From Bill Hobba, message of 23 July 2004 (just discovered)
Bill Hobba wrote:
Even carefully designed experiments designed to detect an aether failed. It
would be rather interesting the hear of day to day experiments that found
it.

Answer, by Joseph Levy
There are a number of arguments speaking in favour of a privileged
aether frame.
1. astronomical observations
Anisotropy of the redshift of many distant galaxies
Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave background radiation
Muon flux anisotropy

2. Marinov's coupled mirrors experiment
Marinov's toothed wheels experiment

3. And above all, more recently the analysis of M.M experiments in Gas mode
made recently by Reg Cahill in his article "Michelson and Morley
experiments revisited and the Cosmic background radiation preferred
frame" Apeiron, vol 10 n° 2 April 2003
Available in Apeiron's web site http://redshift.vif.com
I advise this fundamental article most interesting.

All these experiments speak in favour of a privileged aether frame
whose relative speed wrt the Earth frame is about 300 Km/sec.

The theoretical arguments are displayed in my book, "From Galileo
to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron publisher, http://redshift.vif.com

Cordially Joseph Levy

"joseph levy" wrote in message
...

From Bill Hobba, message of 23 July 2004 (just discovered)
Bill Hobba wrote:
Even carefully designed experiments designed to detect an aether failed.
It
would be rather interesting the hear of day to day experiments that found
it.

Answer, by Joseph Levy
There are a number of arguments speaking in favour of a privileged
aether frame.
1. astronomical observations
Anisotropy of the redshift of many distant galaxies
Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave background radiation
Muon flux anisotropy

None of the above provides any evidence against the POR. Remember the POR
says the laws of physics are the same in an inertial frame or a frame
traveling at constant velocity wrt to such a frame. Now if a preferred
frame did exist then we would have a detectable wind in frames traveling at
content velocity to an inertial frame breaking the isotropy of such a frame
and implying it can not be inertial in violation of the POR. Anisotropy of
the redshift of many distant galaxies is antisotropy of something contained
in a frame - not something inherent in the frame itself so it does not
provide a privileged frame - same for Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave
background radiation - that can be screened out. To provide evidence of a
privileged frame that breaks the POR you would need to demonstrate that
property is an inherent part of that frame eg the Trouton Noble experiment
showing that the laws of EM are not the same in all inertial frames - laws
of physics are an inherent part of a frame. Now I am not an expert on
particle physics but what I do know is that the standard model can explain
all known particle physics including Muon flux anisotropy. And the standard
model is based on QFT; a combination of SR and QM. SR is a theory built on
the POR - it is logically impossible that such a theory would predict
something it specifically rejects.


2. Marinov's coupled mirrors experiment
Marinov's toothed wheels experiment

I am not an experimental. type but my understanding is that the above
experiment is fully explainable using SR. Your links to peer reviewed
literature showing otherwise is eagerly awaited. I am afraid for something
as revolutionary as the claim an aether definitely does exist we need more
than your say so.


3. And above all, more recently the analysis of M.M experiments in Gas
mode
made recently by Reg Cahill in his article "Michelson and Morley
experiments revisited and the Cosmic background radiation preferred
frame" Apeiron, vol 10 n° 2 April 2003
Available in Apeiron's web site http://redshift.vif.com
I advise this fundamental article most interesting.

The CBMR does not violate the POR - it can be screened out unlike a
preferred frame which is supposed to be an inherent feature of a frame such
as an aether that that light was supposed to be undulations of.

Bill


All these experiments speak in favour of a privileged aether frame
whose relative speed wrt the Earth frame is about 300 Km/sec.

The theoretical arguments are displayed in my book, "From Galileo
to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron publisher, http://redshift.vif.com

Cordially Joseph Levy

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"joseph levy" wrote in message
...

From Bill Hobba, message of 23 July 2004 (just discovered)
Bill Hobba wrote:
Even carefully designed experiments designed to detect an aether failed.
It would be rather interesting the hear of day to day experiments that
found it.

Answer, by Joseph Levy
There are a number of arguments speaking in favour of a privileged
aether frame.
1. astronomical observations
Anisotropy of the redshift of many distant galaxies
Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave background radiation
Muon flux anisotropy

None of the above provides any evidence against the POR. Remember the POR
says the laws of physics are the same in an inertial frame or a frame
traveling at constant velocity wrt to such a frame.
Now if a preferred frame did exist
then we would have a detectable wind in frames traveling
at content velocity to an inertial frame breaking the isotropy
of such a frame

Yes, that would be the case. This would simply be a disproof of the primary
postulate. Not a 'breaking' of isotropy.

and implying it can not be inertial in violation of the POR.

