Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:18:18 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:474ae283$0$28820$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"John Kennaugh" <J...@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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anyone who understands how Albert managed to dump aether on Isaac as
'absolute space' is in for a treat -
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert
Every Tom,John and Harry can now understand that Isaac would be
livid
that his followers lost the plot even when the guy goes out of
his way to tells you what he thinks of an aether never mind
associating it with 'absolute space' -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless,
but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton
Isaac rejects an aether but his followers in the early 20th century
won't let him and invent an aether to dump back on Newton so they can
reject it all over again under new terms.This used
to be called a mental illness but instead is celebrated as a supreme
human achievement otherwise known as the theory of arbitrary
choices,oh,I mean,the theory of relativity.
Galileo had a comment to make on such fine people as do and believe
these things -
"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill."
GALILEO
Being ill with rage by arguing with a person is far more preferable
than being ill through indoctrination,most here suffer from the
latter .
.
- 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
- Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: harry
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Prev by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- 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
|
