|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: DesDes Date: Aug 2, 2007 06:08
Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
frame for superluminal signal? This means things
don't really move backward in time when seen in another
inertial frames because there is a preferred reference frame
in LET. Now isn't it LET is also compatible with Special
Relativity because you simply make real object contract and
time dilate in a real aether when pressed against
objects producing null in the M&M experiment??
Lorentz Aether Theory compatible with SR and
superluminality. The best of all worlds!
Or has LET been debunked already?? Don't try to
love our Einstein garden variety SR for mere elegance.
Even in quantum gravity. The curveness of space in GR
can be just a secondary effect of gravitons
moving in a flat minkowski space. Likewise Special
Reality can really be the result of Lorentz Aether
Theory dynamics. What do you think? This can
solve a lot of problems.
des
|
| |
|
| | 182 Comments |
|
|
Author: harryharry Date: Aug 2, 2007 07:10
>
> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal?
Lorentz theories did not allow for superluminal signals.
Harald
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Don StockbauerDon Stockbauer Date: Aug 2, 2007 07:15
On Aug 2, 9:10 am, "harry" wrote:
>> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
>> frame for superluminal signal?
>
> Lorentz theories did not allow for superluminal signals.
> Harald
Maybe the best way out of this is to adopt a Zen-like attitude and
have no preferences for anything, just accept what you have.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShubeeShubee Date: Aug 2, 2007 07:17
On Aug 2, 6:08 am, Des yahoo.com> wrote:> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal? This means things
> don't really move backward in time when seen in another
> inertial frames because there is a preferred reference frame
> in LET. Now isn't it LET is also compatible with Special
> Relativity because you simply make real object contract and
> time dilate in a real aether when pressed against
> objects producing null in the M&M experiment??
>
> Lorentz Aether Theory compatible with SR and
> superluminality. The best of all worlds!
>
> Or has LET been debunked already?? Don't try to
> love our Einstein garden variety SR for mere elegance.
> Even in quantum gravity. The curveness of space in GR
> can be just a secondary effect of gravitons
> moving in a flat minkowski space. Likewise Special
> Reality can really be the result of Lorentz Aether
> Theory dynamics. What do you think? This can ...
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom RobertsTom Roberts Date: Aug 2, 2007 07:59
Des wrote:
> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal?
No. Because the LET ether frame is completely unobservable. That is,
there is no possible experiment that can determine the ether frame, and
no observable prediction of the theory depends upon which frame one
chooses as the ether frame for a computation (that is two different ways
of saying the same thing).
Our current best theories of physics have no superlumenal signaling, and
are essentially incompatible with it. Most physicists take the attitude
that we'll worry about it if and when it is observed. No superlumenal
signaling has been observed to date (some press reports claim it has
seen seen, but they are distortions of the actual results).
Tom Roberts
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: funk420funk420 Date: Aug 2, 2007 08:03
On Aug 2, 9:08 am, Des yahoo.com> wrote:> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal? This means things
> don't really move backward in time when seen in another
> inertial frames because there is a preferred reference frame
> in LET.
This is a common claim, that there is a preferred reference frame in
aether theories of spacetime. I don't see this at all.
The supposed preference for the aether rest frame is no different from
a calculational preference for any inertial frame, e.g. the CMBR frame
or the rest frame of the sun, or that of the laboratory. Indeed the
rest frame of the aether is not necessarily the same in different
locations or at different times.
|
| Show full article (1.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: rotchmrotchm Date: Aug 2, 2007 08:29
On Aug 2, 9:08 am, Des yahoo.com> wrote:> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal? This means things
> don't really move backward in time
Yes. But be careful. We all interpret the meaning of 'superluminal
signal' differently here. In physics (and SR and LET), superlumianl
*effects* are possible and have been known for quite some time:
L. Rayleigh, Theory of sound, Second ed. (1894), first ed. (1877).
L. Brillouin, Wave propagation and group velocity, (Academic, New
York, 1960)
A. Ranfagni, D. Mugnai, "Anomalous pulse delay in microwave
propagation: A
case of superluminal behavior", Phys. Rev. E 54, 5692 (1996)
M. J. Chodorowski, "Superluminal apparent motions in distant radio
sources".
Am. J. Phys . 73 (7), pp. 639-643 (2005)
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Uncle AlUncle Al Date: Aug 2, 2007 10:24
Des wrote:
>
> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
> frame for superluminal signal?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bill SnyderBill Snyder Date: Aug 2, 2007 10:49
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:24:48 -0700, Uncle Al hate.spam.net>
wrote:
>Des wrote:
>>
>> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
>> frame for superluminal signal?
>[snip crap]
>
>Cures hemorrhoids, too, and HIV, cancer, psoriasis, amoebiasis,
>canthariasis, satyriasis...
How is it on extreme gullibility?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: IgorIgor Date: Aug 2, 2007 11:02
On Aug 2, 10:17 am, Shubee gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 2, 6:08 am, Des yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Can Lorentz Aether Theory be used a preferred reference
>> frame for superluminal signal? This means things
>> don't really move backward in time when seen in another
>> inertial frames because there is a preferred reference frame
>> in LET. Now isn't it LET is also compatible with Special
>> Relativity because you simply make real object contract and
>> time dilate in a real aether when pressed against
>> objects producing null in the M&M experiment??
>
>> Lorentz Aether Theory compatible with SR and
>> superluminality. The best of all worlds!
>
>> Or has LET been debunked already?? Don't try to
>> love our Einstein garden variety SR for mere elegance.
>> Even in quantum gravity. The curveness of space in GR ...
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