Actually, it says nothing about being inertial. It simply means that light
moves within (and relative to) the aether. The aether has no need to be
inertial.

Anisotropy of
the redshift of many distant galaxies is antisotropy of something
contained in a frame

The subject under discussion was the anisotropy of the CMBR. Not the
anistoropy of the 'redshift of many distant galaxies'.

- not something inherent in the frame itself so it does not
provide a privileged frame

There is no such thing as a 'frame' at all in aether theories. Not
'priveledged.' Not 'inertial.' Not 'preferred.'

- same for Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave
background radiation - that can be screened out.

Shutting one's eyes does not make an observable entity disappear!

To provide evidence of a
privileged frame that breaks the POR you would need to demonstrate that
property is an inherent part of that frame

Horsefeathers. All one has to do is disprove the primary postulate. One
does not have to prove something within a postulate that is already
disproven.

eg the Trouton Noble experiment
showing that the laws of EM are not the same in all inertial frames

The TN experiment does not demonstrate the "laws of EM" at all. Nor does it
say anything about "ALL" inerital frames. It doesn't even say anything
about *ONE* inertial frame. Because it wasn't done in an inertial frame.

- laws
of physics are an inherent part of a frame. Now I am not an expert on
particle physics but what I do know is that the standard model can explain
all known particle physics including Muon flux anisotropy.

If you aren't an expert, you can't come to your conclusion. All you can do
is say "I believe this, because somebody told me so."

And the standard
model is based on QFT; a combination of SR and QM. SR is a theory built
on the POR - it is logically impossible that such a theory would predict
something it specifically rejects.

Tautologies aren't very interesting. The point is, that experiment trumps
theory. Stating that other theories incorporate a lower-level theory (i.e.
SR) into their substance is not support for the lower-level theory.

2. Marinov's coupled mirrors experiment
Marinov's toothed wheels experiment

I am not an experimental. type but my understanding is that the above
experiment is fully explainable using SR.

Again, Billy's assumption of what he wants to exist. He has no reason to
believe, yet he does. Simply because an authority figure told him so, once
upon a time.

Your links to peer reviewed
literature showing otherwise is eagerly awaited. I am afraid for
something as revolutionary as the claim an aether definitely does
exist we need more than your say so.

Of course, demands for proof are the mark of a Priest. Not a scientist.

What Billy is doing is simply trying to shift the burden of proof. Every
experiment ever claimed as support for SR is also support for Lorentz'
electrodynamic theory of 1904. Yet Relativists such as Billy trumpet that
SR should be chosen and aether theories banned from discussion. That
position requires proof. Since Billy and company have no such evidence,
they claim that you must prove their position wrong.


3. And above all, more recently the analysis of M.M experiments in Gas
mode
made recently by Reg Cahill in his article "Michelson and Morley
experiments revisited and the Cosmic background radiation preferred
frame" Apeiron, vol 10 n° 2 April 2003
Available in Apeiron's web site http://redshift.vif.com
I advise this fundamental article most interesting.

The CBMR does not violate the POR - it can be screened out

Only by erasing the data. Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

unlike a
preferred frame which is supposed to be an inherent feature of a frame
such as an aether that that light was supposed to be undulations of.

A convoluted runon sentence filled with lies.

Even if we ignore the CMBR, we can do a simple timing test with light and
disprove the PoR that Billy claims, above. Such has never been done, or
published. Care to guess why?


All these experiments speak in favour of a privileged aether frame
whose relative speed wrt the Earth frame is about 300 Km/sec.

The theoretical arguments are displayed in my book, "From Galileo
to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron publisher, http://redshift.vif.com

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"joseph levy" wrote in message
...

From Bill Hobba, message of 23 July 2004 (just discovered)
Bill Hobba wrote:
Even carefully designed experiments designed to detect an aether
failed.
It would be rather interesting the hear of day to day experiments that
found it.

Answer, by Joseph Levy
There are a number of arguments speaking in favour of a privileged
aether frame.
1. astronomical observations
Anisotropy of the redshift of many distant galaxies
Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave background radiation
Muon flux anisotropy

None of the above provides any evidence against the POR. Remember the
POR
says the laws of physics are the same in an inertial frame or a frame
traveling at constant velocity wrt to such a frame.
Now if a preferred frame did exist
then we would have a detectable wind in frames traveling
at content velocity to an inertial frame breaking the isotropy
of such a frame

Yes, that would be the case. This would simply be a disproof of the
primary
postulate. Not a 'breaking' of isotropy.

and implying it can not be inertial in violation of the POR.

Actually, it says nothing about being inertial.

