Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: kenseto <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 15, 2:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:03 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:19 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:18 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:45 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A LET observer makes the following assumptions:
1. A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the
ether.
Not necessarily. There might be a particular observer that is at rest
in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make
this assumption in LET. I'll assume this is what you meant.
Ah but a LET observer does assume that he is in a preferred frame, the
ether frame.
No, he does not. In this you are simply wrong. Lorentz, who is the
author of LET, does NOT say that the observer makes any assumption of
being in the ether frame. Lorentz himself says an observer may or may
not be in the ether frame. He did make some remarks about what the one
observer that IS at rest wrt the ether will measure, but he certainly
did not say that any observer makes the same assumption.
Sigh....it is irrelevant what Lorentz said.
This is funny, Ken. First you make a comment about what Lorentz's
theory says (which was an incorrect comment), and then you say it's
irrelevant what Lorentz said. Don't you think that's funny? I think
it's hysterical.
This post is becoming too long. I will make the following comments:
1. Only the observer at rest in the ether frame can claim that all the
clocks in the universe moving wrt him are running slow and all the
rods moving wrt him are contracted.
2. When Lorentz came up with a theory that claims the above he is
assuming that the LET observer is at rest in the ether frame.
3. Therefore it is irrelevant what Lorentz said about his theory.
4. Similarly an SR observer claims that all the clocks in the
univserve moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods moving wrt
him are contracted. This is true only if the SR observer assumes that
he is in a state of absolute rest....you SRians call this as the rest
frame of the observer.
Ken Seto
What is relevant is that
the resulting math (derived from the assumption of physical length
contraction and clock slowing) is the math of the rest frame of the
ether.
In other words, in your mind, the Lorentz ether theory is what YOU say
it says, not what it really says. What a wonderful policy. "I reject
your reality, and substitute my own."
As I've told you repeatedly, Ken, it would help enormously if you
would actually read what the originators of the theory said about the
theory, rather than just guessing.
I am not guessing.....the math of LET that says that all clocks moving
wrt the observer are running slow and all rods moving wrt the observer
Not any "the" observer, but one "the" observer in particular -- the
one "the" observer that happens to be at rest wrt to the ether.
are physically contracted can only happen if the observer is in a
state of absolute rest in the ether.
That's why he used the ether frame to derive his math
No, he didn't. This is an error of fact. What are you reading about
how he derived his math?
Why don't you answer this question, Ken? You never say what the source
material is from which you've extracted your understanding of LET and
SR. Surely you are *reading* something about these theories, aren't
you? What, exactly, have you read?
and
the result is that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow an dall
rods moving wrt him are contracted.
2. The speed of light in the rest frame of the LET observer is
isotropic c.
In the rest frame of this particular observer, yes.
Yes he uses the ether frame derive his math.
No, he doesn't.
Yes he did...his math says that all clocks moving wrt the observer are
running slow. This is true only if the observer is at rest in the
ether.
Then you haven't read his theory. In the stuff that he ACTUALLY WROTE,
he also does the math for an observer that is *moving* with respect to
the ether. And here you say, having not actually read what he actually
wrote, that he couldn't have written that, because you don't
understand it. Please understand something about FACTS, Ken. Just
because you do not understand a FACT, does not mean that is not a
FACT. It is a FACT that he actually wrote something different than
what you think he wrote, and you say nevertheless that he could not
have meant that. This is where your detachment from reality, Ken, and
your complete inability to back down from a simple error, is going to
keep you from making progress.
3. All clocks moving wrt the LET observer are running slow by a factor
of 1/gamma. This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe.
According to LET, all clocks moving wrt to the *ether* are running
slow. If this is what you meant, yes. It means that the rate of the
clock that is at rest with respect to the *ether* is the fastest
running clock in the universe.
Right...so the LET observer uses the ether frame as his frame of
reference to do calculations. That is thwe same as assuming that he is
at rest in the ether frame.
Not so. He also does the calculation for one observer moving wrt the
ether, looking at another clock moving at a different speed wrt the
ether.
No he does not....if he did he would have include the possibility that
the observed clock can run at a faster rate than his clock.
