Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jul 2006 12:21:51 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Jun 2006 04:56:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
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.
The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
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).
Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
Einstein actually got it right...but for entirely the wrong reason....and he
became famous partly for this erroneous 'proclamation'.
Henri Wilson got it right for the RIGHT reasons yet his fame is so far
recognized by few outside this NG's intelligencia.
Regardless -- Einstein's predictions are not outlandish, are they? You
don't quibble with the results, you just quibble with the reasons?
And so all this garbage about there being no experimental support for
Einstein's predictions is just that -- garbage -- isn't it, Henri?
Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.
I'm not sure I follow what you think the distinction is. Lorentz
posited a physical process which affected the inherent physical
properties of objects. Einstein asserted that these properties are what
we *measure*, and that there is no deeper (inherent)
observer-independent quality that these are expressions of.
According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of that.
It's pretty easy. I don't know why you have such a difficult time with
it.
The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world.
I don't know why you would say that.
According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of that.
I just told you, it's pretty easy. I see you are still having problems
with that.
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.
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".
Those are certainly possible answers, though not the only ones.
Moreover, these answers appear to be the wrong ones.
Give me another then...
Sure, where would you like to begin reading about SR? A short,
superficial book, or a longer, more detailed one?
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".
And why would you need them to become real "physical" effects, whatever
that means?
A physical effect is like that which supposedly makes a GPS clock run slow
because it is moving wrt the GO. (of course, in actual fact it doesn't run
slow)
Nonsense, that is an artifact of frame of reference. Nothing physical
is happening to the clock.
When two different observers seeing the *same* car at the *same* time
measure different speeds for the car, is that a physical effect?
There are no other answers.
That would be a position of ignorance.
That is the only way light from differently moving sources could find a common
travel speed.
As I said, that would be a position of ignorance. Henri: "If I don't
know it, then it doesn't exist."
PD
.
- 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
|
