"oriel36" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, "harry"
wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message

...





"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.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.

[...]

In LET the observer assumes that he is at rest in the ether frame and
the
LT is derived based on this assumption.

It has been long clear that you don't understand SRT. Here you
demonstrate
that you don't have a clue about "LET". But that was to be expected: as
SRT
follows from "LET", it's rather hard to understand "LET" but still not
understand SRT.

Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Anyone who understands how Albert managed to dump aether on Isaac as
'absolute space' is in for a treat -

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert

So every Tom,John and Harry can understand that Isaac would be livid
that all his followers lose the plot even when the guys goes out of
his way to tells you what he thinks of an aether never mind
associating it with 'absolute space' -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless,
but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton

I think you are all cute,Isaacs rejects an aether

Sorry but I think that you have a hearing problem! Here above Newton rejects
the same type of ether that Lorentz also rejected and claimed to have
disproved. I have pointed that out to you in the past. Thus it's no use to
continue a conversation about it.

but his followers in
the early 20th century won't let him and invent an aether to dump on
Newton so they can reject it all over again under new terms.This used
to be called a mental illness but instead is celebrated as a supreme
human achievement.

Galileo had a comment to make on such fine people as yourselves -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill."
GALILEO

:-))

Do you have a mirror at home?

Harald