Invariance of Light

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6067 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB[: Might this be an example where Occam's Razor fails?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We now understand Occam's Razor in a Beysian context. The simpler of two theories is not the more aesthetically pleasing -- beauty is in the mind of the beholder. It is the theory with fewer degrees of freedom. SR's two unverifiable postulates are an extra two degrees of freedom when compared with a theory like LR that requires neither. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

hal
Offline
New Member

21 years 3 months ago #6068 by hal

Replied by hal on topic Reply from

Well, LR requires a prefered reference frame, while SR requires none. Then LR requires absolute time, while SR requires no such thing. Sincerely, I don't see the difference in the frame of Occam conditions (and, francly, the difference when deciding between theories regards the number of free parameters, among other things - in this sense, SR has a clear advantage against LR).

Finally, I don't see experimental evidence in favour of LR against SR.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jan
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6372 by Jan

Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[TVF]: That is the speed-of-light postulate, the one that you complained about in your previous message.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
This is a telltale sign how contagious these postulates are.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[LB]: There is a debate going on right now on sci.astro about whether or not a theory has to be testable in order to be scientific.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I'd say a physical theory should be testable in any case. Theories that cannot be tested are useful to trigger and spawn new ideas, but at the end of the day we need to test them. Theories should be applicable in my view. Complacency has no future in physics, and accepting that SR is the whole story is absolutely mindless and does not advance the science in any way. Scientists should always question their theories and should try to look for possible better solutions. But this is ideology, not reality I'm afraid.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[LB]: Right. But I thought the aether (in MM, alias the elysium or the gravitational potential field) was supposed to be locally entrained and therefore stationary relative to massive objects. This is why we don't detect an aether wind with an MMX. Which, now that I think about it, is the functional equivalent of a one-clock SOL experiment. (?)

No aether wind, no upstream/downstream effects. And my one-clock-two-detector rig is back in business.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

How did we establish that the SOL is "c" if SR does not allow for *one* clock in a lab? Also, how did we synchronise the clocks? Did we assume "c" again to signal the other clock? Where has common sense gone? The two identical labs seem to be a perfect way for determining the invariance of the SOL. Just consider that these two labs represent different "boxed" realities. Within the labs there is no motion, just the laser with detection equipment. Hence, the internals of both labs are static for observers in the lab. Perhaps naively, but the speed of light is nothing more than the time it took for the laser pulse to hit the detector, and that is exactly the reality for the observer in the lab. What is fundamentally wrong with this test? Note, however, SR is based on postulates, so I can respectfully disagree. Like LB said, it looks as if this rig is "back in business", actually, it was never "out of business".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6473 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvf]
We now understand Occam's Razor in a Beysian context.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"We" would seem to not include most of the current crop of relativity experts. ;-)

"SR is Beautiful - how can it be wrong?" is a common refrain.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvf]
We were speaking of how to test the speed of light without making an assumption (such as entrainment) that implies the answer. Such an experiment cannot be done using light signals or anything slower.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Another difference between SR and LR is that in SR there is no aether, period. This seems like such a fundamental difference that we ought to be able think of a way to exploit it even without FTL signals.

For example, shouldn't a one clock-two-detector experiment on a conveyor belt behave differently (depending on which of LR/SR is correct) as the speed is varied?

If there is truely no aether there can be no upstream/downstream effect at any speed.

If there is an aether then it *must* be entrained - else we would have detected an aether wind with the original MMX. (??)

No difference with SR while at rest, but the upstream/downstream effects should become detectable at some speed. (??)

====

You know, it occurs to me that discussions like this have probably occurred before, and that some of the obvious experiments may even have already been done. A "central repository" of such information seems like a Really Good Thing for mankind to have. But I've looked on a number of occasions over the years, and at least on the Internet there does not seem to be such a thing.

Of course I haven't started looking in the "for pay" services yet ...

[Jan]
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
How did we establish that the SOL is "c" if SR does not allow for *one* clock in a lab? Also, how did we synchronise the clocks? Did we assume "c" again to signal the other clock?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In SR it has not been establish that the SOL is "c". It has been postulated.

Yes, SR syncs them by assuming (postualting) that the SOL is "c".

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jan
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6069 by Jan

Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink

Just to tease our minds again. Consider a high speed rotational platform with a laser mounted on the border and having it point towards the centre. Now, according to SR, the light should not intersect the centre since dragging should occur with high speeds. Any comments on this?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6474 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[hal]: Well, LR requires a prefered reference frame, while SR requires none.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In Lorentz's time (when the theory was still the "Lorentz Ether Theory"), a preferred frame was thought of as universal, and was no more than a postulate. But in modern times, we have been driven by considerations about gravity (as explained in my article "21st century gravity" in the current Meta Research Bulletin) and by experiments to accept that the local gravitational potential field must serve as a local preferred frame. LR is LET with the preferred frame identified in this way. So LR no longer needs a postulate to make that identification.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Then LR requires absolute time, while SR requires no such thing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

LR shows a way to construct a "universal time" out of the times applicable in a set of local preferred frames. The Global Positioning System (GPS) does exactly that -- creates a common time system for all satellite clocks in all orbits and all ground clocks at all latitudes, such that the clocks remain continually synchronized despite high relative velocities and accelerations and even large gravitational potential differences. So it can no longer be doubted, even in an SR context, that a "universal time" can be realized. Again, no postulate needed anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sincerely, I don't see the difference in the frame of Occam conditions (and, francly, the difference when deciding between theories regards the number of free parameters, among other things - in this sense, SR has a clear advantage against LR).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That "clear advantage" is invisible to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Finally, I don't see experimental evidence in favour of LR against SR.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You will find that experimental evidence in the paper cited here. The only thing that can falsify SR is clear evidence for propagation speeds faster than light in forward time, and there are now six experiments showing that gravitational force does exactly that. See “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). A preprint is available under the title "The speed of gravity -- Repeal of the speed limit" at [url] metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gravity.asp [/url].

The paper concludes that SR is now falsified. But its strongest conclusion is that the mere existence of LR as a rival theory means that the universe is not required to obey any speed limit for phenomena. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.286 seconds