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!

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Thanks for responding, even if you did not have anything
to say! For your information, LET is still alive, and so
I am just as happy as I can be! Not only is LET still alive,
but it is even superior to SR! How are you doing?

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Thanks for responding, even if you did not have anything
to say! For your information, LET is still alive, and so
I am just as happy as I can be! Not only is LET still alive,
but it is even superior to SR! How are you doing?

I am doing nicely without Ken Seto's navel.

Dirk Vdm

Well LET may be superior from your novice vantage point. But LET is not
superior, to SR, for those who actually work in experimental physics.

James

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

Richard Perry wrote:



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.

Sorry, I transposed B and C in the last sentence of the above paragraph.
It should've read:

A notes that C's reading is smaller than its own, and B'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.

I'd also like to add that what I couldn't get across to Tom was that he
was continually setting the ether at rest wrt specific frames, e.g.
those frames that allowed equivalence to the special relativistic arguments.

In doing this he was forcing an agreement, since it was after all
Einstein's discovery that the math of the transform required infinite
ethers, one at rest wrt each observer. When an absolute ether is
assumed, as in my gedanken above, LET goes to ****.

Now, seeing that according to the lorentz transform every observer is at
rest wrt the ether, then it follows from this premise that either there
are in reality infinite ethers, or that all observers are at rest wrt
each other. The latter is obvious nonsense, thus the statement of
Einstein's that "if there is an ether, then there must be infinitely
many of them." This is functionally equivalent to "no ethers", in that
the physical effects of the type that you must now posit are identical
to the relativistic effects that Einstein posited. These ethers later
become equivalent to the fields associated with the particles in motion,
that is, space and field are equated later in Einstein's arguments. Thus
there is a mediumsic of sorts, being just the matter itself in the
universe, but this is far from being a separate a distinct medium of the
sort that you are trying to invoke. Read Einstein's little book
"Relativity: the Special and General Theory" for some background on my
statements above.

Richard Perry

RP wrote:
Richard Perry wrote:
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.

Sorry, I transposed B and C in the last sentence of the above paragraph.
. . .

deletes by O'Barr
It does not matter which way you want to correct it, you cannot,
from
a moving frame, send two objects off in oppositie directions to your
motion with equal absolute relative velocities. And thus your
assumptions
as to their times of arrivals are not correct.

Let me make my formal post:
*********************************************
In
and in
Richard Perry wrote:

deletes by O'Barr (globarr)

My heart broke when I read what you wrote. I have
been believing that you had a firm understanding of
what you have been posting. And now I find that you
have known nothing! What a loss. I guess I was just
dreaming.
I am not going to directly answer you. My tears
will not let me. How can you have heard Tom fully
explained to you that these were the same theories,
and yet you still want to believe that they are
different so much that you even invent reasons for
them to be different! Shame on me for not having
seen that you were not what you had presented
yourself to be! I will not make that mistake again.

To help you see your problem more clearly, let us
say that A has a velocity of .99c to the right. And
then let us say that B is sent to the right with a
velocity of .5c, and C is sent to the left with a
velocity of .5c, all as measured in frame A. Can you
not see that these two particles, B and C, are not
leaving A with equal velocities? Particle B will be
going to the right with an absolute velocity
somewhere between +.99c to +c. Body B can essentially
be said to be moving only a little faster than A.
But body C, moving to the left, could be moving, in
an absolute sense, more than .5c away from body A.
What is trying to be pointed out to you, is that
the absolute velocity difference between body A and B
is less than one percent of c, but the absolute
velocity difference between body A and C is very much
greater. And thus, for these velocity differences,
the time it takes for Body B and C to reach equal
distances from Body A will be enormous. Body A will
take a long time to get to its end point, but Body C
will take very little time. Thus, Body B will show
less time than that normally shown, not because of
any clock rate changes, but due to these velocity
changes. Did you forget about these velocity
changes?

There exists in relativity what is called the
velocity addition rule, and thus, when an object is
sent to the right, or to the left, they do not really
move at an absolute rate that would be relatively
equal. And because they are moving at these
different rates, their actually arrival times will
not be as you say they will be. Their actual arrival
times will be just enough different that the error
you think occurs will not occur, and will actually
appear to be as SR would says it would be. I am so
sorry that no one has pointed out such things to you.
But what can I say, other than that I am sorry. I
am more sorry that you have such feelings that you
are not even willing to believe what you have been
told, like from Tom Roberts. He is correct in his
pointing our that LET math is the same as SR math.
They predict the exact same answers. But to do it in
LET takes a pain and a half to get all the facts put
together. I cannot change any of this, but you need
to reconsider your problem.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr !

