Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: "kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:21:28 -0500
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jdPKP9ChiqSHFwTw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The reason I am aiming this post at Tom is that I know that he is one of
the few people on this NG who has actually studied Lorentz Ether Theory
from the mathematical PoV.
My understanding - from a previous post of Tom's - is that in LET what
you do (in theory) is apply the Lorentz transforms to and from the
aether FoR. The fact that it is impossible to identify the aether frame
is less of a problem than it would seem because the Lorentz transforms
are such that you can arbitrarily choose any FoR as the aether frame
without affecting the answer.
I am not concerned here with the intellectual route which led to SR or
the intellectual differences between SR and LET merely in mathematical
terms how the two theories are related. In LET one can arbitrarily
choose any FoR as the ether frame so the option is open to always choose
the observer's FoR as the ether frame. Mathematically SR is the
equivalent of doing just that which is why SR and LET are mathematically
equivalent.
The ether frame has the following two exclusive properties:
1. The speed of light in the rest frame (absolute rest) of the ether is
isotropic c.
2. All the clocks moving in the ether run slower than the clock at rest
(absolute rest) in the ether.
In LET the observer assumes that he is at rest in the ether frame and the
LT is derived based on this assumption. That's why a LET observer claims
that all the clock moving wrt him are running slow.
In SR Einstein choose the exclusive properties of the ether as the
postulates of SR and from that he derived the LT.
That's why SR and LET has the same math.
Ken Seto
Now it occurs to me that this, the SR approach, is actually one of two
possible approaches which would rid LET maths of the totally arbitrary
and unnecessary complication of an aether FoR. The other is to do LET
maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame. Obviously
this is not going to change any predictions - it is a legitimate way of
doing LET maths and LET maths and SR maths are equivalent.
Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is simply
mathematical modelling, and as the historical route to SR is no longer
considered a necessary part of modern physics, even perhaps something of
an embarrassment, then one way of mathematical modelling would appear to
be as good as any other provided it gives the same answers.
Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer. The alternative
approach, choosing the source as the aether frame does not do this and
therefore has potential to be simpler while giving the same answers.
It is possible that there is some point I have missed but I was
wondering if that approach has been tried, how it works out in practice.
Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making the
source frame and aether frame one and the same so this approach might be
a way by which the predictions of relativistic maths and ballistic
theory are more easily highlighted.
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: John Kennaugh
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the so called FlyBY anomaly originated by the LASOF ellipsoid?
- Next by Date: Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Previous by thread: Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Next by thread: Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
