Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:58:34 -0800 Gibson Elliot Gibson Elliot wrote.. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! I agree with Tesla's observation but it is incomplete..you can't just eat ether endlessly -you must also expell it. Puthoff's atomic model has vacuum fluctuations restoring energy to orbitals and Tesla is even more generic where he attributes all mater to eating ether which I assume includes the electrons and positrons in the nucleus. In both cases however there needs to be a more dynamic definition of this interaction. The LET theory suggests a stationary ether but this eating and expelling of ether through matter heavily suggests relative motion. The LET helps explain the MM dilema by putting ether on the time axis but there still needs to be some explanation of relative motion. maybe 3D space as a whole is moving through time at C? If SR and LET are that similar then then the C squared component of V^2/C^2 must have an anology in LET. They both represent velocity legs of a right triangle. I am not saying vacuum fluctuations ARE the ether but rather they are residents of that medium and as such travel with the ether -winking into and out of existence because they can only manifest themselves while intersecting with space. Maybe someone can tell me the proper theory name for viewing all matter with open vistas on both the future and past -I'm slowly learning my ideas are never my own and that this perspective must have a commonly applied name / author. My point is that relative motion between space and time where VP form a stream on the time axis would explain 1) this winking into and out of existence, 2) Puthoff's model of restoring ennergy/Tesla's view of eating ether, 3)inertial frames because this stream rate becomes our ruler such that we can never really be aware of rate changes. ok ok T much speculation but at least you know now where I am coming from... and it all started here http://byzipp.com/energy/hydrino_files/frame.htm
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 08:20 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Stephen, Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. I am aware that my speculation is only just that without predictions and confirmation but as must be obvious from my lack of familiarity with LET I am still gathering my arguments. I don't know if Lorentz ever published a paper in which he laid it all out in an easy to comprehend form. It comes up in arguments over relativity; I haven't seen it mentioned in other venues. Can I take it then that Gamma proves the extra dimension is there and the controversey regarding LET is only whether it is occupied by ether or a true vacuum? I just peeked at Wikipedia and Lorentz was promoting a stationary ether, I can see him saying no spatial motion but stationary? this doesn't seem to agree with V^2/C^2 I'm not sure what you mean by the extra dimension. Do you mean time? That's there no matter what theory you use, though the geometry is quite different in Newtonian mechanics and the time coordinate doesn't have the same properties as a space coordinate. In any case, as I recall, in LET the ether is stationary, undragged, and provides a unique universal rest frame. However, objects in motion with respect to the ether are physically contracted along the line of motion. I realize it writing this that I can't recall how the logic works with regard to time, which is also affected by motion through the ether, but the result of Lorentz's assumptions was that he derived the Lorentz transformations. (Not, please note, the Einstein transformations!! And this is why.) The upshot is that his ether theory predicts exactly the same results as special relativity, and in fact the ether frame is undetectable -- you can't tell whether you're in absolute motion in LET any more than you can in SR. My thoughts aside on LET, I approached this from relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect based on Cavity QED and a new book advances in Casimire effect 2009 from Oxford press, The book makes a case for Casimir plates being treated as a field source (big sail with a little hole creates a vortex). I combined this with the relativistic interpretation of the Casimir effect and suddenly had a new perspective on catalytic action- Am I way out on a limb describing catalytic action as time dilation ? Again there is no ether to measure but we appear to have reactants exhibiting time dilation. What if we found a way to resist the acceleration such that the casimir effect did useful work in place of time dilation? could that be considered proff of a LET or LET like theory? Sorry, I have no idea... I don't understand the Casimir force well enough to have a clue in this area. Best Regards Fran The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the level of 'speculation'. If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then they don't form a valid theory.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 09:03 PM, Chris Zell wrote: Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of 'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact. In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328 ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In addition, there is also permitivity in a vacuum. Is this a case of 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck'? Suppose you switch to CGS units. What happens to the permitivity of the vacuum?
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. It was within the error bars of the experiment; i.e., it was statistically insignificant. So, a null result conclusion was appropriate. No experiment ever gets a **zero** result, unless it's done with integer arithmetic! If you check your history you'll find that MM themselves expected, and WANTED to see, a nonzero result. They were certainly not trying to support relativity -- they were trying to support the prevailing ether theory! They weren't about to brush a real nonzero result under the rug! Yet they interpreted their result as null also. One of them -- Morley, I think -- invested a lot of time and effort in redoing the experiment, hoping to see something he'd consider nonzero, with no luck. AFAIK only modern anti-relativists have tried to reinterpret the result as indicating some sort of inexplicable drift, which doesn't match any theory, happened to be statistically insignificant, and the detection of which hasn't been replicated. That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, and their experiments where re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal variations he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an argument to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical fluctuations. Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has replicated his results. A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicates that his results were, in fact, within his expected error of zero. In short, his result was also statistically insignificant ... as well as being inconsistent with classical ether theory. See, for instance, http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/physics/0608238 direct link to pdf at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608238 (Roberts is a very smart guy, FWIW, but a bit stiff necked, and liable to lapse into math which is very hard to follow.) As to seasonal variations have you read how Miller's lab was set up? On a mountain top, with canvas walls? Not hard to suspect there might have been some seasonal artifacts running around that lab, eh? and their experiments where re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal variations he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an argument to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical fluctuations. Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that. All you've just said, with the epistemological argument, is relativity doesn't match your intuition. In short, your last paragraph just means, I, Mauro Lacy, don't like relativity. This is a lot like Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics: God doesn't play dice with the universe. Like, Einstein had a direct line to God, and knew that for a fact? Tell me what reality is, and tell me what it means for reality not to be relative, or for relativity to be physically sound, and I may change my mind.