Re: A message to non-relativists
From: Harold Ensle (heensle_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 06/12/04
- Next message: Gwar: "Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter."
- Previous message: Gwar: "Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter."
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:59:29 GMT
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:40c83f23$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Harold Ensle" <heensle@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aHxxc.7621$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!
No, I am aware of others, but I thought that Einstein provided the
currently accepted interpretation.
> > "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:
Don't write "fear" as there should be nothing frightening about it.
However, you may be right that I do not understand LET. I learned
SR in school, but the only thing I know about LET is from what
has been posted in this group.
> 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?
No. It would always have to increase inertia (relative to the observer)
> > 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.
After thinking about it some more, I understand what you are saying.
> > 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.
Well, now I don't see it. If LET is not self-contradictory,
how can SR be 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...
You were right. I was confusing LET with something else...
(and I could use a nutshell reminder of LET interpretation.)
> > 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.
Good Luck.
BTW After thinking about this further, I have decided that
my previous long winded speech was just a lot of nothing.
H.Ellis Ensle
- Next message: Gwar: "Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter."
- Previous message: Gwar: "Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter."
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
