"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:29:25 GMT, "Kenneth Ellested"
wrote:
Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET

[L]orentz's [E]lectrodynamic [T]heory based upon his 1904 paper

What we call LET around here is a synthesis from Lorentz's writings, and
not any specific theory he himself described. It is really based on the
1915 edition of Lorentz's _Theory_of_Electrons_[#]. In the notes of that
edition he acknowledges the superiority of Einstein's approach, and the
better definition of \rho by Poincare'.

[#} What Lorentz meant by "electron" is not what we mean by
that word today.

Specifically, with the definition of charge density (\rho) of Lorentz's
1904 paper, charge is not conserved in a moving system, contrary to
observations here on earth. Poincare's definition resolves that
discrepancy. In this way, LET becomes experimentally indistinguishable
from SR. It also becomes mathematically equivalent to SR, in that any
theorem of either theory is a theorem of both; some would say that makes
them the same theory, but IMHO that is merely a matter of opinion about
what the word "theory" means.

To piggy-back ride on Tom Roberts, indeed it depends on what one means with
"theory". In modern physics only experiments count for a theory, making it
the same theory for physics, but not for metaphysics.
However, in the early years - surely because of that fact - the theories of
Einstein and Lorentz were often not distinguished at all or even mixed up
(just read Kennedy-Thorndyke's paper) and both were considered to be just
different interpretations of relativity, similar to quantum mechanics. In
later years Lorentz' interpretation of SRT had been forgotten and not long
ago it re-emerged under the new label LET, even sometimes acting as a straw
man for the immature SRT predecessor of 1904, including misconceptions about
it. But Lorentz did present it then as a new theory, applicable to all
matter and all forces, and he later called what he taught relativity, not
"LET".

Harald

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...

SNIP

I try to have an open mind, and I'm not against relativity, ether or xyz -
I
just can't imagine how relativity works... which is due to my limitted
ability of only beeing able to think in "natural" physics.

Where is the problem for you? I can only imagine how relativity works by
thinking "natural" physics. How light works however, I still don't
understand.

SNIP

I do however have huge problems with relativity, especially that the
speed of light is constant to any inertial frame (which (as I
understand)
it had to, since an ether wasn't detected).

It sounds as if you have been confused by some crappy arguments.

Why should the speed of light not be constant, apart from your extra-
polation from personal experience with velocities ranging from about
0.0000000 c to 0.0000001 c? Physics studies phenomena at the extremes.
The nucleus of an atom for example has a density of about 10^17 kg/m
a temperature on the order of 10^10 K, a speed of sound around c/3 and
collision times on the order of 10^-22 seconds. If you try to imagine
that in familiar terms, you'll probably find that hard to believe, too.

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

With an ether model this problem would be solved in a way that makes
more
sense to me (at least), so that's why I'm trying to figure what exactly
rejected this model, why it was rejected and why it still is. And if I
find the answer, this may make even more sense.

Never heard of fashion?

Harald

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Kenneth Ellested:
"Bilge" skrev i en meddelelse


Try defining the mechanical properties of the ether so that light
propagates as a _transverse_ wave. If you try doing that, you'll
find that the ether doesn't even serve the purpose for which it was
originally proposed.
I haven't actually thought of a mechanical description, and that there
should only be room for longitudinal waves in such a model.

The problem is not that materials only support longitudinal waves,
since many materials _do_ support transverse waves. The problem is
that, transverse oscillations require a restoring force perpendicular
to the propagation direction, which means you're dealing with a solid.

The tired, old lie. Repeated endlessley. As always your lie was explicitly
disproved by Maxwell, 1861, "On Physical Lines of Force." Of course, Bilge
has refused to read this for years.

{snip, because I'm in a hurry this morning}

Later....

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...

SNIP

I try to have an open mind, and I'm not against relativity, ether or
xyz -
I
just can't imagine how relativity works... which is due to my limitted
ability of only beeing able to think in "natural" physics.

Where is the problem for you? I can only imagine how relativity works by
thinking "natural" physics. How light works however, I still don't
understand.

SNIP

I do however have huge problems with relativity, especially that the
speed of light is constant to any inertial frame (which (as I
understand)
it had to, since an ether wasn't detected).

It sounds as if you have been confused by some crappy arguments.

