🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 1:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.research:
> Aaron Arcsec wrote:
> > I just
> > cannot conceive of any way that c invariance can occur, not even on
> > paper, much less experimentally.
>
> There are basically two ways that MEASUREMENTS of light's vacuum speed
> can be independent of inertial frame:
>
> A) The intrinsic properties of the measuring instruments change when
>     they are at rest in different inertial frames.
>
> B) Measurements in different inertial frames measure a light wave
>     differently.
>
> (A) is essentially the answer of LET, the Lorentz Ether Theory. Lorentz
> postulated a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest, and
> that clocks and rulers change properties when moving relative to the
> ether. After all, it is the electromagnetic properties of atoms that
> determine their size and energy levels, and the ether "implements" those
> properties, so this is not totally unwarranted.
>
> (B) is essentially the answer of SR. When an observer in frame S watches
> an observer in frame S' measure the speed of light, S notes that S' does
> not use synchronized clocks, and that the S' clocks and rulers do not
> match up with those in S, even though they are identically constructed
> and do match up when at rest in the same inertial frame. These
> differences conspire to make S' obtain the same answer as S (i.e. c).
> These differences are at base geometrical, and are directly analogous to
> using rotated coordinates in Euclidean space, in which an invariant
> length is projected onto the x,y axes differently from the x',y' axes --
> a rotation in the x-t plane is a relative velocity (though it is a
> hyperbolic rotation, not a circular one), in which an invariant interval
> between measurement events is projected onto the x,t axes differently
> from the x',t' axes.
>
>         It is the invariance of the length that dictates how the
>         projections onto x,y and x',y' are related for the Euclidean
>         rotation. Similarly, the invariance of the interval dictates
>         how the projections onto x,t and x',t' are related for the
>         hyperbolic rotation corresponding to relative motion. Only
>         the Lorentz and Galilean transforms are physically and
>         mathematically possible, and experiments unambiguously
>         select the Lorentz transform.

Honest Roberts, which transform would the Michelson-Morley experiment
have selected if FitzGerald and Lorentz had not introduced the ad hoc
auxiliary hypothesis according to which length of moving objects
contracted? Then, which transform would the Pound-Rebka experiment
have selected if brothers Einsteinians had applied Einstein's
equivalence principle and accordingly had shown that the
experimentally confirmed gravitational redshift factor (1+V/c^2) was
inconsistent with Einstein's 1905 light postulate c'=c and consistent
with its antithesis c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com