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

- just a few remarks -

"Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Paul Stowe  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:48:21 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> >> Lorentz's theory doesn't Doppler shift light when the aether blows.
That
> >> anisotropy of the CMBR tells us that the Earth isn't at rest with
respect
> >> to The Stuff Out There, ...
> >
> > The aether doesn't 'blow'.
>
> Well, I don't see why it shouldn't.  But anyway...

Indeed, it could be a simplification.

> > But you're right, the CMBR not only tells us
> > very clearly that not only are we NOT 'at rest', but in what direction
> > and at what magnitude we're not.  That's all a rest frame of an aether
> > need do...
> >
> >> but it gives us no information about which way a Lorentzian aether is
> >> moving.
> >
> > 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.

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.

> > 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.)

Harald