Why should the speed of light not be constant, apart from your extra-
polation from personal experience with velocities ranging from about
0.0000000 c to 0.0000001 c? Physics studies phenomena at the extremes.
The nucleus of an atom for example has a density of about 10^17 kg/m
a temperature on the order of 10^10 K, a speed of sound around c/3 and
collision times on the order of 10^-22 seconds. If you try to imagine
that in familiar terms, you'll probably find that hard to believe, too.

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.





With an ether model this problem would be solved in a way that makes
more
sense to me (at least), so that's why I'm trying to figure what
exactly
rejected this model, why it was rejected and why it still is. And if I
find the answer, this may make even more sense.

Never heard of fashion?

Harald

"greywolf42" wrote in message
news
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
m...
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news Bill Hobba wrote:

Just to elaborate a little of what David said. Do not be confused
that
such violates the POR by defining a preferred inertial frame.
The CBMR defines a preferred frame for certain purposes;

Then such a coordinate system can be defined for any and all purposes.

but such a frame is not strictly inertial

What evidence do you have for this arbitrary claim, Bill?

A frame containing the CBMR would create a gravitational field.

Not the frame, but the energy of the CMBR would create a gravitational
field.

I did not claim otherwise.


But what
I had forgotten is the principle of equivalence - even in that case if
one
is in free fall then it would locally be inertial.

Since the CMBR is presumed to exist throughout all the universe, where is
the 'local' aspect of the inertial frame?

The CBMR can be screened out so, in principle, does not necessarily exist
throughout the universe - unlike what an aether is supposed to be. The
aether was supposed to be the medium that light was undulations of. Since
the existance of light is intimately related to fundamental laws of nature
(eg Maxwells equations) it in principle would not be able to be screened
out.

Bill


{snip}
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:34:34 GMT, "greywolf42"
wrote:
"Bilge" wrote in message
ue-al.net...
Kenneth Ellested:
"Bilge" skrev i en meddelelse


Try defining the mechanical properties of the ether so that light
propagates as a _transverse_ wave. If you try doing that, you'll
find that the ether doesn't even serve the purpose for which it was
originally proposed.
I haven't actually thought of a mechanical description, and that there
should only be room for longitudinal waves in such a model.

The problem is not that materials only support longitudinal waves,
since many materials _do_ support transverse waves. The problem is
that, transverse oscillations require a restoring force perpendicular
to the propagation direction, which means you're dealing with a solid.

The tired, old lie. Repeated endlessley. As always your lie was explicitly
disproved by Maxwell, 1861, "On Physical Lines of Force." Of course, Bilge
has refused to read this for years.

You mean like you do and then (as you explicitly stated) lie about its
contents?

{snip incovenient facts, because I'm in a hurry this morning}

Later....

"Androcles" wrote in message .uk...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.

Hahaha! I deprogrammed myself about 2 years ago and thanks to this
newsgroup I didn't replace dogma with crank science. And you? ;-)

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
om...
"Androcles" wrote in message
.uk...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.

Hahaha! I deprogrammed myself about 2 years ago and thanks to this
newsgroup I didn't replace dogma with crank science. And you? ;-)

Likewise, but many more years ago than that. Certainly the dogma of
relativity and the dogma of aether have no place in science,
but this newsgroup had nothing to do with it.
Androcles

nothign to do with it.


Harald

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"Harry" wrote in message
om...
"Androcles" wrote in message
.uk...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.

Hahaha! I deprogrammed myself about 2 years ago and thanks to this
newsgroup I didn't replace dogma with crank science. And you? ;-)

Likewise, but many more years ago than that. Certainly the dogma of
relativity and the dogma of aether have no place in science,
but this newsgroup had nothing to do with it.
Androcles

nothign to do with it.


Harald
In other words, you cannot be deprogrammed.
Androcles.

"Androcles" wrote in message .uk...
"Harry" wrote in message
om...
"Androcles" wrote in message
.uk...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Well, I'm personally fine with a constant speed of light, only not in
every
inertial frame.
It somehow twists my mind with an endless loop of questions and
constellations.

Then don't believe it. You don't have to! - We can deprogram you. ;-)

Ah, but can YOU be deprogrammed?
Androcles.

Hahaha! I deprogrammed myself about 2 years ago and thanks to this
newsgroup I didn't replace dogma with crank science. And you? ;-)

Likewise, but many more years ago than that. Certainly the dogma of
relativity and the dogma of aether have no place in science,
but this newsgroup had nothing to do with it.
Androcles

nothign to do with it.


Harald

xxein: And yet everything you know is proven wrong by even the
meagerest of considerations. Burst bubbles no longer exist.