"Harry" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then the 'theory' of SR is the same as the 'theory' of the aether.
For they both 'have' the same experiments.

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.

Apparently, that's because they were confused with the Relativists' coining
of the mathematical (and purely SR) term "Lorentz Transform". Such a
two-way mathematical transform did not exist in any of Lorentz' work.

In
later years Lorentz' interpretation of SRT had been forgotten

ROTFLMAO!!! Since Lorentz' work came *before* relativity, his work was
never simply an "interpretation" of SR.

and not long ago it re-emerged under the new label LET,

To which "LET" are you referring?

Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904), Lorentz Electron Theory (circa 1915),
or the Relativist strawman "Almost Absolute-SR" ... that Relativists
sometimes call "LET"?

even sometimes acting as a straw
man for the immature SRT predecessor of 1904,

ROTFLMAO! LET is a strawman for SR.

including misconceptions about it.

Many relativists just love those misconceptions. Like the "absolute space",
"unique frame" and the requirement that it give the same answers as SR.

But Lorentz did present it then as a new theory,

Citation, please.

applicable to all
matter and all forces, and he later called what he taught relativity, not
"LET".

He also later taught Lorentz' Electron Theory. Did you have a point?

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

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Kenneth Ellested:

It's not workable unless you relegate the ether to some symbolic
baggage.

Can you be more specific - what doesn't work?

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.

{a bit longer version, after my weekend}

Again the pathetic lie, Bilgey. As always, you are contradicted by Maxwell,
"On Physical Lines of Force", 1861.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/

Bilge constantly repeats this lie. Both theory and experiment disprove
David's claim.

David Semon has been given this citation literally dozens of times. He just
refuses to read it. His been given the citation. He's been given
summaries. He's been given descriptions. He's been given excerpts. He's
even been given web links to the original paper. But he refuses to read it.


[...]

As far as I have read there was actually some kind of "battle" between
Miller and Einstein. It seems that Einstein was not found of Millers
work,
and with the help of Shankland it later became "history". Thats the
short
version, but its interesting to read the story, and also get a glimse of
the
private letters from Einstein to Miller.

It makes no difference whether or not einstein was fond of ``miller's
work''. Einstein was not fond of quantum mechanics either and made no
secret of that fact, yet quantum mechanics has not been disregarded.
Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to create a unified theory
built upon general relativity, yet no one has followed that approach.

Actually, many have followed that approach. It's just that none have
succeeded.

The fact is that the michelson-morely experiment and millers experiments
are irrelevant and the primary value of the michelson-morely experiment is
historical perspective.

LOL! Bilge thinks experiments are irrelevant, period. Because he's a
priest, not a scientist.

The acceptance of relativity did not result from
a single experiment. For example, I never agonized over interpreting the
michelson-morely experiment.

Of course not. You simply accepted what the priest told you in class.

I saw relativity in action every day in
lab where I worked as an undergraduate and graduate student.

LOL!

Quite
frankly, I find it rather odd that the error bars in any 100 year old
experiment would be given any significance. Anyone with a few dollars,
some experimental know-how and mechanical aptitude could do those exper-
iments today, better than either michelson and morely or miller did them.

Then why is it never done, David? Repetition is the hallmark of the
scientific method.

I for sure, don't know if an "ether" exists or not, but the M&M
inferometer looks to me like it will probably always produce a
"null" result (concerning
wave mechanics only, though I'm not an expert), and as far as I can
tell, this was the main reason for totally rejecting the "ether" at the
time.

Most ether advocates spend all of their effort trying devise schemes to
isure that regardless of what relativity implies, the result will be null.

What a pathetic lie. Most aetherists don't give a durn what SR says.
Primarily because there has not yet been an experiment that discriminates
between SR and LET-type theories.

On the other hand, it's hard to find an ether theory in which someone
starts with any mechanical properties of the ether and derives relativity.

Horsefeathers. Maxwell did this in 1861. SR is a result of a simple
approximation that Maxwell made in his work. Maxwell simply assumed that
either the source or the receiver was at rest in the aether. Which -- just
coincidentally -- happens to be SR's need for an 'inertial frame'.

