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

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:33:02 +0100, "Harry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>- just a few remarks -

 [Snip...]

>>> That's the whole point, the CMBR 'illuminates' the local background rest
>>> frame.  By definition, for that local region this frame IS the 'at rest'
>>> condition.  That means there exist a state where adjacent volume
>>> elements have no relative motion of the fluid between them.
>>>
>>> Look, let's consider a mundane example using water.  By definition, let
>>> the region in question have no 'local currents' or directional pressure
>>> gradients.  Now, like all compressible media, it has a certain non-zero
>>> level of acoustical activity, which is called, self-generated white
>>> noise.
>
> I think that was a great example.

 Thanks, I've only been trying to get this fact across for years now.

> SNIP
>
>>> Thus, unless you understand that
>>> the finite speed of the particulate entities constituting the medium
>>> imposes a maximum speed upon all interactions you don't have any reason
>>> to suspect that said Galilean behavior -> Lorentzian as speed increases
>>> significantly towards the RMS.
>>
>> If we take sound waves in Newtonian air as our analogy, a speed of
>> propagation doesn't in itself imply Lorentz transformations, because the
>> speed of sound measured by a moving observer is c+v.
>
> It would of course if measurement instruments for sound were affected by
> speed relative to air in the same way as matter is affected in accord with
> his theory by speed relative to the ether.

 Yup, if those same instruments consisted of vibrating lattice distortions
 of the very same media.

>>> However, one you know this Lorentzian Relativity is understood to encompass
>>> the exact same domain as SR.  That is/was my point.  Somehow opponents just
>>> love to claim otherwise.
>>
>> But the domain of Lorentz is electromagnetism.  He said so.  "The problem
>> of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by
>> a translation, such as all systems have in virtue to the Earth's annual
>> motion..."
>
> Then you did not read all of it, or you unknowingly repeat misinformation.
> You might just as well claim the same about Einstein in 1905, looking at the
> title of his paper.
> I quote again what I already put in other threads (fables or mimes are like
> malaria, very difficult to extinguish): in his 1904 paper Lorentz wrote:
> "the proper relation between the forces and the accelerations will exist in
> the two cases, if we suppose *that the masses of all particles are
> influenced by a translation to the same degree as the electromagnetic masses
> of the electrons.* [italics]. (And so on.)

 Yes Harry, myths and falsehoods in established science are very hard to
 extinguish...

 Paul Stowe