"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
The reason I am aiming this post at Tom is that I know that he is one of
the few people on this NG who has actually studied Lorentz Ether Theory
from the mathematical PoV.

My understanding - from a previous post of Tom's - is that in LET what you
do (in theory) is apply the Lorentz transforms to and from the aether FoR.
The fact that it is impossible to identify the aether frame is less of a
problem than it would seem because the Lorentz transforms are such that
you can arbitrarily choose any FoR as the aether frame without affecting
the answer.

I am not concerned here with the intellectual route which led to SR or the
intellectual differences between SR and LET merely in mathematical terms
how the two theories are related. In LET one can arbitrarily choose any
FoR as the ether frame so the option is open to always choose the
observer's FoR as the ether frame. Mathematically SR is the equivalent of
doing just that which is why SR and LET are mathematically equivalent.

Now it occurs to me that this, the SR approach, is actually one of two
possible approaches which would rid LET maths of the totally arbitrary and
unnecessary complication of an aether FoR. The other is to do LET maths
always choosing the source frame as the aether frame. Obviously this is
not going to change any predictions - it is a legitimate way of doing LET
maths and LET maths and SR maths are equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is simply
mathematical modelling, and as the historical route to SR is no longer
considered a necessary part of modern physics, even perhaps something of
an embarrassment, then one way of mathematical modelling would appear to
be as good as any other provided it gives the same answers.

Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer. The alternative
approach, choosing the source as the aether frame does not do this and
therefore has potential to be simpler while giving the same answers.

It is possible that there is some point I have missed but I was wondering
if that approach has been tried, how it works out in practice.

Yes you missed something fundamental. There is no need at all to choose as
reference frame a frame in which people are in rest. One can choose any
inertial frame that is most convenient. For example, Einstein chose in 1905
a star as reference for his calculation of aberration.

Regards,
Harald

Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making the
source frame and aether frame one and the same so this approach might be a
way by which the predictions of relativistic maths and ballistic theory
are more easily highlighted.

--
John Kennaugh