Re: A message to non-relativists
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 06/13/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Theory of Einstein-Andersen-Moortel-Sal"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Muon Decay as a Clock"
- 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: 13 Jun 2004 09:11:06 -0700
"Harold Ensle" <heensle@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<Bcvyc.10804$uX2.8875@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "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.
That is correct, or almost. The currently accepted interpretation is
that of Minkowski.
SNIP
> > 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)
Relative to which observer? I meant relative to Lorentz'ether, inertia
may actually decrease (although we can't know of course).
SNIP
> > 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.
I am happy to hear that some of my contributions are not in vain.
> > > 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?
The mathematical consistency of SRT has been extensively tested. In
that sense we can be quite sure that it isn't self contradictory. But
in the way you formulated it yourself above, a proposed interpretation
can be self-contradictory because interpretation can be independent of
mathematics.
SNIP
> > 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.)
Here is an attempt:
In the Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of SRT, the relativistic
effects are caused by movement relative to a stationary ether, and
these same effects can be shown to hide such movement from
observation.
Harald
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Theory of Einstein-Andersen-Moortel-Sal"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Muon Decay as a Clock"
- 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
|
