On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: > I have a problem with the M&M 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 M&M > experiment has no > > way to physically place the second mirror on the time axis. > > > > Regards > > Fran > > // >