In general it's a retrofit in which the ether serves as a container to
hold a list of ``features'', none of which would be consistent with the
purpose of a mechanical medium for which the ether was originally
proposed.

Yawn. The general lie repeated.

What's even worse, is that if you assume for the sake of argument that
some ether theory worked, it still doesn't address the physics at the
fundamental level.

ROTFLMAO! Aether theories *are* the fundamental level. But if this is
*bad*, then SR is even worse. For it does not address anything at
fundamental level+1.

All it does is explain one interaction in terms of
another one which the theory doesn't explain and as far as I can tell,
is supposed to be taken on faith as unknowable.

Another pathetic lie.

Instead we got Einsteins relativity which is quite hard to imagine, even
that it might be the truth.

If you look carefully at how a semiconductor works, you will probably
find that even hrder to imagine. That's also going to be the case for
anything that involves phenomena that are outside the regime of everyday
experience.

The standard Relativist ad hominem attack. If you don't believe us, then
you simply don't understand.

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).

Why should the speed of light not be constant,

Because no other entity or observable aspect of the cosmos is 'constant.'

apart from your extra-
polation from personal experience with velocities ranging from about
0.0000000 c to 0.0000001 c?

Personal experience has nothing to do with it. Many people who have never
flown close to the speed of sound are quite capable of understanding sonic
theory.

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.

Again, the pathetic "those who don't believe are weak-minded fools" lie.

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.

The ether model was ultimately rejected because physicists found that
it made less sense to force nature to fit anthropocentrically based
preconceptions about nature than it did to examine those preconceptions,
especially when it became obvious that no ether would be able to
act as the mechanical substance for which it was originally conceived.

A pathetic, rambling, runon lie. There is absolutely nothing
'anthropocentric' about an aether theory.

And Bilge's continued lie about "it can't work."

The ether in any ``viable'' ether theory would still be an abstraction
of a substance that actually bears no resemblence to the physical
materials to which it is an analogy,

Another bald-faced lie. The aether is not an anology. It is not an
abstraction. And it bears a striking resemblance to any superfluid... which
is found in the lab.

so I can't see that one gains
any physical intuition from an ether theory that would be compatible
with nature.

I belive Bilge simply muffed this sentence (unless he likes pure
self-contradiction).

Anyway, I learn something new by investigating this further - I can
highly recommend it (not only to kook's)!

I don't think there's much to be gained by looking at ancient data,
except perhaps some insight into data reduction and error analysis.
That might be useful, if you are trying to read data from the error
bars.

Since Relativist's trumpet the MMX as the death of all aether theories (just
read any textbook), one can learn quite a lot about what constitutes
'science' in the modern day and age.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"David Evens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:34:34 GMT, "greywolf42"
wrote:
"Bilge" wrote in message
ue-al.net...

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?

Pure Kindergarten response. As is usual for Davey.

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

Later....

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

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news

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


{snip higher levels}

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.

Apparently, it was merely poor sentence construction, and we are agreed on
this point.

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.

*ALL* theories of the origin of the CMBR state that it exists throughout the
universe. (You are free to come up with another theory.) Closing our eyes
at all points that we have observed the CMBR does not make it go away.

"Absolute space" would exist throughtout the universe. Aether is not
required to do this. You have once again trotted out the Relativist
strawman version of aether.

The
aether was supposed to be the medium that light was undulations of.

That was the luminiferous aether.

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.

Non-sequiteur. You are confusing religion ("fundamental laws of nature")
with reality. Maxwell's equations were originally derived from a
fundamental, superfluid aether. That one can build a screen to eliminate
some of the waves carried by the aether does not make the aether go away.
It only makes the CMBR waves go away.

The CMBR is not the aether. The CMBR is *carried by* the aether. Screening
out the CMBR does not screen out the aether. Just like damping sound does
not make the atmosphere go away.

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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then the 'theory' of SR is the same as the 'theory' of the aether.
For they both 'have' the same experiments.

For modern physics in the limited (but rather poor) sense, sure. That's also
how Lorentz saw it.

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.

Apparently, that's because they were confused with the Relativists'
coining
of the mathematical (and purely SR) term "Lorentz Transform". Such a
two-way mathematical transform did not exist in any of Lorentz' work.

