Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/17/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Light & Matter:Two Modes of the Same Thing."
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- In reply to: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:20:33 -0000
Trevor Morris:
>"Martin Hogbin" <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org> wrote in message
>> Most equations would include an unknown vector representing
>> motion through the aether. This would always drop out as the
>> calculations continued.
>
>All this was of course done by Lorentz, but so much was implicit and now so
>archaic in approach that you are right: a modern exposition is sorely
>needed. However, who would publish it other than what are regarded as crank
>outfits, thereby damning it from birth? And I am certainly not egotistical
>enough to imagine that my authorship would give it any status. Yes, any
>motion through the ether would always drop out, and could for all practical
>purposes be ignored, with calculations done exactly as in standard SR, for
>convenience & simplicity. Just as we don't bother with Band Theory and
>electron drift velocities when happily using Ohm's Law in d.c. circuits.
>However, it certainly becomes useful to know about at least some of the
>underlying mechanisms when a.c. and r.f. calculations have to be done!
I'd be more than happy to discuss band theory, since I doubt you
would accept the explanations it offers. Quantum mechanics is hardly
as straightforward as relativity.
[...]
>> Relativity has been around for nearly a century and it has been
>> critically examined many times.
>
>Well, it is not "relativity" as such which needs questioning: merely the
>attitude that things are that way simply because of a mysterious "principle"
>which acts in an entirely unexplained manner.
You mean just like the principles you choose to ignore and adopt
implicitly without question.
[...]
>>
>> What about the people who wrote the text books?
>
>My impression is that they mostly copy previous authors in the trivial
>matter of dismissing "dead" theories in the opening paragraphs.
There's a good reason for dropping dead theories. The theories are
dead because they are unphysical.
[...]
>
>Absolutely (!) YES!!! How do the planets know the Sun is there, and vice
>versa? Kepler's Laws tell us what happens, but not WHY! That's the
>difference between recipes and science, imho!
And apparently, you prefer recipes.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Light & Matter:Two Modes of the Same Thing."
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- In reply to: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
