Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
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.

Not quite. In LET you must, of course, choose the ACTUAL ether frame. It
was not apparent to Lorentz that one could not do this via any
experiment -- he simply assumed that there is such a frame and one
naturally computes using it, whatever it is. It is serendipity that the
inability to experimentally identify this frame does not matter, because
the choice of the ether frame does not affect the predictions of the
theory for any experiment.


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.

Close enough, as long as one remembers this applies only to
EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS.

I was not trying to deal with anything else.


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.

That is not really "the SR approach", that is, rather, your perversion
of SR to force its round peg into the square hole that is LET.

The SR approach from the perspective of LET maths which is what I am
describing.


One simply cannot "rid" LET of the ether frame.

Computationally one can take a shortcut, as you say.

That is my point. One can do the maths without having a FoR which is
separate and different to the other FoR you are considering. You can
make it common with one of the FoR you are considering.

The other is
to do LET maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame.

But it simply does not make sense for the ether to be at rest in
multiple frames. This totally ignores the underlying theoretical basis
of LET.

Agreed but if we are simply looking at LET as a mathematical approach
which gives the right answer, this doesn't matter. It is obvious that SR
and LET will give the same results because SR is the mathematical
equivalent of choosing the observer's FoR as the aether frame and we
know that LET maths is not affected by the choice of aether frame. In SR
if one changes observer then in terms of LET that is changing the FoR
you designate as aether frame - this totally ignores the underlying
theoretical basis of LET but it does show why the two are mathematically
equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is
simply mathematical modelling,

This is not merely SR, but all theories of modern physics. We have
learned a thing or three since 1904.

In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them, which is known as science.


Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer.

No. You are attempting to apply ancient terminology to SR. The words
simply do not fit. You need to LEARN SR, and its vocabulary.

No. again I am talking about LET purely as a mathematical approach and
how SR may be viewed from that context from a compatibility PoV.




AT THIS POINT YOU DO AN UNACKNOWLEDGED SNIP AND FAIL TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.





Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making
the source frame and aether frame one and the same

Not at all!

Ballistic theory is based upon the assumption that light (whatever it
is) travels away from the source at c in all directions. In a wave model
when the source is stationary w.r.t the aether light travels away from
the source at c in all directions.

No ballistic theory includes relativistic kinematics.

I didn't claim it did, neither was I trying to claim that ballistic
theory and LET are equivalent.

What I was saying is that it is possible to do the maths of LET choosing
the source as the aether FoR without changing any of the predictions.
My suggestion was that using that approach to do relativistic maths
would more easily *highlight the differences* between relativistic maths
and the maths of ballistic theory in that you then have in common the
fact that both are mathematically equivalent to assuming that the source
is stationary w.r.t the aether although neither relativists nor
ballistic theory supporters would accept that an aether is involved of
course.

--
John Kennaugh

On 30 Nov, 16:04, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making
the source frame and aether frame one and the same
Not at all!

Ballistic theory is based upon the assumption that light (whatever it
is) travels away from the source at c in all directions. In a wave model
when the source is stationary w.r.t the aether light travels away from
the source at c in all directions.

John Kennaugh- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The funny,funny,funny reason for warped space based on the lament of
light leaving a star goes to waste if it is not bent -

"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still
less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light
emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system
are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

I had to read it several times to make sure I was'nt
hallucinating,instead,that pre-Galactic discovery statement from 1920
along with the rest of those paragraphs is genuinely hilarious.I have
seen comments supporting and attacking Albert but I have yet to see
another person actually laugh at the reasoning.Pity !.

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
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.

Not quite. In LET you must, of course, choose the ACTUAL ether frame. It
was not apparent to Lorentz that one could not do this via any
experiment -- he simply assumed that there is such a frame and one
naturally computes using it, whatever it is. It is serendipity that the
inability to experimentally identify this frame does not matter, because
the choice of the ether frame does not affect the predictions of the
theory for any experiment.


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.

Close enough, as long as one remembers this applies only to
EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS.

I was not trying to deal with anything else.


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.

That is not really "the SR approach", that is, rather, your perversion
of SR to force its round peg into the square hole that is LET.

The SR approach from the perspective of LET maths which is what I am
describing.


One simply cannot "rid" LET of the ether frame.