In
later years Lorentz' interpretation of SRT had been forgotten

ROTFLMAO!!! Since Lorentz' work came *before* relativity, his work was
never simply an "interpretation" of SR.

I don't think he regarded the label SRT as owned by Einstein or Poincare.

and not long ago it re-emerged under the new label LET,

To which "LET" are you referring?

Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904), Lorentz Electron Theory (circa
1915),
or the Relativist strawman "Almost Absolute-SR" ... that Relativists
sometimes call "LET"?

Any of them, that's why I don't use it! "LET" is very handy to saw confusion
and compare incomplete theories with the post (!)-1905 version of SRT. Then
SRT compares (in certain ways) favourably to the strawman "LET".

even sometimes acting as a straw
man for the immature SRT predecessor of 1904,

ROTFLMAO! LET is a strawman for SR.

OK, I could have formulated that better.

including misconceptions about it.

Many relativists just love those misconceptions. Like the "absolute
space",
"unique frame" and the requirement that it give the same answers as SR.

But Lorentz did present it then as a new theory,

Citation, please.

Didn't I cite such in the past? Anyway, it's all-over in his manuscript:
http://ip51cf87c4.direct-adsl.nl/pan...tz/lorentz.txt

"The theory of electrons,
unless it be modified by some new hypothesis, would undoubtedly require
the existence of such a couple. [...]
It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of
certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order
of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought
to frame a theory of this kind. I believe it is now possible to treat
the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the
velocity will be that it be less than that of light. [..]
It is easily seen that the proposed theory can account for a large
number of facts. [...]
It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all
due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account for all well
established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be
put to the test of experiment. One of these is that the result of
Michelson's experiment must remain negative, if the interfering rays of
light are made to travel through some ponderable transparent body.
[...] 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. [...]
Therefore, if there is not to be a most serious objection to the theory I
have now proposed, it must be possible to show that those measurements
agree with my values nearly as well as with those of Abraham. [...]

applicable to all
matter and all forces, and he later called what he taught relativity,
not
"LET".

He also later taught Lorentz' Electron Theory. Did you have a point?

Sure. Just compare it with Einstein's "Electrodynamic" theory of 1905.

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry" wrote in message
...


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.

Then the 'theory' of SR is the same as the 'theory' of the aether.
For they both 'have' the same experiments.

For modern physics in the limited (but rather poor) sense, sure. That's
also how Lorentz saw it.

Citation, please.

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.

Apparently, that's because they were confused with the Relativists'
coining of the mathematical (and purely SR) term "Lorentz
Transform". Such a two-way mathematical transform did not exist
in any of Lorentz' work.

In
later years Lorentz' interpretation of SRT had been forgotten

ROTFLMAO!!! Since Lorentz' work came *before* relativity, his work was
never simply an "interpretation" of SR.

I don't think he regarded the label SRT as owned by Einstein or Poincare.

Irrelevant.

and not long ago it re-emerged under the new label LET,

To which "LET" are you referring?

Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (1904), Lorentz Electron Theory (circa
1915), or the Relativist strawman "Almost Absolute-SR" ... that
Relativists sometimes call "LET"?

Any of them, that's why I don't use it!

??? You just did.

"LET" is very handy to sow
confusion and compare incomplete theories with the post (!)-1905
version of SRT. Then SRT compares (in certain ways) favourably
to the strawman "LET".

Of course SR does. That's the purpose of a strawman.

even sometimes acting as a straw
man for the immature SRT predecessor of 1904,

ROTFLMAO! LET is a strawman for SR.

OK, I could have formulated that better.

including misconceptions about it.

Many relativists just love those misconceptions. Like the "absolute
space", "unique frame" and the requirement that it give the same
answers as SR.

But Lorentz did present it then as a new theory,

Citation, please.

Didn't I cite such in the past?

I haven't seen a citation yet for a time when Lorentz actually claimed he
had an "Ether Theory."

Anyway, it's all-over in his manuscript:
http://ip51cf87c4.direct-adsl.nl/pan...tz/lorentz.txt

Huh? That's the 1904 version of Lorentz. Which does not contain any
"Lorentz Transforms" -- as the Relativists define it.

