| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Tech Forum » Fatal error in Lorentz Ether Theory
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser |
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
harry wrote in news:1170327863_2682@sicinfo3.epfl.ch :
: Of course, you could say that in SRT one has an "expanded" view of the
: moving distance that is at any time next to one's ruler due to the
: apparent contraction of the moving system.
My impression is that our positions have converged at least a little.
And such a convergence of different beliefs should be a goal in any
discussion. Here I'll content myself with a revised version of the
contraction/expansion part of my previous posting.
Cheers, Wolfgang
________________________________________________________________________
Let us take a 6 m long (rest length) ruler moving at v = 0.8 c in
the ether, as described in the article:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9db6b5df54b79f1d
(See APPENDIX for my treatment/summary of the example)
In Lorentz ether theory the ether-length dx = 3.6 m of the contracted
ruler corresponds to physical reality. Nevertheless, a local "proper
length" of dx' = 6 m' is ascribed to the ruler. If we assume moving-
ruler simultaneity dt' = 0, we get from the Lorentz transformation:
dx = gamma * (dx' + v*dt') --> dx = gamma * dx'
= (5/3) * 6 m' = 10 m
This ether distance of 10 m has a very concrete meaning. Let us assume
that along the whole length of the ruler are small flash lamps next to
each other. If they fire all at the same time (S'-simultaneity) then
the distance between the first and the last flash is 10 m in the ether.
However, the flashes do not appear at the same time in the ether
(S-simultaneity): at first appears the flash from the rear end, and
80/3 nano-seconds later the last flash from the front end. During
these 26.666 ns the ruler moves 6.4 m, so increasing the distance
from the contracted length of 3.6 m to the expanded of 10 m.
Let us further assume that the flash lamps fire at t' = 0 in red,
at t' = 25 ns' in blue, at t' = 50 ns' again in red, and so on.
Because the next firing always occurs, when the rear end passes the
ether position where the flash from the front end fired the last time,
this represents a measurement of ether distances using the ruler
length of 6 m'. In the ether this results in a light source apparently
moving at 0.8 c and changing after each a length unit of 10 m from
red to blue or inversely.
So it should be obvious that only inasfar (S'-simultaneity) as the
ruler expands from 6 m' to 10 m wrt the ether, ether distances can
contract wrt the ruler, e.g. from 6 m to 3.6 m'.
So in Lorentz ether theory, three basic length-unit changes can be
distinguished:
1) Contraction of objects moving wrt the ether, caused by concrete
physical effects
2) Expansion of moving objects, caused by different durations
(wrt ether simultaneity) of the movements of the different
points of the moving objects
3) Apparent contraction of the ether, resulting from the expanded
length units of moving objects.
The expanded length of a moving object is physically real also
inasfar, as it is the sum of the paths of synchronization light
signals from the center to both ends. For an apparent contraction
of ether distances wrt the WHOLE moving object, it is therefore
required that the FRONT END of the contracted object moves
inertially long enough in the ether, so that ITS distance from
the rear end can increase from L/gamma to L*gamma.
Let us assume a ruler with rest length of 2 light years moving at
v = 0.9999995 c (gamma = 1000). So the distances from the center to
each end are contracted to 0.001 LY wrt the ether. Ether distances
passed by synchronization light signals from the center to the rear
and to the front each are:
to_rear = 0.001 LY / (c + v) * c = 0.0005 LY
to_front = 0.001 LY / (c - v) * c = 1999.9995 LY
------------
2000.0000 LY
The physical expansion in the ether from the contracted 0.002 LY to
2000 LY is caused by constant MOVEMENT of the front, STARTING when
the rear after 0.0005 years receives the synchronization signal, and
ENDING 1999.999 years later when also the front receives the signal.
Such expansions by physical movement are a precondition for any
apparent contraction of ether distances wrt to moving objects.