No - by definition inertial frames are isotropic.

It simply means that light
moves within (and relative to) the aether. The aether has no need to be
inertial.

Anisotropy of
the redshift of many distant galaxies is antisotropy of something
contained in a frame

The subject under discussion was the anisotropy of the CMBR. Not the
anistoropy of the 'redshift of many distant galaxies'.

- not something inherent in the frame itself so it does not
provide a privileged frame

There is no such thing as a 'frame' at all in aether theories. Not
'priveledged.' Not 'inertial.' Not 'preferred.'

Frame is a concept applicably quite generally - it is defined as a
conventional standard of rest against which experiments can be done.


- same for Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave
background radiation - that can be screened out.

Shutting one's eyes does not make an observable entity disappear!

It however proves it is not an inherent part of the frame which an aether
must necessarily be to break the POR or else one could simply say the
physics involves screened out regions - which it does ie inertial frames are
not considered to contain the CBMR unless specifically sated. to count as
an aether it must be an inherent part of the frame such as the medium that
is supposed to contain the undulations of light. Since the existence of
such a medium involves find laws such as Maxwell's equations it in principle
would not be able to be removed.

Bill


To provide evidence of a
privileged frame that breaks the POR you would need to demonstrate that
property is an inherent part of that frame

Horsefeathers. All one has to do is disprove the primary postulate. One
does not have to prove something within a postulate that is already
disproven.

eg the Trouton Noble experiment
showing that the laws of EM are not the same in all inertial frames

The TN experiment does not demonstrate the "laws of EM" at all. Nor does
it
say anything about "ALL" inerital frames. It doesn't even say anything
about *ONE* inertial frame. Because it wasn't done in an inertial frame.

- laws
of physics are an inherent part of a frame. Now I am not an expert on
particle physics but what I do know is that the standard model can
explain
all known particle physics including Muon flux anisotropy.

If you aren't an expert, you can't come to your conclusion. All you can
do
is say "I believe this, because somebody told me so."

And the standard
model is based on QFT; a combination of SR and QM. SR is a theory built
on the POR - it is logically impossible that such a theory would predict
something it specifically rejects.

Tautologies aren't very interesting. The point is, that experiment trumps
theory. Stating that other theories incorporate a lower-level theory
(i.e.
SR) into their substance is not support for the lower-level theory.

2. Marinov's coupled mirrors experiment
Marinov's toothed wheels experiment

I am not an experimental. type but my understanding is that the above
experiment is fully explainable using SR.

Again, Billy's assumption of what he wants to exist. He has no reason to
believe, yet he does. Simply because an authority figure told him so,
once
upon a time.

Your links to peer reviewed
literature showing otherwise is eagerly awaited. I am afraid for
something as revolutionary as the claim an aether definitely does
exist we need more than your say so.

Of course, demands for proof are the mark of a Priest. Not a scientist.

What Billy is doing is simply trying to shift the burden of proof. Every
experiment ever claimed as support for SR is also support for Lorentz'
electrodynamic theory of 1904. Yet Relativists such as Billy trumpet that
SR should be chosen and aether theories banned from discussion. That
position requires proof. Since Billy and company have no such evidence,
they claim that you must prove their position wrong.


3. And above all, more recently the analysis of M.M experiments in Gas
mode
made recently by Reg Cahill in his article "Michelson and Morley
experiments revisited and the Cosmic background radiation preferred
frame" Apeiron, vol 10 n° 2 April 2003
Available in Apeiron's web site http://redshift.vif.com
I advise this fundamental article most interesting.

The CBMR does not violate the POR - it can be screened out

Only by erasing the data. Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

unlike a
preferred frame which is supposed to be an inherent feature of a frame
such as an aether that that light was supposed to be undulations of.

A convoluted runon sentence filled with lies.

Even if we ignore the CMBR, we can do a simple timing test with light and
disprove the PoR that Billy claims, above. Such has never been done, or
published. Care to guess why?


All these experiments speak in favour of a privileged aether frame
whose relative speed wrt the Earth frame is about 300 Km/sec.

The theoretical arguments are displayed in my book, "From Galileo
to Lorentz and beyond", Apeiron publisher, http://redshift.vif.com

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

None of the above provides any evidence against the POR. Remember the
POR says the laws of physics are the same in an inertial frame or a
frame traveling at constant velocity wrt to such a frame.
Now if a preferred frame did exist
then we would have a detectable wind in frames traveling
at content velocity to an inertial frame breaking the isotropy
of such a frame

Yes, that would be the case. This would simply be a disproof of the
primary postulate. Not a 'breaking' of isotropy.

and implying it can not be inertial in violation of the POR.

