Re: Definition of LET and SR (was: Re: MMX, Contraction and Constancy)

Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "greywolf42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SNIP
>
> > > We clearly disagree here: Lorentz did not literally formulate that
> > > principle in 1904, but it is the essence of his theory to fulfill that
> > > principle.
> >
> > Not according to Lorentz.  Lorentz' 1904 work has nothing to do with
> > 'principles.'  It is a physical cause-and-effect theory.  Completely
> > divorced from philosophical principles.  The 'essence' of LET is
> > physical causality.
> >
> > > Moreover, the casual way Poincare used the expression "PoR"
> > > in 1904 makes me think that it was already known then, but I'm not
> > > sure.
>
> Barry, the PoR is *not* about the reality of nature, nor is it about
> causes. It is only a law about laws: that the laws of nature do not
> depend on (inertial) velocity.

Precisely my point.  The PoR and LET have no connection.

> It was the purpose of Lorentz to make the laws of nature independent
> of velocity, because experiments suggested that such is the case.

According to Lorentz, that was not Lorentz' *purpose.*

One cannot infer *why* any individual did something, based solely upon a
modern interpretation of something that was later tagged with the
individual's name (or for any other later change).  One must read the
documents to see what the individual *said* was the reason.

> And it was Poincare who gave the name "Lorentz transformations" to the
> transformations that he wrote down in their final form.

Correct.  But the reciprocal transformations that Poincare invented are not
contained in Lorentz' work -- even if Poincare based them on Lorentz' work.

> In no way did he intend to suggest that the mathematical symmetry
> corresponds to lack of a physical cause for the physical effects that
> these equations describe; only the impossibility to determine the
> velocity relative to that cause.

Again, you are guessing as to someone's *intent.*  Which is fallacious
rumormongering.  Simply read the written articles.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}