As an accentuation of the thought experiment, let us ask what
happens if the 2 LY long ruler performs a circular movement with
an orbit of 2000 LY. In the ether, the length of the ruler is
contracted to 0.002 LY. As measured by the ruler, the orbit must
contract in the same way as local time is expanded, because
otherwise dx'/dt' does not result in v.
Thus the 2 LY' long moving ruler has to ascribe the same length
to the orbit as to itself: 2000 LY / gamma = 2 LY'. This means
concretely: under moving-ruler simultaneity', the ruler is expanded
over the whole 2000 LY of the orbit, and the front of the ruler is
next to the rear at the same time'.
________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX:
A ruler with a rest length of 6 m passes at v = 0.8 c a rod of the
same length at rest in the ether.
The length dL' = 6 m' of the ruler is contracted by gamma in the ether:
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 1/sqrt(1-0.8^2) = 5/3 = 1.666
dL = dL' / gamma = 6 m' / (5/3) = 3.6 m
Time intervals dt' of clocks fixed on the ruler (x' = const) are
dilated/expanded wrt to the ether time: dt = dt' * gamma
ruler --> v = 0.8c
|--------+--------| rod
|=============================| v = 0
< - - 3.6 m - - > < - - - - - 6 m - - - - - >
< - - - - - - - - - - 10 m - - - - - - - - - - >
Clocks on both ends of the ruler are synchronized using a light signal
from the center of the ruler. In the ether system, the light signal to
the right clock (in front) needs
1.8 m / (c-v) = 1.8 m / 0.2 c = 30 ns
and passes an ether distance of 30 ns * c = 9 m. The light signal to
the left clock (in the rear) needs only
1.8 m / (c+v) ) 1.8 m / 1.8 c = 10/3 ns = 3.333 ns
and passes an ether distance of only 3.333 ns * c = 1 m. Thus in the
ether, the rear clock is ahead of the front clock by:
time_offset = 30 ns - 10/3 ns = 80/3 ns = 26.666 ns
Wrt the dilated/expanded time of the moving clocks, the time offset' is
time_offset / gamma = 26.666 ns * (3/5) = 16 ns'.
t'=0 t'=-16ns'
|--------+--------|
|=============================|
Fig. 1
t'=1ns' t'=-15ns'
|--------+--------|
|=============================|
Fig. 2
t'=10ns' t'=-6ns'
|--------+--------|
Fig. 3 |=============================|
t'=16ns' t'=0
|--------+--------|
Fig. 4 |=============================|
t'=25ns' 9ns'
|--------+--------|
Fig. 5 |=============================|
Let us define t' = 0 as the moment, the right clock of the ruler
passes the right end of the rod (Fig. 4). The left clock then
(ether simultaneity) indicates t' = 16 ns'.
The distance passed by the left clock of the ruler between Fig 1. and
Fig 5. is 10 m. During a movement of 10 meters a clock advances (local
time) by
dt' = 10 m / 0.8 c * gamma = 10 m = (0.24 m/ns) / (5/3) = 25 ns'
In order to determine the proper speed v' as measured from the moving
ruler, we can use Fig. 4 und Fig. 5. The right end of the rod passes
at t' = 0 the right clock of the ruler, and at t' = 25 ns' the left
clock. So wrt the ruler, the right rod end moves dL' = 6 m' in
dt' = 25 ns', resulting in a proper speed of v' = dL'/dt' = 0.8 c.
In order to determine length contraction of the rod at rest wrt to
the moving ruler, we can take the left ruler end of Fig. 1 and the
right ruler end of Fig. 4, both at the same local time t' = 0. The
distance between these two ends is 10 m in the ether. And because to
these 10 m corresponds a proper length of 6 m', the 6 m long rod
contracts to 6 m' * (6 m / 10 m) = 3.6 m' wrt the ruler.
_______________
-- The Lorentz transformation today plays the role the principle
-- of circular motion played in the old (pre-Keplerian) astronomy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Kennaugh |
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote: 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote:
'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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:48 pm
|
|