The historical reasons for special relativity have little to
do with the reasons it's used today.
OK, but I thought the speed of light would be constant to the ether if such
a thing existed.
Therefore there would only be one inertial frame (as far as I can
understand), which actually would make the universe a little easier to
understand for the "average" kook 8-|

It's not workable unless you relegate the ether to some symbolic baggage.
Can you be more specific - what doesn't work?

Actually I'm going backwards, as to accept the GR/SR I have to accept the
no
"ether" model first - right?
You can accept whatever you want. Whether or not you're a kook depends
upon your reasons for doing so.
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.

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

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.

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

Regards

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message ...
The historical reasons for special relativity have little to
do with the reasons it's used today.
OK, but I thought the speed of light would be constant to the ether if such
a thing existed.
Therefore there would only be one inertial frame (as far as I can
understand), which actually would make the universe a little easier to
understand for the "average" kook 8-|

It's not workable unless you relegate the ether to some symbolic baggage.
Can you be more specific - what doesn't work?

Actually I'm going backwards, as to accept the GR/SR I have to accept the
no
"ether" model first - right?
You can accept whatever you want. Whether or not you're a kook depends
upon your reasons for doing so.
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.

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

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.

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

Regards

xxein: There are shortcuts to the mathematical understanding of this
universe. That does NOT mean that there are shortcuts to
understanding the physical nature of this universe.

I hope this helps you in seeking your goal.

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
...
The historical reasons for special relativity have little to
do with the reasons it's used today.
OK, but I thought the speed of light would be constant to the ether if
such
a thing existed.
Therefore there would only be one inertial frame (as far as I can
understand), which actually would make the universe a little easier to
understand for the "average" kook 8-|

It's not workable unless you relegate the ether to some symbolic
baggage.
Can you be more specific - what doesn't work?

Actually I'm going backwards, as to accept the GR/SR I have to accept
the
no
"ether" model first - right?
You can accept whatever you want. Whether or not you're a kook depends
upon your reasons for doing so.
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.

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

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.

Why physicists generally do not believe in aether theories see an ancient
post by Tom Roberts:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38...D%40lucent.com

Thanks
Bill


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

Regards

xxein: There are shortcuts to the mathematical understanding of this
universe. That does NOT mean that there are shortcuts to
understanding the physical nature of this universe.

I hope this helps you in seeking your goal.
I'm not sure about what you point is. All I wan't is to understand the
physical nature, but currently it seems unimagineable due to the current
interpretation of the matematical understanding.

Regards

Thanks for the link, very interesting:

Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET
2. CMBR Doppler

Regards

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:29:25 GMT, "Kenneth Ellested" wrote:

Thanks for the link, very interesting:

Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET

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

2. CMBR Doppler

[C]osmic [M]icrowave [b]ackground [R]adiation

Paul Stowe

Dear Kenneth Ellested:

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
news
Thanks for the link, very interesting:

Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET
2. CMBR Doppler

Just to piggyback on Paul Stowe's response...

CMBR Doppler describes an anisotropy in the detected CMBR radiation, that
appears blue-shifted in one direction, and red-shifted in the opposite
direction. This anisotropy is the same for large collections of galaxies,
to within a few degrees. It corresponds to us moving at near 300 km/sec,
wrt the "Universe at large".

David A. Smith

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.


Tom Roberts

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:QkRad.42610$R43.38673@fed1read01...
Dear Kenneth Ellested:

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
news
Thanks for the link, very interesting:

Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET
2. CMBR Doppler

Just to piggyback on Paul Stowe's response...

CMBR Doppler describes an anisotropy in the detected CMBR radiation, that
appears blue-shifted in one direction, and red-shifted in the opposite
direction. This anisotropy is the same for large collections of galaxies,
to within a few degrees. It corresponds to us moving at near 300 km/sec,
wrt the "Universe at large".

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; but such a frame is not strictly
inertial so the POR is not violated - it is pretty close to inertial - but
we are speaking on matters of principles here.

Thanks
Bill


David A. Smith

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:52:05 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:QkRad.42610$R43.38673@fed1read01...
Dear Kenneth Ellested:

"Kenneth Ellested" wrote in message
news
Thanks for the link, very interesting:

Sorry for asking but what is:
1. LET
2. CMBR Doppler

Just to piggyback on Paul Stowe's response...

CMBR Doppler describes an anisotropy in the detected CMBR radiation, that
appears blue-shifted in one direction, and red-shifted in the opposite
direction. This anisotropy is the same for large collections of galaxies,
to within a few degrees. It corresponds to us moving at near 300 km/sec,
wrt the "Universe at large".

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; but such a frame is not strictly
inertial so the POR is not violated - it is pretty close to inertial - but

"we are speaking on matters of principles here."

Now that's hilarious... ROTFLMAO!

Paul Stowe