Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached thing must be to make sense.
I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the multitude of problems that arise. And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then again an ether does not appear to be required. So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space and time are relative for each observer. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Berry <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. You must realize though that you are now expressing faith (in the beliefs, work, assumptions and integrity of others) and holding it above logic. The problem is compounded because that is what they did too! Now an entrained aether, and LET give about the same predictions for all these experiments that are used as evidence for SR. The advantage is that it isn't logically indefensible without intimidating someone or just saying it is because we say so. Please understand that it isn't just you, no one has ever answered these questions. If they could be answered, I'm sure they would have by now, I am not the only one to make these arguments. John
