Re: What is LET?

Martin Hogbin:
>
>"dej4" <clujdej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138321586.235441.304020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thank you, Martin
>>
>> What makes LET indistinguishable from SR? Who decided that? This group?
>
>No, the entire physics community. It is a well known fact.
>Although the term LET is not widely used, Lorentz's theory
>was well known to physicists. Both theories are result in
>the same Lorentz transformations (the clue is in the name).

Actually, that isn't true if one insists on absolute simultaneity,
even in principle.

>> Because if this is the case, I have seen the direct counterproof
>> PROVIDED that LET (according to Mati) indeed operates with c'=c+v and
>> c'-c-v (i.e LET seems to be a ballistic theory).
>
>No. LET is not a ballistic theory. In LET light always propagates
>with the same speed with respect to the aether. That is why it is
>an aether theory.
>
>The Lorentz transformations are in agreement with all
>experiments within their field of applicability, thus they
>support SR and LET equally.
>
>
>Martin Hogbin
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is LET?
    ... >> Martin Hogbin: ... >>>No, the entire physics community. ... >> Actually, that isn't true if one insists on absolute simultaneity, ... >It is for all observable quantities in LET. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is LET?
    ... > Martin Hogbin: ... >>No, the entire physics community. ... > even in principle. ... It is for all observable quantities in LET. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is LET?
    ... > Martin Hogbin: ... >>>>Do you dispute that LET uses the Lorentz transformations? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is LET?
    ... > Martin Hogbin: ... >>Do you dispute that LET uses the Lorentz transformations? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)