🚀 go-pugleaf

Henri Wilson wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:36:18 +0100, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z@z.lol.li> 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.
>
>LET uses REAL contractions of length and time to explain the MMX null result.
>A consequence of this is that measured OWLS will always return the value 'c'.
>
>Einstein began with the POSTULATE that measured OWLS would be c for all
>differently moving observers.
>
>He then went on to mathematically describe the features of a universe based on
>this postulate.
>A consequence was that relatively moving objects would apear to be conrtracted.
>
>I have been pointing out for months that SR is nothing but LET run backwards.

Absolutely. LET says that if this and that contract or whatever in 
accordance with Lorentz transforms you will always get c for the speed 
of light. Einstein says if you always get c as the speed of light it 
must be because this and that contracts or whatever in accordance with 
Lorentz transforms.

Lorentz was trying to explain why we always appear to be stationary 
w.r.t. the aether (interpretation of the MMX if you believe in Maxwells 
aether). Starting with the aether and working towards that result.

Einstein started with the result - That we always are stationary w.r.t 
the aether (interpretation of the MMX if you believe in Maxwells aether) 
- which is exactly what the second postulate is describing - an observer 
stationary w.r.t the aether.

As I have said before Einstein objected to the asymmetry in the 
theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory and avoided it by producing a 
theory with no theoretical structure.

It takes a genius to pull that sort of stunt and get away with it.

It is hardly a surprise that SR has no theoretical structure. Einstein 
made a vague attempt, hinting at an aether which was such that every 
observer would naturally find himself stationary w.r.t it but today, 
with 'aether' being a taboo word, you would have to come up with a 
theoretical structure which is consistent with the idea that the speed 
at which light leaves a source is somehow solely dependent upon an 
observer who at a vast distance may at some date in the far future, 
observe it.

>
>Unfortunately for both theories, there is no absolute aether and there are no
>contractions, either physical or observational.

That is the daft part. That there is no aether is now generally accepted 
which makes the acceptance of the Lorentz/Einstein 'aether fix' 
absolutely bonkers. Self deception on a grand scale. They have spent a 
100years building on a decision which makes no sense when viewed with 
today's belief in 'no aether'. They say "It must have been the right 
decision because we have spent 100 years building on it". I think its 
called being objective :^)

Relativity did not conform to what one would expect of a physical theory 
but "relativity is right" therefore what is expected of a physics theory 
has been changed. There is now no quality assurance. You cannot dismiss 
a theory on the grounds that it is silly.

>The MMX result was to be expected simply because light moves at c wrt both its
>source and everything at rest in the source frame.

That is certainly the most obvious interpretation of the null result and 
the one which one would naturally plump for if one wasn't hung up on a 
historical belief that light was a wave travelling in the aether who's 
speed could not therefore be dependent upon the source. If one accepts 
there is no aether it is the only logical interpretation of the MMX. You 
only have a 'source' - an 'observer' and 'the space in between' if you 
accept that 'the space in between' contains nothing which can influence 
the speed of light you are left with a source and an observer and there 
is no way the observer can control the transfer at a distance and back 
through time.

>Note: OWLS has never been measured. OWLS from differently moving sources has
>never been compared. There has never been an experiment that directly supports
>either SR OR LET.

To be fair it is incredibly difficult to come up with an experiment to 
distinguish. Even more difficult to come up with one which could deal 
with all possible objections. Having said that it is absolutely amazing 
how many people who should know better assume that such experiments are 
performed every day. The underlying assumption is that if results are as 
predicted by relativity they somehow disprove source dependence.

                   A                         B

If you have light travelling between A and B with a speed c w.r.t A then 
the only thing which tells you whether it is SR or Ballistic theory is 
which direction the light is travelling in. Mathematically that in turn 
depends on which direction time is going. Mathematically 'source' and 
'destination' are simply labels. Relativity seems weird but gives the 
right answer because it is describing things with time going backwards 
which you can't tell from the maths.

>
>'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.
>
>The value of c can be determined with a TWLS experiment in vacuum, in which
>case, tAB = tBA and OWLS = TWLS = c.
>
>It's all so simple. Why try to make it difficult with a red herring?

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal