Answer to Harry (See previous discussion, below)

Dear Harry

I am not sure of having understood your question.
The important point is that, assuming an aether frame,
one can derive the space time transformations by submitting
the Galilean transformations to the distortions entailed by
length contraction clock retardation, and arbitrary clock
synchronization.
This is an important result, because it suggests that the real
transformations are the Galilean ones.
Another consequence of this approach,is that although
the speed of light obeys the Galilean composition of velocities
law , that is c' = c + v, or c' = c - v, due to the measurement
distortions, it is systematically found invariant.
These results are demonstrated in my papers "Extended
space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory",
in my web site, or more in more detailed explanations in my
book, "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron
publisher web site http://redshift.vif.com
(Note that the Lorentz transformations appear to be only a
particular case of the extended space-time transformations)

This is I think new, but please inform me whether I have
answered your question.

Cordially,
Joseph


Previous discussion
Dear Harald
Astronomical and experimental obsevations show that the speed
of the Earth frame with respect to the aether frame should be of the
order of 300 Km/sec. The maximum length of a rod is in the aether
frame. But we must be aware that when clocks are synchronized
by means of the Einstein-poincaré method, a systematic distortion is
introduced (because we have carried out this synchronization in
assuming that the speed of light was constant).
In order to measure a rod AB in motion with respect to the Earth
frame as Einstein recommended, we must measure the distance separa-
ting two clocks displaying the same time placed in the Earth frame
in front of A and B.
Insofar as the synchronization of the clocks is not correct, the
length of the rod AB will appear different from its real length.
Prokhovnik demonstrated that even the rod of the aether frame
will appear contracted, although it is not.

This Lorentz symmetry has been explained many times, first by Poincare in
1904.

In fact the Lorentz transformations are the experimental ones,
but they do not give the true values. In order to obtain the true
values, we must correct the systematic measurement distortions.

You still didn't tell us anything new.

If this queston interest you you can consult my paper "Hidden
variables in Lorentz transformations" in the web site
http://www.levynewphysics.com
Best regards,
Joseph

Can you point out what is new about it?

Cheers,
Harald

"joseph levy" wrote in message
...

Answer to Harry (See previous discussion, below)

Dear Harry

I am not sure of having understood your question.

The question is what you add to the writings of Lorentz and Poincare.

The important point is that, assuming an aether frame,
one can derive the space time transformations by submitting
the Galilean transformations to the distortions entailed by
length contraction clock retardation, and arbitrary clock
synchronization.

It's an important point but one century old, and regularly rediscovered
(Ives, Builder, Tom Roberts, and now you).

This is an important result, because it suggests that the real
transformations are the Galilean ones.
Another consequence of this approach,is that although
the speed of light obeys the Galilean composition of velocities
law , that is c' = c + v, or c' = c - v, due to the measurement
distortions, it is systematically found invariant.
These results are demonstrated in my papers "Extended
space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory",
in my web site, or more in more detailed explanations in my
book, "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron
publisher web site http://redshift.vif.com
(Note that the Lorentz transformations appear to be only a
particular case of the extended space-time transformations)

This is I think new, but please inform me whether I have
answered your question.

I found nothing new in what you wrote here. Possibly there is something new
in the "beyond" part (you did not tell us enough about that).

Sincerely,
Harald