Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:

Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame. That is, in any
inertial reference frame, the speed of light in the
free space of this frame is always the same measured
constant in all directions, and all kinetic
interactions appear to have no common velocity
component, and all electrical laws appear to have no
common velocity component.
This appears to be an obvious fact, and it is the
main assumption of SR. Although many claim to see
some variance to these facts (e.g., background
radiation), it appears to be true for all local
measurements.
Now in one subject (thread) being presented on
this net, there were some statements made as to
whether Lorentz compatible characteristics would
exist in a real material ether. For example, what
about the density of this ether? Would it or would
it not be the same measured value, in any arbitrary
reference frame?
To properly address this issue, which I do not
intend to do, the following must be considered.
First of all, LET itself does not insist that reality
is Lorentz compatible. That is (for real examples),
the rates of clocks and the lengths of rulers do not
remain the same in all inertial frames! There are
real changes that do occur, because of velocity
differences. What becomes Lorentz compatible are
only the measurements of these things. And
therefore, whenever a scientific discussion wants to
be made of these things, one has to first determine
exactly what does physically occur. That is, what
really happens! And then, what really happens to the
tools that are going to be used. Then, by knowing
what really happens, both to the thing being
measured, and to the tools being used to make the
measurements, then and only then can anyone say what
will actually be measured.
Thus, when you have a discussion, and no one has
mentioned all these points, then you must know that
the information needed to make a decision has not yet
been put forward, in order for anyone to make a
scientific statement about the subject!
Let us repeat this thought again. When a ruler is
in a moving frame (moving in the ether), its length
has changed. Does this disprove the ether concept?
No! It proves the ether concept because the change
in the ruler is a change that produces a Lorentz
compatible effect, when this changed ruler is used in
the moving frame. When a clock is in a moving frame,
has its rate been changed? Yes! Does this disprove
the ether concept? No! Just saying that there is a
change in things because of being in a different
frame is not sufficient for saying that the ether
will not work!
To say that there would be a change in the density
of the ether if you change frame is not sufficient to
say anything about anything, until you show that it
produces a measurement result that does not match
with reality. And to do this is not easy. It
requires understanding of all the measurement
equipment being used, and how they change, and how
their measuring values would be interpreted, before
any final conclusion could be justified.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

P.S. Is there a change in the density of the gas
inside of a basketball when it is taken into a moving
frame? Its volume has changed. But its measured
volume has not!
When we talk about the density of the ether, we
must also be sure that we know what effects the ether
density has on what is measured because of this
change in density. In a normal gas, the density has
direct effects in terms of the pressure against a
side wall that is holding in the gas. But for the
ether, there is no (very little?) pressure effects at
all. The ether spalls when it hits a wall, and the
results of this spall allows the mass, momentum, and
kinetic energy to essentially go right through the
wall. No ether particle can be confined! Thus, many
of our concepts about a gas, and what a gas can do,
must be changed, when you get to the ether. And
thus, many of these discussions are not too
meaningful! But many of them are, and it is good to
think about some of these points!

Here's another reason that LET (as in the version of LET that you are
supporting) is wrong.

Suppose a platform A is moving at v wrt the ether, to the left.
At t_o two ships B and C are launched simultaneously from A, along x, in
opposite directions, but at equal speeds v wrt A. These travel
respectively a distance of 1 light second from A and decelerate
instantly to rest back the A's frame simultaneously wrt A.

Since B, which is moving to the right at v is at rest wrt the ether,
it's clock is ticking faster than A's clock. Remember it is you who are
positing that the clocks are physically slowed when placed in motion wrt
the ether. C is moving to the left at 2v wrt the ether, and its clock
is ticking slower than A's clock. Upon stopping at their destinations
the instantaneous readings on the A, B and C clocks are jotted down on
pieces of paper for transport back to A for comparison. A notes that Bs
reading is smaller than its own, and C's reading is larger than its own.

Now how do you suppose the readings would compare in the special
relativistic version. Easy, both B and C's readings would agree and
would be lower than A's reading. This is according to the Lorentz
transform.

So regardless of the name on the transform, Lorentz had his head up his
ass. The transform does not allow anything of the sort as the ether that
you are claiming to exist. You cannot arrange for the predictions of
special relativity on the Galilean platform regardless of any physical
changes that you might imagine. It was upon this realization that I
abandoned the pursuit of a Galilean approach.

Tom Roberts posted a lengthy proof of the experimental equality of LET
and Special Relativity, but in the end it is nothing more than the an
argument proving the equivalence of Special Relativity to itself.
Lorentz' premises were abandoned almost immediately, which fact I
pointed out to Tom, but he seemed intent on the fact that they were not
contradicted or abandoned. He was wrong. This is what I meant when I
said that he set me straight on the subject, that is, I was just being
sarcastic. It was my argument with him that led me to understand that
Lorentz' math simply didn't match his verbal arguments.

Richard Perry