I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Best regards

Beda pietanza

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Thanks
Bill

"beda pietanza" wrote in message om...
I would like some comment on the following:


[snip]

Here is number four:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ether.shtml

Dirk Vdm

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

Best regards

Beda pietanza

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

The crux of science however is does theory match with exprimenet and the
logical consitency of the theory. That is all.


Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.


Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Thanks
Bill

(beda pietanza) wrote in message . com...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.


That depends on how one defines "physical meaning." For Einstein's
part, an invisible ether or an invisible Principle of Relativity are
both useful for making deductions within a theory, but Einstein just
couldn't accept the loss of the pure Principle of Relativity from the
foundations of physics (in Lorentz's theory) just for the sake of the
mechanical "expanations" afforded by the hypothesis of the
luminiferous ether. Besides, a principle is usually "better" than a
hypothesis any day.

Patrick

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

Beda the following is a good derivation of the Lorentz transformations:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Note it has nothing to do with light.
All this business about OWLS and TWLS are really irrelevant to what SR is on
about.

Thanks
Bill

(beda pietanza) wrote in message . com...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Best regards

Beda pietanza

xxein: Kool! With the proper reservations. Is it moving? Does it
have an architecture?

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.


Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

Suppose a laser or microwave beam is run parallel to the poles in
the CMB, traversing a distance of 93 miles. An atomic clock, accurate
to about two nanoseconds per hour, keeps track of the time it takes
the modulated beam to reach it. wouldn't this constitute an owls
measurement accurate to two feet per hour?

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Thanks
Bill

"Old Physics" wrote in message
...

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are
isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.


Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is
being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and
for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

Suppose a laser or microwave beam is run parallel to the poles in
the CMB, traversing a distance of 93 miles. An atomic clock, accurate
to about two nanoseconds per hour, keeps track of the time it takes
the modulated beam to reach it. wouldn't this constitute an owls
measurement accurate to two feet per hour?

Sure (of course I am assuming your experimental bounds are correct - I have
no reason to doubt it) - except for one thing. Evidently it does not rule
out 'conspiracy' type theories. You have an atomic clock at one end and an
atomic clock at the other to measure time difference. Now since your
doubting one way light speed one must sync them by slow clock transport. It
turns out for a certain class of aether theories (no I do not know their
detail - I have simply been assured they do exist see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html) the
affects of an aether will cause the clocks sync to change in slow clock
transport in an amount just enough to fool you into thinking OWLS = TWLS
even when such is not the case. See what I mean by 'conspiracy' theory.
Now for my take on this - OWLS, TWLS are red herrings. The real content of
SR lies in the POR. It all by itself determines the Lorentz transformation
up to an unknown constant. Many experiments identify that constant with the
speed of light. But of course what your doing in this case is taking the
isotropy of the frame as an assumption - an assumption that would seem
experimentally beyond our capacity to prove experimentally.

Thanks
Bill


We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local
clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem
occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not
actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we
have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Thanks
Bill