Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 10/18/04
- Next message: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle assAl agrees: A SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Answer to unresolved questions (answer to bill Hobba,to post of 23 July 2004)"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:416fd236$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:ckgs47$ae1@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Paul Stowe wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:29:25 GMT, "Kenneth Ellested"
<ke@jydsk-data.dk>
> wrote:
> > >>Sorry for asking but what is:
> > >>1. LET
> > >
> > > [L]orentz's [E]lectrodynamic [T]heory based upon his 1904 paper
> >
> > What we call LET around here is a synthesis from Lorentz's writings, and
> > not any specific theory he himself described. It is really based on the
> > 1915 edition of Lorentz's _Theory_of_Electrons_[#]. In the notes of that
> > edition he acknowledges the superiority of Einstein's approach, and the
> > better definition of \rho by Poincare'.
> >
> > [#} What Lorentz meant by "electron" is not what we mean by
> > that word today.
> >
> > Specifically, with the definition of charge density (\rho) of Lorentz's
> > 1904 paper, charge is not conserved in a moving system, contrary to
> > observations here on earth. Poincare's definition resolves that
> > discrepancy. In this way, LET becomes experimentally indistinguishable
> > from SR. It also becomes mathematically equivalent to SR, in that any
> > theorem of either theory is a theorem of both; some would say that makes
> > them the same theory, but IMHO that is merely a matter of opinion about
> > what the word "theory" means.
>
> To piggy-back ride on Tom Roberts, indeed it depends on what one means
> with "theory". In modern physics only experiments count for a theory,
> making it the same theory for physics, but not for metaphysics.
Then the 'theory' of SR is the same as the 'theory' of the aether.
For they both 'have' the same experiments.
> However, in the early years - surely because of that fact - the theories
> of Einstein and Lorentz were often not distinguished at all or even mixed
up
> (just read Kennedy-Thorndyke's paper) and both were considered to be just
> different interpretations of relativity, similar to quantum mechanics.
Apparently, that's because they were confused with the Relativists' coining
of the mathematical (and purely SR) term "Lorentz Transform". Such a
two-way mathematical transform did not exist in any of Lorentz' work.
> In
> later years Lorentz' interpretation of SRT had been forgotten
ROTFLMAO!!! Since Lorentz' work came *before* relativity, his work was
never simply an "interpretation" of SR.
> and not long ago it re-emerged under the new label LET,
To which "LET" are you referring?
Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904), Lorentz Electron Theory (circa 1915),
or the Relativist strawman "Almost Absolute-SR" ... that Relativists
sometimes call "LET"?
> even sometimes acting as a straw
> man for the immature SRT predecessor of 1904,
ROTFLMAO! LET is a strawman for SR.
> including misconceptions about it.
Many relativists just love those misconceptions. Like the "absolute space",
"unique frame" and the requirement that it give the same answers as SR.
> But Lorentz did present it then as a new theory,
Citation, please.
> applicable to all
> matter and all forces, and he later called what he taught relativity, not
> "LET".
He also later taught Lorentz' Electron Theory. Did you have a point?
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
- Next message: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle assAl agrees: A SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Answer to unresolved questions (answer to bill Hobba,to post of 23 July 2004)"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