No, that is explicitly NOT what he does. He DOES the calculation for
an observer moving relative to the ether. The fact that you don't see
how that works simply means that you do not understand his theory.
Remember, Ken, it is LORENTZ'S theory, not yours. The fact that you
don't understand it does not mean that you get to change his theory.
If you don't understand it, then you have to work harder to understand
what he really said.
According to LET, all sticks moving wrt to the *ether* are contracted.
This means that the physical length of the meter stick at rest wrt to
the *ether* is the longest stick in the universe.
Right the let observer he is at rest in the ether frame and that's why
all the rods moving wrt him are contracted.
5. Absolute time exists.
An SR observers makes the following assumptions:
1. All inertial frames are equivalent....this includes the ether
frame.
Not quite. All inertial frames are equivalent, period. There is no
ether frame.
Sure quite. SR never said that there is no ether frame.
Yes, it does. It doesn't rule out an ether, but it does say there is
nothing physically special about the frame in which the ether is at
rest. It says that explicitly.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. It EXPLICITLY states this. Again this is a problem with
FACTS. If the theory says something in black and white, this does NOT
give you the right to say the theory does not say it, just because you
don't understand it. First thing you do in dealing with reality is to
recognize the FACT that it is printed in black and white. THEN you
work to understand how that fact can be. You do not DENY the fact even
when it is printed in black and white.
What is special about the ether frame is that all
clocks moving wrt the ether frame observer are running slow and all
rod moving wrt the ether frame observer are contracted. All other
observers moving in the ether can't make that claim. BTW this claim is
valid mathematically only if the observed clock is in a higher state
of absolute motion than the observer and that's the reason why LET and
SR are incomplete.
IRT is invented to overcome the incompleteness of SR and LET. IT says
that an observed clock can run fast or slow compared to the observer's
clock.
In fact the
ether frame is the only truly inertial frame exists in the universe.
That is CERTAINLY not what SR says.
It is irrelevant what SR says. What is relevant is that no physical
object is in an inertial frame in a gravity environment.
Again, Ken, this is hysterically funny. First you make a comment about
what SR says, and when this turns out to be not what SR says, then you
say it is irrelevant what SR says! Don't you think it's funny to say
that?
No object in the universe can be considered as an inertial
frame....especially in a gravity environment.
2. The speed of light is isotropic c in all inertial frames.
Yes, and this is experimentally verified.
No the one-way speed of light never been verified experimentally.
That's not what I said. I said is that it has been experimentally
verified that the speed of light is *isotropically* c in all inertial
frames. That HAS been done.
The isotropy (not isotropically c) of the speed of light has been
verified experimentally in the earth frame
No, actually, in more than the Earth frame. It's measured through
interstellar space.
And isotropy, plus an independent measurement of two-way light speed
being c, REQUIRES the isotropy to be isotropically c. There is no way
to get 2-way light speed being c AND isotropic unless it is
isotropically c.
Your unfamiliarity with the experimental results does not change the
FACTS. If you would like to get caught up on what the FACTS are, I can
give you some reading references. Apparently, you have not done
sufficient reading.
and the earth frame is not
an inertial frame. So your claim that the speed of light is
isotropically c in all inertial frames is bogus.
Yes. This is more fundamental than an assumption. It's a definition.
This definition for time is flawed. Why? Because it implies that a
clock second is an interval of universal time.
No, it doesn't. It says explicitly the reverse. I don't know how you
get the idea that if a theory explicitly says A, you think the theory
implies B, where B is the opposite of A.
Yes it does. SR says that:
1. The speed of light is a un9iversal constant
Yes.
and thus the clock
second used to define the speed of light must also be a universal
interval of time.
No. The second varies from observer to observer, and the meter varies
from observer to observer -- neither is universal, but the speed of
light is universal.
This shouldn't surprise you. The circumference of
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: kenseto
- Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: PD
- Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: kenseto
- Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: PD
- Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: kenseto
- Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: PD
- The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- Prev by Date: Re: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
- Next by Date: Re: Principle of equivalence
- Previous by thread: Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- Next by thread: Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
