Re: A message to non-relativists
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: I am appaled"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Riddle for the bright minds here"
- In reply to: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Next in thread: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Reply: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:03:09 +0200
"Harold Ensle" <heensle@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aHxxc.7621$uX2.3448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:40c58ed5$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
SNIP
> > This is a physics newsgroup. Modern physics is only concerned with
> testable laws. The relativity laws do work.
>
> EVEN this is not true. (You do not realize how bad it has actually
> become.) The laws of LET work.
Harold, the laws of "LET" *are* the laws of SRT. And I do realise how bad it
has become, for most people here think that SRT was invented and owned by
Einstein. Even you!
> "relativists" claim that SR is true, but
> whenever a practical problem is solved they actually use LET, which is
> a completely different theory. The velocity in LET is absolute, so there
> is intrinsically no contradiction, as the "real" time dilation is always
> singular.
You are right that the explanation for the laws is very different between
Lorentz and Einstein (in fact Minkowski).
But what you wrote there serves as starting point for "LET" (SRT-Lorentz),
the logical development is incomplete:
The velocity in the Lorentz transformations is relative to the chosen frame
of reference.
I am afraid you don't understand the consequences, and therefore you don't
understand Lorentz' relativity theory.
Please allow me to test my fear:
As consequence from Lorentz' theory, when an electron is accelerated to
0.001c it is measured to have increased inertia, but it might actually have
decreased inertia (that is, related to the ether) if it happens to be sent
opposite to the motion of the earth.
Do you agree?
> But they are so stupid they don't realize that they have switched to an
> LET instead of SR. So LET has the success, but SR claims the credit.
Not necessarily. Neverheless I never saw such a big mess and shame for
science:
- people give Einstein the credit for the laws and principles of
Lorentz-Poincare and for Minkowski's interpretation
- the Minkowski interpretation is claimed to be experimentally tested
> > Thus, I assume that with "the most idiotic irrational piece of garbage
> that
> > has ever been thought up" you mean either the explanation of Einstein or
> > Minkowski - which is part of a discussion about metaphysics.
>
> It is not a metaphysical issue.
IMO, what can't be tested with physics experiments is by definiton
metaphysics.
> SR is self contradictory in the very
> "naive" way that is always brought up. Because of the way it depends
> on *only* relative velocity. So while the equations of SR and LET
> look the same, they are applied to the physical world in a very
> different way. The way SR applies the equations, it is intrinsiically
> contradictory, but the way LET applies the equations, it is not.
> Thus SR is ruled out by even the most elementary logic. Only LET
> is left to be challenged in relation to experimental results.
I do agree with you that the popular metaphysical explanation is
self-contradictory.
But it's something one either "sees" or turns a blind eye on.
> An experiment that actually differentiates the two theories has never been
> done. This is why I often state that no experiment has ever been done
> to show mutual time dilation.....because this is what would be required.
??!
> Of course, logic dictates that if such were done it would favor LET.
Now I am sure that my fear was right...
> BTW I do not support the LET, but I do agree that the LET is
> supported by a large number of experiments. (and you might
> notice that I have never claimed that LET is self-contradictory)
Fine. I support SRT with Lorentz' interpretation as likely correct or nearly
so, and I hope to be able to test a promising alternative against SRT later
this year.
Harald
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: I am appaled"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Riddle for the bright minds here"
- In reply to: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Next in thread: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Reply: Harold Ensle: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
