A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 22:20 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0ae8888-de0b-4d93-862b-9b1d2cd005f3(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. >> > > I >> > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not >> > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the >> > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make >> > > sense. >> >> > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the >> > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving >> > either >> > exists. >> >> What is a 'fixed ether'? >> >> Paul Stowe > > Oh, and BTW, please derive the physical basis of the LTE within the > framework of SR. LTE?
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Mar 2010 22:28 On Mar 7, 7:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f0ae8888-de0b-4d93-862b-9b1d2cd005f3(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> wrote: > > >> > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. > >> > > I > >> > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > >> > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > >> > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > >> > > sense. > > >> > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > >> > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving > >> > either > >> > exists. > > >> What is a 'fixed ether'? > > >> Paul Stowe > > > Oh, and BTW, please derive the physical basis of the LTE within the > > framework of SR. > > LTE? Lorentz Transform Equation => Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) Paul Stowe
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 22:37 On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I > > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > sense. > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either > > exists. > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > Paul Stowe Its the space frame and its aether. Mitch Raemsch; changing position is the element of aether creating motion in its space
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Mar 2010 22:44 On Mar 7, 7:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally.. I > > > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > > > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > > > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > > sense. > > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving either > > > exists. > > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > > Paul Stowe > > Its the space frame and itsaether. > > Mitch Raemsch; changing position is the element ofaethercreating > motion in its space Well it's no more 'fixed' that the atmosphere is around us. And, just like it, c varies with position and conditions which, of course, is the real reason the SR is only special for local regions... Paul Stowe
From: FrediFizzx on 7 Mar 2010 22:48
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. > I just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the > assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make > sense. http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT" |