Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 14 Apr 2010 10:00 "rotchm" <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4003e691-d097-4f58-bc85-a02c9fd07ac2(a)v16g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On Apr 13, 10:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of > ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > theory that is equivalent to SRT? As Poincare said, SR and LET (type theories) are "identical" for optical and kinematical observations. This is generally agreed by physicist. ======================================= Since LET says L= L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and SR says L = L0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) they cannot be identical except in the sense that both are ridiculous, and so was Poincare. It is generally agreed by sheep that grass is good to eat, you should join them and step into the cow patties as you bullshit.
From: xxein on 14 Apr 2010 20:42 On Apr 13, 11:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tom Adams wrote: > > does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > The "equivalence" of LET and SR is rather restricted: within their mutual > domain, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. But > LET has a smaller domain of applicability: LET is restricted to geometry and > electromagnetism, while SR is more generally applicable to any physical > situation in which gravitation can be neglected. > > In order to expand LET's domain to that of SR, it is necessary to postulate a > set of additional ethers that "just happen" to behave exactly the same as the > lumeniferous ether. That makes it very ugly to modern eyes. > > Tom Roberts xxein: What are 'modern eyes' that slice and dice beyond a belief? You already know that the physic is independent of any physics we concoct. You want to state that there is a physic that is different than the physics we invent but you are afraid to investigate it outside of the accepeted physics realm. What a hyprocrite you are. Learn how to think critically.
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 00:30 On Apr 13, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 9:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of > > ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > It works within a small class of phenomena. > > However, it makes no claim to govern the behavior of, say, strong and > weak interactions, where SR does have a claim. Both LET and SR have the same mathematical basis. Their conclusions ought to be identical. So, what claim is this claim that SR triumphs over LET in sub-atomic interactions? > Some ether fans will say that LET hasn't been given the chance. So we have Aether fans versus Aether deniers. <shrug> Clearly, the Lorentz transform actually has two manifestations. In its original derivation as first produced by Larmor, Larmor's transform must always reference itself back to the stationary background of the Aether AS THE MMX DEMANDS. The Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor's transform where all observations do not have to reference back to the stationary background of the Aether. The special condition occurs when the observed is moving in parallel with the non-Aether-stationary observer moving against the stationary background of the Aether. Poincare was the one who made that mistake of extending to any general case. Einstein was just a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar to take all the rotten credit. So due to gross confusion (as it still exists), it becomes obscure and mystified as to which mathematics (Larmor's transform or the Lorentz transform) LET represents as an interpretation of. The Lorentz transform being a special case cannot possibly explain the results of the MMX. So, if LET is an interpretation of Larmor's transform, it represents more merit over SR. If not (interpretation of the Lorentz transform), LET and SR are symbols of mysticism where self-styled physicists worship as a religion of its own. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 00:43 On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I was reading something today that implied that LET was even more > retrictrive than that. It only applied to electromagnetism. It was > only general if you assumed that electromagnetism was the only atomic > force. If the mathematics of LET and SR is IDENTICAL, how can one be more restrictive over the other when applied to electromagnetism? Someone is not using his, her, or its head. <shrug> > "Lorentzs reluctance to fully embrace the relativity principle (that > he himself did so much to uncover) is partly explained by his belief > that "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced..." > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm Isn't that amazing that someone can conjure up so much bullshit to show how drastically two different interpretations to the same mathematics can be? It is all word salad topped with Einstein's fermented diarrhea as dressing. <shrug> Well, a close example is to tell which of the following circuit a black box with two exposed electrodes contains. ** A battery of 1V with a 1-ohm series resistance ** A 1A current source with a 1-ohm shunt resistance Both circuits are Thevenin equivalent.
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Apr 2010 00:53
On Apr 13, 8:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tom Adams wrote: > > does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > The "equivalence" of LET and SR is rather restricted: within their mutual > domain, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. But > LET has a smaller domain of applicability: LET is restricted to geometry and > electromagnetism, while SR is more generally applicable to any physical > situation in which gravitation can be neglected. I find to be very point-blank with you. I find your comment totally bullshit. If both are experimentally indistinguishable and share the same mathematical conclusions, how can one be more resistive to what is that now. Oh, geometry and electromagnetism and finally gravitation. > In order to expand LET's domain to that of SR, it is necessary to postulate a > set of additional ethers that "just happen" to behave exactly the same as the > lumeniferous ether. That makes it very ugly to modern eyes. This is absolutely nonsense. If both interpretations share the same mathematics, there is no way in hell you can satisfactorily show what you have claimed above. It is all a matter of opinions with no scientific and logical bases. <shrug> Your spelling has been absolutely impeccable until using the word "lumeniferous". Do you mean "luminous" or have a hidden sarcasm laughing at non-Aether-deniers or Aether fans? |