Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:14:04 +0000
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:06 am, John Kennaugh < 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. [...]
Both LET and SR share the same mathematics --- the Lorentz transform.
Correct
They are, in each, merely different interpretations to the same
mathematics.
Not strictly true. LET does provide an interpretation the modern version of SR offers none. One is maths + an interpretation which no one likes the other is just maths.
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to prove which
interpretation is wrong.
As SR now offers none it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to show that they are different theories. What physics has done it to change the rules such that physical interpretation is now an unnecessary adjunct to the maths. Put simply Einstein objected to the asymmetry in the physical interpretation of LET and avoided it by coming up with a 'theory' without any physical interpretation rather than an improved theoretical structure.
SR is a 'principle theory' which is a fancy name for a mathematical model - a mathematical model identical to Lorentz's maths.
The only reason it isn't an 'aether theory' is that as a mathematical model it does not attempt to address anything to do with physical processes. Whether there is or there isn't an aether (as per Lorentz) is therefore beyond its terms of application.
One has to feel sorry for Lorentz. If he had published his mathematical model without explaining what it was describing it would be his theory not Einstein's but then Galilao wouldn't have been thrown in jail if he had published his mathematics predicting the motion of planets without the physical theory which went with them. The church was quite happy with the maths it was his insistence that the maths were describing a sun centred solar system which got him into trouble. Now the physics establishment is acting like the church of old. It is an article of faith that there is no aether and they are much happier with just the maths despite the fact that it owes its origin to belief in the aether.
Tiz a funny old world. The aether is considered a ridiculous idea but parallel universes are very fashionable at the moment.
Since the Lorentz transform manifests the
nonsense of the twin's paradox as well as relative simultaneity, both
conjectures of LET and SR are manure of the same pile in height and
odor.
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: oriel36
- Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- 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: Koobee Wublee
- A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is It Worth Asking Real Questions Here?
- 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
|
