Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:42:24 -0800 (PST)
The original choice is the best of all -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton
Imagine that,an entire vocabulary grew up around the choice of
reference frames which Newton give himself and in direct conflict with
the methods and insights of Copernicus which are recognised by Kepler
and Galileo among others.
Here is the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our and their
common orbital around the central Sun hence no hypothetical observer
on the Sun is needed to explain retrogrades -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Want to know where absolute/relative space comes from then understand
Galileo first -
"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .
You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
I love these false challenges,all they ever do is support Newton and
the remarkable choice he give himself,a choice which has no precedence
in Copernican or pre-Heliocentric astronomies.Thankfully ,the rest of
humanity no longer knows nor cares what claims you make or what you
have to say.
On Nov 26, 11:06 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
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
.
- 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: Sagnac Threads United
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- 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
|
