Re: What is LET?

Martin Hogbin:
>
>"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:slrndtkf64.5j.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>
>It is for all observable quantities in LET. As for unobservable
>quantities, I have never seen one on my life.

When someone wants to give me his/her definitions which suffice
to define absolute simultaneity, I'll point out the observable
differences.


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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?
    ... >>> Actually, that isn't true if one insists on absolute simultaneity, ... of a universal time and of being 'stationary', ... experimentally verified theory of gravitation. ... Martin Hogbin ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is LET?
    ... >No, the entire physics community. ... >the same Lorentz transformations. ... >an aether theory. ... >Martin Hogbin ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)