Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- From: kenseto <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 17, 1:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Not presumptuous at all. Both Lorentz and Einstein did not fully
understand motion. Specfically they didn't understand that relative
motion is derived from individual motions. Also Einstein's definition
of time (time is what the clock measures) is incomplete....it leads to
all sorts of paradoxes.
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.
But the rules he discovered requires physicists to modify the
measuring units to fit those rules. For example: Einstein discovered
the rule that the speed of light is a universal constant and
physicists had to redefine the definition for a meter (1 meter =
1/299,792,458 light second) to fit that rule.
Ken Seto
.
- 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
- 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: Time dilation scenarios
- Next by Date: Re: Who here has spent time in a mental hospital? Graduated from college?
- 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
|