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

On 11/23/2003 4:40 PM, greywolf42 wrote:
> Tom, you admitted you made up your "LET", LONG BEFORE you ever read Lorentz'
> 1904 paper! Thank you for at least confirming this, below.

Many times I have told you that you are unable to read, and you keep
proving me correct in that assessment. I did not at all "confirm" what
you claim.


> Lorentz' Electrodyamic Theory
> *IS* Lorentz' 1904 paper.  It does not include 'all deductions' that you
> want to make -- or misunderstand -- about the paper.

Any theory inherently includes the logical and mathematical deductions
that can be made from it. I cannot help it if you are unable to read, or
are unable to make such deductions, or verify that the deductions I make
are valid. <shrug>


>>Note the difference in scope and usage -- LET is virtually unknown
>>outside this newsgroup; SR is a pillar of modern physics and is known by
>>every physicist.
> And yet there is no experiment yet published that relativists admit
> distinguish the two.  What does this tell us about "modern physicists?"

That they have additional criteria than just lack of refutation.

For instance, do astronomers study Ptolemey's epicycles to the same
extent they study Kepler's laws of planetary motion? No. And for similar
reasons that LET is not studied to the extent physicists study SR. Both
Ptolemy's epicycles and Lorentz's LET have lousy foundations in the
context of modern knowledge (though they were both quite reasonable in
their own time).

        In particular, how can one possibly justify Lorentz's
        Eq. 5 from first principles??? It is surely one of the
        ugliest hypotheses ever proposed....


>>Some consequences of LET:
>>1. The Lorentz transforms relate coordinates in a moving frame
>>   to those in the "fixed frame" (which is commonly referred
>>   to as the ether frame).
> 
> And commonly in error.  There is no such thing as a "fixed" frame in LET.

Please go READ Lorentz's 1904 paper. He EXPLICITLY starts out using a
"fixed system of coordinates", which in modern words is a "fixed frame".


>  The aether frame
> (or, to be more precise, the electromagnetic field) has no need to be
> 'fixed'.  It is fluidic in both cases.

Not in LET. Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper.


>>2. In the moving frame, using the above coordinates, Maxwell's
>>   equations are valid.
> Which coordinates?

The ones mentioned in the immediately preceeding item -- this is a quite
standard and normal way of referring to what one already written. You
_DO_ need to learn how to read. It's hopeless to continue with someone
unable to read what I write, so I'm giving up.


Tom Roberts     [EMAIL PROTECTED]