Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

John Kennaugh:
>In message <slrnd8fgsr.51f.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bilge
><dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>> Paul Stowe:
>> >On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:32:08 GMT, dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >(Bilge) wrote:
>>
>> >> Say what? That is even dumber than the comments you usually post.
>> >
>> > Perhaps, but one notices that there's no answer to the simple
>> > question posed.
>> >
>> > "Why should the aether frame be physically unique?"
>> >
>> > Within it lies the answer, so show how 'smart' Bozo the Bile is,
>> > answer the simple question...
>>
>> Because the frame in which the ether is at rest is unique, dunce.
>
>You really haven't grasped this history business have you? Paul's
>question is in essence the same as Einstein's question:

Obviously, iy isn't, since relativity was the answer to einstein's
question. Go post on a newsgroup that's more your speed.

>
>"Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems,
>which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that
>the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician
>such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding
>asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable."
>
>Einstein assumed that the aether frame was not physically unique.
>
>"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
>the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
>consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
>namely, its immobility."
>
>He believed that it was possible to have an aether which did not imply a
>physically unique aether frame. He failed to come up with a concept
>which works which is why he described his theory as a principle theory
>thus maintaining his belief that Lorentz's aether concept was wrong and
>leaving the door open for someone else to find an aether concept which
>does not imply a frame which is physically unique. There must be a
>physical reality which the maths describe. It is one thing to say that
>we don't know what it is, or even that we don't care what it is, but if
>you are suggesting that such an idea is absurd then you are suggesting
>what Einstein was trying to do was doomed to failure, that no
>alternative physical reality exists and we are left with LET.
>--
>John Kennaugh
>"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
>strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
    ... in the aether frame, as we are using only frames moving versus the ... Then, let us consider 2 points, A and B, in the aether frame ... particular IRF. ... I have to ponder over them again, as many physicists like ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
    ... in the aether frame, as we are using only frames moving versus the ... Then, let us consider 2 points, A and B, in the aether frame ...     More than that, from the above, if it is true, results ... I have to ponder  over them  again, as many physicists like ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
    ... in the aether frame, as we are using only frames moving versus the ... Then, let us consider 2 points, A and B, in the aether frame ... than is predicted by relativity. ... I have to ponder  over them  again, as many physicists like ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If c=const, then aether must exist!
    ... in the aether frame, as we are using only frames moving versus the ... Then, let us consider 2 points, A and B, in the aether frame ... than is predicted by relativity. ... I have to ponder  over them  again, as many physicists like ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >>> Because the frame in which the ether is at rest is unique, ... >>Einstein assumed that the aether frame was not physically unique. ... >>"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)