
> >I'm inclined to agree with Sarfatti - no abandonment
> >required.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The real truth is, these two theories are the same
> theory. No one needs to abandon the math of SR, not
> even its approach.
> Let us be clear on exactly what SR is, and how
> good it is. SR is a correct math approach. It
> works. It is not in contradiction to LET. SR
> supports LET. LET supports SR. And all test results
> support both SR and LET. And we should appreciate
> the math relationships that SR uses.

Agreed, thank you.

> But to be scientific, we must also be able to see
> the limitations in SR. We make ourselves fools if we
> blindly worship SR. So we must freely and quickly
> understand that SR is only math. It cannot therefore
> say anything about physical things. It is a very
> weak theory, being only math. How is SR only math?
> It only uses c as a math constant, and it uses the
> requirement that all forms of the math must be the
> same for every reference. Thus, we do not physical
> understand what actually happens in SR. We do not
> understand what physically occurs so that light is
> always c, or why or how the math equations maintain
> their same form. We just accept all this.

Personally, I am happy with the math. What is "understanding", if not
the ability to predict mathematically? I see some shortfalls with
traditional SR approach, in that it predicts a null result for Krisher
et al. for example. Also of course, there is the difficulty of
combining the relativity theories with QM coherently.

>
> But LET also works. And it is a physical theory,
> which is more basic than SR, in that it provides the
> physical base upon which the math of SR is eventually
> derived. They thus end up being the same theory. SR
> is the correct math, and LET is the correct physics
> that goes with the correct math.
>
> Thanks for reading.

My pleasure. After studying SR for many years, I finally felt I had a
better understanding of "why" after reading up on LET type theories.
Keep up the good work - shevek

Relevant Pages
Loading