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:

RP wrote:

Richard Perry wrote:

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.

Sorry, I transposed B and C in the last sentence of the above paragraph.
. . .


deletes by O'Barr
It does not matter which way you want to correct it, you cannot,
from
a moving frame, send two objects off in oppositie directions to your
motion with equal absolute relative velocities. And thus your
assumptions
as to their times of arrivals are not correct.

Let me make my formal post:
*********************************************
In
and in
Richard Perry wrote:

deletes by O'Barr (globarr)

My heart broke when I read what you wrote. I have
been believing that you had a firm understanding of
what you have been posting. And now I find that you
have known nothing! What a loss. I guess I was just
dreaming.
I am not going to directly answer you. My tears
will not let me. How can you have heard Tom fully
explained to you that these were the same theories,
and yet you still want to believe that they are
different so much that you even invent reasons for
them to be different! Shame on me for not having
seen that you were not what you had presented
yourself to be! I will not make that mistake again.

To help you see your problem more clearly, let us
say that A has a velocity of .99c to the right. And
then let us say that B is sent to the right with a
velocity of .5c, and C is sent to the left with a
velocity of .5c, all as measured in frame A. Can you
not see that these two particles, B and C, are not
leaving A with equal velocities? Particle B will be
going to the right with an absolute velocity
somewhere between +.99c to +c. Body B can essentially
be said to be moving only a little faster than A.
But body C, moving to the left, could be moving, in
an absolute sense, more than .5c away from body A.
What is trying to be pointed out to you, is that
the absolute velocity difference between body A and B
is less than one percent of c, but the absolute
velocity difference between body A and C is very much
greater. And thus, for these velocity differences,
the time it takes for Body B and C to reach equal
distances from Body A will be enormous. Body A will
take a long time to get to its end point, but Body C
will take very little time. Thus, Body B will show
less time than that normally shown, not because of
any clock rate changes, but due to these velocity
changes. Did you forget about these velocity
changes?

There exists in relativity what is called the
velocity addition rule, and thus, when an object is
sent to the right, or to the left, they do not really
move at an absolute rate that would be relatively
equal. And because they are moving at these
different rates, their actually arrival times will
not be as you say they will be. Their actual arrival
times will be just enough different that the error
you think occurs will not occur, and will actually
appear to be as SR would says it would be. I am so
sorry that no one has pointed out such things to you.
But what can I say, other than that I am sorry. I
am more sorry that you have such feelings that you
are not even willing to believe what you have been
told, like from Tom Roberts. He is correct in his
pointing our that LET math is the same as SR math.
They predict the exact same answers. But to do it in
LET takes a pain and a half to get all the facts put
together. I cannot change any of this, but you need
to reconsider your problem.

Damn you're a funny guy! Why don't you just read the book that I
suggested to you?

Here again is what Roberts does wrong:
He starts from the ether frame, transforms to the frame of A. Moves B
and C at v wrt A, then transforms back to the ether frame to calculate
clock ticks. Clock ticks are calculated wrt the ether frame, not wrt the
frame of A as specified in the argument. In the ether frame, indeed,
according to the lorentz transform there was an asymmetry of the motions
of B and C wrt A. Problem is, this is no longer Lorentz, it's Einstein.

When Roberts transforms back to A to calculate ticks of the clocks B and
C he sets A at rest wrt the ether, since this is exactly what the
lorentz transform accomplishes. Thus he has two ethers in motion wrt
each other, and yet maintains that A was in motion wrt the ether
throughout. Bull****. He's made precisely the same error as Lorentz, you
know, the one that Einstein called him on. This is all a matter of
history, you are aware of that aren't you?

Richard Perry

"RP" wrote in message ...

[snip]


Damn you're a funny guy! Why don't you just read the book that I
suggested to you?

Because just like you, he wouldn't understand it.
Imagine that he would start reading the book and then,
just like you, start spouting his nonsense all over the place ;-)

Dirk Vdm