Perhaps you have overlooked a key point. How do you propose to
synchronize clocks which are spatially separated? That's not a trivial
question.
On 04/23/2011 04:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> What you may not be aware of is that the final (most mature?) version of
>> Lorentz's aether theory included physical contraction of objects which
>> were in motion relative to the aether along the line of motion, and
>> included a time dilation effect on objects which were in motion relative
>> to the aether. The result was a set of transformation equations which
>> were, in fact, identical to the ones used by Einstein (the "Lorentz"
>> transforms, please note, not the "Einstein" transforms). Consequently,
>> in the final version of LET ("Lorentz Ether Theory"), motion relative to
>> the aether is *not* detectable, despite the fact that the aether is not
>> being "dragged" by bodies moving through it. (Aether drag always seemed
>> to me to be a rather dicey way to explain anything, for a number of
>> reasons.)
>>
>
> I couldn't care less, Stephen.
Then you apparently missed the point, and apparently don't understand
either SR or LET.
> In the proposed experiment, we have two synchronized clocks, and a ray
> of light. I don't need to *calculate* anything using Lorentz or
> Einstein transforms.
The *calculation* is what leads to the theory's prediction, of course,
and if you want to know what result is predicted, you *do* need to
calculate something. The *measurement* is what either confirms or
refutes the prediction.
>
> Well, according to the experiment I'm proposing, movement relative to
> the ether must be detected, or the velocity of light cannot be thought
> of as constant, or the ether is entrained by physical objects.
Wrong; the experiment does not lead inevitably to such a conclusion.
According to your *assumptions* one of those must be true. The
experimental result is not bound by your assumptions. And in fact both
SR and LET provide models in which the experiment produces a null result
*and* both of your alternative conclusions are false.
> Again, and first and foremost: what's the expected outcome of the
> experiment I'm proposing?
According to LET (or SR) (or any experiment carried out to date) you
will not detect a transit time difference as a result of sending a beam
of light in one direction or another.
None the less, in both theories, the speed of light in vacuum is
constant and independent of the emitter's motion.
