Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jun 2006 15:57:50 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX nullI heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
that.
There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
foolish
to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
out
of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
the
official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
who
post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.
If SR is correct then so must be LET.
Why would you say that? The two have completely different conceptual
underpinnings and different experimental predictions.
SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame
It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
definition"
you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
apt
description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
that
it appears to be true.
Since when?
There is no believable proof of that Tom.
Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the sameBoth works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.
research
and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
as non-physical as anything can be.
Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical connection.
Contractions are actually REAL.
You mean it is real in the sense that something happens to the rod.
That is what you're calling REAL, and nothing else seems to work as
"real" for you.
The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with theOnly if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
what Einstein believed in himself.
to
accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
math
is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
There
is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
it exits
in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
physical
connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
reality,
true, but it is an excellent tool for us.
Is it?
Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
those effects.
Quantitatively correct ones? No, there're not.
There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.
Sure there is. Neutral kaons exhibit the very same effects as charged
particles. Where the hell have you been?
By necessity, all our tools
have a
connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
tools
for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
the
teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
it
will be used to count real objects.
Well, I have often wondered if the laws of maths would exist in the absence of
everything alse.
I believe they would.
After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
the real
universe without including an ether.
I don't accept that an absolute universal aether exists. Maybe local aetherlike
frames exist but that is all.
My model suggests one that does
not
conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
in a
better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
posters.
If you want an aether, you have to cope with the concept of a 'physical'
infinity.
Why?
For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
here in
these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
me
your email address to: typropress@xxxxxxxxxx It's a work in progress
still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
you are
willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just
in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
can
post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
so
whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
first
pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
work.
Yes, I agree with that.
For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
Yes, again I agree with that.
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
frame".
It is not the scientific way - nor the common-sense way (since some
There are no other answers.
here
believe there is a difference between those terms) - to ever say never,
because, as soon as you say it, sure enough, someone comes up with
another one. However, I agree that until that happens, your above is a
true representation of the reality we must face when we decide to
embark
on making theories that explain our world.
AE was a survivor in a world that conspired against his genius, and
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
while
you may be right in saying all that you say above about him, we are the
better for his perseverence against the outstanding odds he and many
others throughout Man's history who have had to argue against status
quo powers-that-be. By yours and my statements here, we're doing all
we
can to get ourselves heard here in this cacophonous din of conformity.
Yes, OK.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
.
- References:
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: tomgee
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Prev by Date: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Next by Date: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Previous by thread: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Next by thread: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
