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

 Paul Stowe: 
 >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.
 
   What you've been trying to do for years is avoid the problems with
that analogy in order to pass it off.
 
[...]
 >>
 >> 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.
 
 You've conveniemtly ignored the fact that the value you give for the
mean free path in the ether places the upper limit for the frequency
light that can propagate in the far ultraviolet, not to mention the fact
that you can't show how to obtain a transverse wave.

[...]
 >> Then you did not read all of it, or you unknowingly repeat misinformati
 >> You might just as well claim the same about Einstein in 1905, looking a
 >> title of his paper.
 >> I quote again what I already put in other threads (fables or mimes are 
 >> malaria, very difficult to extinguish): in his 1904 paper Lorentz wrote
 >> "the proper relation between the forces and the accelerations will exis
 >> the two cases, if we suppose *that the masses of all particles are
 >> influenced by a translation to the same degree as the electromagnetic m
 >> of the electrons.* [italics]. (And so on.)
 >
 > Yes Harry, myths and falsehoods in established science are very hard to
 > extinguish...

  Obviously that it isn't the case or physicists would have not been
so willing to dump the ether so quickly and thoroughly. That statement
of lorentz' is obviously not even correct. The mass of the electron
cannot be a purely electromagnetic mass without violating the relation
between rest energy and mass regardless of whether you use LET or
special relativity. Since I've suggested that you calculate this for
yourself at least once before, you should know why that is the case.
If not compare the the upper limit known for radius of the electron and
the classical electron radius (note the factor of almost 1000 by which
the two differ). Then calculate the mass for electron due to the energy
in its electromagnetic field for the known upper limit.