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has replicated his results. Miller replicated M M results, with more precision. Both experiments are in good agreement. There were other, more precise experiments afterwards, and all of them obtained different non-null result. It turns out that there's an explanation for the divergences between all the experiments. A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicates that his results were, in fact, within his expected error of zero. In short, his result was also statistically insignificant ... as well as being inconsistent with classical ether theory. No. If you consolidate the results over a full year, the divergences tend to cancel each other. That's the analysis made by his assistant. READ THE PAPERS I've kindly pointed to you, and please stop arguing with old arguments and objections. See, for instance, http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/physics/0608238 direct link to pdf at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608238 (Roberts is a very smart guy, FWIW, but a bit stiff necked, and liable to lapse into math which is very hard to follow.) As to seasonal variations have you read how Miller's lab was set up? On a mountain top, with canvas walls? Not hard to suspect there might have been some seasonal artifacts running around that lab, eh? Think about that. It is you who must think about that, no me. and their experiments where re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal variations he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an argument to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical fluctuations. Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that. All you've just said, with the epistemological argument, is relativity doesn't match your intuition. In short, your last paragraph just means, I, Mauro Lacy, don't like relativity. This is a lot like Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics: God doesn't play dice with the universe. Like, Einstein had a direct line to God, and knew that for a fact? Tell me what reality is, and tell me what it means for reality not to be relative, or for relativity to be physically sound, and I may change my mind. All that is something you'll have to discover for yourself. Nobody would do that for you, because it is impossible. Look, all of what I'm saying have strong experimental and mathematical foundations. Doing the right experiments, and having the right understanding of the results will be enough, because the subjacent reality does not change if your model is wrong. It stubbornly keep working on its own, real way. That's just the way reality works. I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Because the really important thing here is for you to think about it, and to be able to understand it on your own.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. End of conversation.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Mauro, Well, I didn't expect that... um... thanks for the sympathetic ear in a rather dismissive world. I'm actually touched, which I didn't expect. Been feeling a bit jaded lately, I guess, I needed that. I will take some time in the very near future and write up a brief summarizing my collective theories. At the moment I have some priority irons in the fire, releasing a web site for a major undertaking, by months end... Sometime in Feb, if things go smoothly. Until then... Gibson --- On Thu, 1/28/10, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 6:24 PM Gibson Elliot wrote: Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your explanation. That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. There's no reason to be frustrated. Time for some quotes? Understanding. n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse. Ambrose Bierce For in thy Naught I trust to find the All. Goethe. Faust. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. I don't have the time now to engage in a long digression about that. Maybe on another occasion. Besides, I've talked with Daniel Gezari about this, and he's working on a paper presenting an experiment like the one I'm talking about. I've promised to him to keep our talks confidential, so it's better if I don't say anything regarding this experiment, which I've devised on my own, and Daniel on its own. It's a very simple experiment, that's what I can tell openly. End of conversation. And that's your choice. Go read the papers. After that we can continue, if you like. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. I don't have the time now to engage in a long digression about that. Maybe on another occasion. If it's a very simple experiment then it wouldn't be a long digression. Make up your mind! Besides, I've talked with Daniel Gezari about this, and he's working on a paper presenting an experiment like the one I'm talking about. So it's going to be presented in a paper so it's a secret. OK I get the picture.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. I don't have the time now to engage in a long digression about that. Maybe on another occasion. If it's a very simple experiment then it wouldn't be a long digression. Make up your mind! Although the experiment is very simple, explaining its consequences, which are epistemological, can be a little bit long. Besides, I've talked with Daniel Gezari about this, and he's working on a paper presenting an experiment like the one I'm talking about. So it's going to be presented in a paper so it's a secret. As the experiment is a part of my talks with someone who had asked me to keep them confidential, I simply cannot discuss it at the moment. OK I get the picture.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the level of 'speculation'. If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then they don't form a valid theory. but the MM experiment has no way to physically place the second mirror on the time axis. Regards Fran //
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. Let time be the final judge... Gibson From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 4:26 PM Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Stephen, Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. I am aware that my speculation is only just that without predictions and confirmation but as must be obvious from my lack of familiarity with LET I am still gathering my arguments. Can I take it then that Gamma proves the extra dimension is there and the controversey regarding LET is only whether it is occupied by ether or a true vacuum? I just peeked at Wikipedia and Lorentz was promoting a stationary ether, I can see him saying no spatial motion but stationary? this doesn't seem to agree with V^2/C^2 My thoughts aside on LET, I approached this from relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect based on Cavity QED and a new book advances in Casimire effect 2009 from Oxford press, The book makes a case for Casimir plates being treated as a field source (big sail with a little hole creates a vortex). I combined this with the relativistic interpretation of the Casimir effect and suddenly had a new perspective on catalytic action- Am I way out on a limb describing catalytic action as time dilation ? Again there is no ether to measure but we appear to have reactants exhibiting time dilation. What if we found a way to resist the acceleration such that the casimir effect did useful work in place of time dilation? could that be considered proff of a LET or LET like theory? Best Regards Fran The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the level of 'speculation'. If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then they don't form a valid theory.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of 'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact. In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328 ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In addition, there is also permitivity in a vacuum. Is this a case of 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck'?
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Gibson Elliot wrote: Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your explanation. That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. There's no reason to be frustrated. Time for some quotes? Understanding. n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse. Ambrose Bierce For in thy Naught I trust to find the All. Goethe. Faust. Best regards, Mauro