"The theory of electrons,
unless it be modified by some new hypothesis, would undoubtedly require
the existence of such a couple. [...]
It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of
certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order
of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought
to frame a theory of this kind. I believe it is now possible to treat
the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the
velocity will be that it be less than that of light. [..]
It is easily seen that the proposed theory can account for a large
number of facts. [...]
It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all
due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account for all well
established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be
put to the test of experiment. One of these is that the result of
Michelson's experiment must remain negative, if the interfering rays of
light are made to travel through some ponderable transparent body.
[...] 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. [...]
Therefore, if there is not to be a most serious objection to the theory I
have now proposed, it must be possible to show that those measurements
agree with my values nearly as well as with those of Abraham. [...]

But this is now what Tom Roberts denies is what is "LET." And, of course,
it is completely different than the "Absolute Almost-SR" that Tom uses for
this purpose.

applicable to all
matter and all forces, and he later called what he taught relativity,
not "LET".

He also later taught Lorentz' Electron Theory. Did you have a point?

Sure. Just compare it with Einstein's "Electrodynamic" theory of 1905.

What has this got to do with whether or not Lorentz teaching relativity is
irrelevant?
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:
[...]

If you are so interested in Lorentz's theories, why waste your time
dumpster diving in this newsgroup? You would be MUCH better served by
actually STUDYING his writings.


However, the point remains that what Tom (and other Relativists) call "LET"
is nothing more than a strawman doppleganger for SR, used solely to buttress
SR.

The point is that Lorentz's work is different from SR -- it starts from
very different premises and has a COMPLETELY different outlook on the world.

But there's little point in discussing the equations of his 1904 paper,
which predict that charge would not be conserved here on earth. A small
correction fixes that, and Lorentz acknowledged as much in 1915. This
correction makes his theory equivalent to SR. shrug

BTW I do not use LET to "buttress SR", I merely use it as an example of
a viable ether theory, which remarkably is mathematically and
experimentally equivalent to SR.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:
[...]

Caught with an old post where Tom's lies are explicit, Tom moves to the
classic Relativist snip-and-ignore.

If you are so interested in Lorentz's theories, why waste your time
dumpster diving in this newsgroup?

That would only be possible if Tom considers his own writings to be trash.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=SM....flashne wsgr
oups.com

But Tom, why aren't you complaining about Billy? Who has been repeatedly
flashing your 1996 post:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=oJ...ewsgroup s.co
m


You would be MUCH better served by actually STUDYING his writings.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Remember, I've been the one pointing you to Lorentz' writings. Which you
continued to refuse to read for YEARS. All the time you were pontificating
about Lorentz' work.

However, the point remains that what Tom (and other Relativists) call
"LET" is nothing more than a strawman doppleganger for SR, used
solely to buttress SR.

The point is that Lorentz's work is different from SR -- it starts from
very different premises and has a COMPLETELY different outlook on the
world.

Yes. That's what I've been trying to tell you for years. Have I finally
gotten through?

But there's little point in discussing the equations of his 1904 paper,
which predict that charge would not be conserved here on earth.

That isn't a problem to Lorentz' theory.

A small
correction fixes that, and Lorentz acknowledged as much in 1915. This
correction makes his theory equivalent to SR. shrug

The simple repetition of the lie.

BTW I do not use LET to "buttress SR", I merely use it as an example of
a viable ether theory,

But what you call "LET" has nothing from any aether theory in it!

which remarkably is mathematically and experimentally equivalent to SR.

LOL! It's not "remarkable" at all! It's simply your "Absolute Almost-SR".
Which you specifically identify (see link, above) as follows:

1. "There is an absolute reference frame."
2. "Light propagates isotropically at velocity c only in the absolute
frame."
3. "Length contraction and time dilatation conspire to produce results
indistinguishable from 'Weak SR'."

None of these three assumptions exist anywhere in the writings of either
Maxwell or Lorentz. Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used an absolute reference
frame in any of their writings. None of these assumptions exists in any
aether theory either.

You constantly attempt to use this personal fabrication of yours as a
strawman to demonstrate how "unnecessary" an "aether" theory is.

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