Re: Definition of LET and SR (was: Re: MMX, Contraction and Constancy)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:13:56 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Paul Stowe  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:18:30 -0600, Tom Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Some consequences of LET:
>>>     1. The Lorentz transforms relate coordinates in a moving frame
>>>        to those in the "fixed frame" (which is commonly referred
>>>        to as the ether frame).
>>>     2. In the moving frame, using the above coordinates, Maxwell's
>>>        equations are valid.
>>>     3. As a result of (2) and the fact that electromagnetic forces
>>>        determine the lengths of common rulers and the tickrate of
>>>        common clocks, the coordinates above are measured by clocks
>>>        and rulers at rest in the moving frame.
>>>     4. As a consequence of the structure of the Lorentz transforms,
>>>        they are valid between any pair of moving frames, as well as
>>>        in (1).
>>>     5. As a consequence of all the above, the ether frame is not
>>>        observable using electromagnetic phenomena (e.g. using
>>>        clocks, rulers, and light rays).
>>
>> I'd rephrase this as,
>>
>>       As a consequence the rest frame of the aether cannot be
>>       determined using any physical system consisting of, and
>>       made from matter.  The aether itself is quite 'observable'
>>       by its manifestations of its basic continuum distributed
>>       effects...  
>
> I assumed he meant the rest frame is not observable in the sense that, 
> well, we can't demonstrate that it exists.  You can look at the usual 
> electromagnetic effects and just say they're a manifestation of the 
> aether, but you can't work through your data and show that the aether 
> velocity with respect to Earth is ______.

 Earth's velocity with respect to the aether is 370 km/sec.  Which is
 revealed by the distinctive directional Doppler in an otherwise
 isotropic photonic field called the CMBR.

> Anyway, as I understand it, LET is a theory of electromagnetism, not 
> necessarily a theory of gravity or nuclear forces, ...

 Neither is SR.  However, like SR Lorentz's postulates can be logically
 extended to include these.

> ... while relativity is a universal theory of mechanics. ... 

 Not so.  Einstein's title of the 1905 paper says it all.  But, being
 based upon the abstract concept of 'by definition' (a principle) it
 also can be logically extended to other processes.

> ... So you might imagine an experiment that, I don't know, measures
> whether gravitational effects travel at c or c+v in a way that doesn't
> depend on LET-related influences on the apparatus that would hide the
> effect.  Or the transformation laws of nuclear forces.

 LET as Lorentz proposed it assumes material systems physically contract
 when in motion.  So, if you have a system of material object separated
 'in space' and not connected does the space between them contract?

 This provides a means that, in principle, could be the basis for
 discriminating between the two concepts.

 Paul Stowe