Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT

On Apr 18, 9:45 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

It's not. I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Also Einstein's definition
of time (time is what the clock measures) is incomplete....it leads to
all sorts of paradoxes.

There's not a single paradox that stems from relativity. What paradox
do you have in mind?
Keep in mind what a paradox is. A paradox is NOT something you do not
understand. A paradox is something that looks to be self-
contradictory.
Now, what do you think is self-contradictory in relativity?




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.

It required no such thing. Relativity would be alive today if the
definition of the meter had never changed. However, the standard for
the meter suffered already from the difficulties of not being as
precise, as durable, or as replicable as was required. It is the
standards committee's job to choose a standard that is as precise, as
durable, and as replicable as possible, to meet the needs of
scientific measurement. Once relativity was tested (BEFORE the
redefinition of the meter), it was found, via isotropy and 2-way light-
speed measurements, that the speed of light is constant. This opened a
new opportunity to the standards committee to define a new standard of
the meter that would be more precise, more durable, and more
replicable than the standard in use at the time. Your knowledge of the
history of physics and the standards bureau is abysmal.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox wikipedia version
    ... I just watched the twin paradox demonstration at ... imply that the space-ship is moving in its own frame. ... To the twin, who travels away and back at equal times, ... If one actually applies the Lorentz Transformations graphically to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The farce of relativity of simultaneity
    ... The twin paradox is not a real paradox since it relativity can ... Einstein the nitwit huh? ... of H. A. Lorentz. ... I perceive of most of these "Einstein the plagerists" posts as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: simultaneity exists
    ... The twin paradox occurs when you apply the Lorentz tranform ... The twin "paradox" occurs because the intuitive notion of simultanity ... an absolute time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Alert: 50% S/N ratio on s.p.r.
    ... according to the very mathematics of the Lorentz ... still very much a paradox in time. ... overhaul on the beloved Lorentz transformation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)