Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670859

Re: Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract? 2

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Stefan Ram wrote:
> > amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
> >> factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred
> >
> >   Many physicists and critics pretty much see Ching-Chuan
> >   Su's local-ether model as a solution in search of a problem.
> >   While it tries to offer a classical, common-sense take on
> >   electrodynamics, it runs into some serious headwinds when
> >   held up against Special and General Relativity.
> >
> >   SR accounts for the Michelson-Morley wash through two simple
> >   postulates: physical laws are invariant and light speed is
> >   a constant. Critics argue that tacking on a physical "ether"
> >   that gets dragged along is just an ad hoc move that muddies
> >   the waters without actually boosting predictive power.
> >
> >   Su's model falls back on Galilean relativity. Critics point
> >   out that Maxwell's equations are naturally Lorentz-invariant;
> >   trying to shoehorn them into a Galilean frame usually means
> >   having to doctor them with extra terms that don't have any
> >   independent experimental legs to stand on.
> >
> >   A classic knock against "dragged" ether models is stellar
> >   aberration. If the ether were totally dragged by the
> >   Earth's surface, as Su claims for local tests, critics
> >   argue we wouldn't see this shift at all.
> >
> >   GR reads gravity as spacetime curvature where the metric is
> >   a dynamical field. Su's model treats the ether as a physical
> >   medium that thickens with gravitational potential. Critics
> >   argue GR's geometric path is way better at calling the shots
> >   on big-picture stuff like black holes.
> >
> >   Mainstream physics hinges on the Einstein Equivalence
> >   Principle (EEP), which says the laws of physics are the
> >   same in any local free-fall frame. Su's model brings in a
> >   specific reference frame, which critics say flies in the face
> >   of a symmetry that's been tested to the nth degree.
> >
> >   Some modern folks suggest GR is basically an ether theory where
> >   "spacetime" is the medium. But they argue Su's version is a
> >   dead end because it doesn't lead to the heavy-duty math that
> >   defines GR's biggest wins.
> >
> >   Su chalked up a tiny signal in the 1979 Brillet-Hall test to
> >   ether-wind. Critics stick to the story that these signals are
> >   just thermal noise or gear instability, since they don't track
> >   with seasonal cycles the way a real ether-wind would.
> >
> >   Su claimed his model nailed the Sagnac effect in GPS better, but
> >   mainstreamers point out the standard correction used in GPS fits
> >   SR like a glove when you run the numbers in a non-rotating frame.
> Reads like written by an LLM.

An Ai-generated rewrite.



> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract? 2 amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> - 2026-04-27 18:05 -0400
  Re: Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract? 2 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-04-29 20:14 +0000
    Re: Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract? 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-30 03:36 +0200
      Re: Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the  abstract? 2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-29 19:49 -0700

csiph-web