Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- From: oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:04:56 -0800 (PST)
On 28 Nov, 21:14, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
You are not even good at politics and suffer the same indoctrination
about Galileo as you do about everything else.When Galileo decided to
stupidly put the words of the Pope in the mouth of Simplicio and
expect no response then you are a greater fool in matters of politics
as you are in heliocentric astronomy,even if Galileo tempered his
opinion of the Pope (via Simplicio),a man of such power as the Pope
knows the consequences of such mockery,heliocentric theory or no
heliocentric theory -
"I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous. Therefore let us continue
with our good Simplicio, who has long been known to me as a man of
great ingenuity and entirely without malice. Besides, he is intimately
familiar with the Peripatetic doctrine, and I am sure that whatever he
does not think up in support of Aristotle's opinion is not I likely to
occur to anybody" Galileo
No wonder the Pope felt betrayed !.
As for your kind,there is no known precedence for approaching and
resolving retrogrades in the manner of the framehopping Newton -
" 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
This era represents history like mental midgets,fashioning whatever
story to suit whatever conclusions.I lament the loss of individuals
with courage who can deal with the material as men instead of
indoctrinated mentalities.
I see you only trying to escape the feedback loop between relativity
and Newton but the thing is,you never escape the errors of Newton.
.
- 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
- Re: 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: 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
|