Actually, it says nothing about being inertial.

No - by definition inertial frames are isotropic.

That is the question under discussion, of course. Whether that really is
the case, or not. To be specific, does the speed of light vary from
inertial frame to inertial frame. Even one frame that shows the speed of
light to be non-isotropic disproves the Postulate.

It simply means that light
moves within (and relative to) the aether. The aether has no need to be
inertial.

Which is a great advantage of the aether.

{snip uncommented attempt at diversion into redshift of galaxies}

- not something inherent in the frame itself so it does not
provide a privileged frame

There is no such thing as a 'frame' at all in aether theories. Not
'priveledged.' Not 'inertial.' Not 'preferred.'

Frame is a concept applicably quite generally - it is defined as a
conventional standard of rest against which experiments can be done.

It is so defined in SR, yes. However, only SR makes this definition.
Aether theories do not need inertial coordinate systems. Nor do they need a
standard of rest. Because the aether is presumed to be a fluid, which can
be in motion relative to itself.

- same for Anisotropy of the 2.7° K microwave
background radiation - that can be screened out.

Shutting one's eyes does not make an observable entity disappear!

It however proves it is not an inherent part of the frame which an aether
must necessarily be to break the POR

Complete logical disconnect. Aethers don't have frames at all. All one
needs to do is to disprove the postulate.

or else one could simply say the
physics involves screened out regions

Screening out a wave in a fluid does not screen out the fluid.

- which it does ie inertial frames
are not considered to contain the CBMR unless specifically sated.

Of course, the real universe doesn't care what we use for our measurements.

to count as
an aether it must be an inherent part of the frame such as the medium that
is supposed to contain the undulations of light.

Why do you constantly repeat this pathetic inconsistency? Aethers don't
have inertial frames. Mediums don't have inertial frames.

Since the existence of
such a medium involves find laws such as Maxwell's equations it in
principle would not be able to be removed.

There are no "laws" handed down by God in physics. There are only equations
that result from theories and/or postulates. In the case of Maxwell's
equations, Maxwell derived them using a superfluid aether. Hence, removing
a specific set of waves from the medium would not remove the medium.

Bill

Which you could have understood, if you'd simply read the rest of the post.

To provide evidence of a
privileged frame that breaks the POR you would need to demonstrate
that property is an inherent part of that frame

Horsefeathers. All one has to do is disprove the primary postulate.
One does not have to prove something within a postulate that is
already disproven.

eg the Trouton Noble experiment
showing that the laws of EM are not the same in all inertial frames

The TN experiment does not demonstrate the "laws of EM" at all. Nor
does it say anything about "ALL" inerital frames. It doesn't even say
anything about *ONE* inertial frame. Because it wasn't done in an
inertial frame.

- laws
of physics are an inherent part of a frame. Now I am not an expert
on particle physics but what I do know is that the standard model
can explain all known particle physics including Muon flux
anisotropy.

If you aren't an expert, you can't come to your conclusion. All you can
do is say "I believe this, because somebody told me so."

And the standard
model is based on QFT; a combination of SR and QM. SR is a theory
built on the POR - it is logically impossible that such a theory would
predict something it specifically rejects.

Tautologies aren't very interesting. The point is, that experiment
trumps theory. Stating that other theories incorporate a lower-level
theory (i.e. SR) into their substance is not support for the lower-level
theory.


I am not an experimental. type but my understanding is that the above
experiment is fully explainable using SR.

Again, Billy's assumption of what he wants to exist. He has no reason
to believe, yet he does. Simply because an authority figure told him
so, once upon a time.

Your links to peer reviewed
literature showing otherwise is eagerly awaited. I am afraid for
something as revolutionary as the claim an aether definitely does
exist we need more than your say so.

Of course, demands for proof are the mark of a Priest. Not a scientist.

What Billy is doing is simply trying to shift the burden of proof.
Every experiment ever claimed as support for SR is also support for
Lorentz' electrodynamic theory of 1904. Yet Relativists such as Billy
trumpet that SR should be chosen and aether theories banned from
discussion. That position requires proof. Since Billy and company have
no such evidence, they claim that you must prove their position wrong.


The CBMR does not violate the POR - it can be screened out

Only by erasing the data. Closing your eyes does not make things go
away.

unlike a
preferred frame which is supposed to be an inherent feature of a frame
such as an aether that that light was supposed to be undulations of.

A convoluted runon sentence filled with lies.

Even if we ignore the CMBR, we can do a simple timing test with light
and disprove the PoR that Billy claims, above. Such has never been
done, or published. Care to guess why?

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}