Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:38:03 +0100
"kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:474ae283$0$28820$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[...]
"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.
In LET the observer assumes that he is at rest in the ether frame and the
LT is derived based on this assumption.
It has been long clear that you don't understand SRT. Here you demonstrate
that you don't have a clue about "LET". But that was to be expected: as SRT
follows from "LET", it's rather hard to understand "LET" but still not
understand SRT.
Harald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: kenseto
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Prev by Date: Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Next by Date: Re: why selfestablished relativists hates partial differential equations?
- 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
|
