Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Apr 2010 06:24 On Apr 14, 11:30 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, they do not. Sharing a few identical equations does not mean they have the same basis. SR has a number of equations that LET does not. Those are exemplified, for example, in the Lorentz covariance of other fundamental interactions. Steven D'Aprano's response elsewhere in this string is appropriate, as is Peter Webb's. It is your misapprehension that the Lorentz transformation is the sole and fundamental basis for SR. This, as Peter Webb pointed out, is similar to the misapprehension that Kepler's laws are the sole and fundamental basis for Newtonian gravity. Please disavow yourself of that foolish misapprehension, lest you fester. > 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: Tom Adams on 15 Apr 2010 09:40 On Apr 15, 1:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_y> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:073ac1e2-9dfa-4e75-bdf1-4f473ea17e17(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > 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, > ========================================= > There is no "if", they are not identical. > LET: L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > SR: L = L0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > Multiplication is not identical to division. Hmm...I wonder if there could be some symmetry there?
From: Tom Adams on 15 Apr 2010 09:55 On Apr 15, 12:43 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Even more amazing when you realize the chief conjurers are named Hendrick Lorentz and Henri Poincare. They conjured themselves even more out of the history books then they otherwise would be.
From: mpc755 on 15 Apr 2010 09:59 On Apr 15, 9:40 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 1:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_y> wrote: > > > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:073ac1e2-9dfa-4e75-bdf1-4f473ea17e17(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > 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, > > ========================================= > > There is no "if", they are not identical. > > LET: L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > SR: L = L0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > Multiplication is not identical to division. > > Hmm...I wonder if there could be some symmetry there? Yes, Aether Displacement. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: Tom Adams on 15 Apr 2010 10:19
On Apr 14, 1:23 am, 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. I am switching sides in this debate just for grins. If Lorentz and Poincare had quickly claimed in 1905 is that all Einstien did was generalized LET by postulating that the operational definition of simulteniety was necessarily tied to EM, they could have saved their priority. Einstein himself made a unwarranted generalization that the either (1) other forces like strong and weak could not be used to define simultenaity or (2) all undiscovered forces just happened to propagate at the speed of EM. How is this any better than Lorentz's generalization of his tranformation from EM to other forces? > > Some ether fans will say that LET hasn't been given the chance. |