Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT

On Apr 17, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 16, 9:40 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

On rereading your post, I just want to commend you once again for your
description of what Lorentz Ether Theory says. It is highly unusual
that someone has sufficient insight that he can
1. State what was missing in the theory.

That's what is called advancement in science.....a better insight due
to a better understanding of nature.

That's fine.


2. Read the mind of the author to ascertain something the author
meant, even though what he said was different.

The author did not have a full understanding of his theory.

That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think? That's a little like
saying that Dostoevsky didn't have a full understanding of Crime and
Punishment.

Much like
SR have evolved since Einstein invented it.

First of all, Einstein didn't *invent* it, he *discovered* it. What he
did is *discover* some of the rules that nature works by.

Secondly, even though SR has evolved, none of the basic physical
principles that Einstein wrote down have changed since he first looked
at it. There are different ways of *explaining* the same principles
(such as the train-and-platform example), but the principles are
unchanged. If you change the statement of the principles, then you are
no longer even talking about SR.

The problem, Ken, is that you don't know enough about SR to be able to
even describe what it says accurately without changing the basic
principles it outlines.


3. Conclude that the author's description of the author's theory is
irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word. The right word is "WRONG".

Well, then, you can talk about why you think IRT is RIGHT. But it is
still foolish to describe SR or LET as something they are NOT.

The way to demonstrate that SR and LET are WRONG is to
1) First accurately describe what they do in fact say, without
changing anything.
2) Show that what they predict does NOT match reality. This is usually
done by showing that experimental data are in conflict with their
predictions. Here it is really important to understand what SR and LET
do in fact predict, without changing them.
3) Show that YOUR theory (not an altered SR or an altered LET) *does*
predict those experimental data. And keep in mind the difference
between your theory *allowing* the data and *predicting* the data.

PD


Ken Seto



I would love to have you respond to someone who classes cats and
whales as mammals. I can already imagine:
"1. The only way an animal can be a mammal is if it has four legs,
because cows, dogs, and giraffes have four legs.
2. When you said cats are mammals, you are assuming that mammals have
four legs.
3. How you characterized mammals is irrelevant.
4. BTW, whales aren't mammals because they don't have four legs."

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... Only the observer at rest in the ether frame can claim that all the ... When Lorentz came up with a theory that claims the above he is ... The only way an animal can be a mammal is if it has four legs, ... When you said cats are mammals, you are assuming that mammals have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... Only the observer at rest in the ether frame can claim that all the ... When Lorentz came up with a theory that claims the above he is ... The only way an animal can be a mammal is if it has four legs, ... When you said cats are mammals, you are assuming that mammals have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)