Computationally one can take a shortcut, as you say.

That is my point. One can do the maths without having a FoR which is
separate and different to the other FoR you are considering. You can
make it common with one of the FoR you are considering.

The other is
to do LET maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame.

But it simply does not make sense for the ether to be at rest in
multiple frames. This totally ignores the underlying theoretical basis
of LET.

Agreed but if we are simply looking at LET as a mathematical approach
which gives the right answer, this doesn't matter. It is obvious that SR
and LET will give the same results because SR is the mathematical
equivalent of choosing the observer's FoR as the aether frame and we
know that LET maths is not affected by the choice of aether frame. In SR
if one changes observer then in terms of LET that is changing the FoR
you designate as aether frame - this totally ignores the underlying
theoretical basis of LET but it does show why the two are mathematically
equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is
simply mathematical modelling,

This is not merely SR, but all theories of modern physics. We have
learned a thing or three since 1904.

In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them, which is known as science.


Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer.

No. You are attempting to apply ancient terminology to SR. The words
simply do not fit. You need to LEARN SR, and its vocabulary.

No. again I am talking about LET purely as a mathematical approach and
how SR may be viewed from that context from a compatibility PoV.




AT THIS POINT YOU DO AN UNACKNOWLEDGED SNIP AND FAIL TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.


Just as you have failed to answer mine.

As SR now offers none it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to show that they are
different theories. What physics has done it to change the rules such
that physical interpretation...

What do you mean by 'physical interpretation'?

--
Martin Hogbin

On 1 Dec, 10:12, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

.uk...





Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
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.

Not quite. In LET you must, of course, choose the ACTUAL ether frame. It
was not apparent to Lorentz that one could not do this via any
experiment -- he simply assumed that there is such a frame and one
naturally computes using it, whatever it is. It is serendipity that the
inability to experimentally identify this frame does not matter, because
the choice of the ether frame does not affect the predictions of the
theory for any experiment.

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.

Close enough, as long as one remembers this applies only to
EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS.

I was not trying to deal with anything else.

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.

That is not really "the SR approach", that is, rather, your perversion
of SR to force its round peg into the square hole that is LET.

The SR approach from the perspective of LET maths which is what I am
describing.

One simply cannot "rid" LET of the ether frame.

Computationally one can take a shortcut, as you say.

That is my point. One can do the maths without having a FoR which is
separate and different to the other FoR you are considering. You can
make it common with one of the FoR you are considering.

The other is
to do LET maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame.

But it simply does not make sense for the ether to be at rest in
multiple frames. This totally ignores the underlying theoretical basis
of LET.

Agreed but if we are simply looking at LET as a mathematical approach
which gives the right answer, this doesn't matter. It is obvious that SR
and LET will give the same results because SR is the mathematical
equivalent of choosing the observer's FoR as the aether frame and we
know that LET maths is not affected by the choice of aether frame. In SR
if one changes observer then in terms of LET that is changing the FoR
you designate as aether frame - this totally ignores the underlying
theoretical basis of LET but it does show why the two are mathematically
equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is
simply mathematical modelling,

This is not merely SR, but all theories of modern physics. We have
learned a thing or three since 1904.

In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them, which is known as science.

Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer.

No. You are attempting to apply ancient terminology to SR. The words
simply do not fit. You need to LEARN SR, and its vocabulary.

No. again I am talking about LET purely as a mathematical approach and
how SR may be viewed from that context from a compatibility PoV.

AT THIS POINT YOU DO AN UNACKNOWLEDGED SNIP AND FAIL TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.

Just as you have failed to answer mine.

As SR now offers none it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to show that they are
different theories. What physics has done it to change the rules such
that physical interpretation...

What do you mean by 'physical interpretation'?

--
Martin Hogbin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If a person has to define 'physical interpretation' for you then you
have a subhuman intellect .Of course the OP is willing to play the
same game but that is what you get when mathematicians run amok.The
great pre-empiricist mathematicians like Pascal knew the limitations
of mathematicians but empiricist politics can cover up most of their
failings. -

"We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process
of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Blaise Pascal

It is a comfort to see what happens when men try to abandon geometry
for guesswork and an equational treatment,that is the only thing that
is predictable.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
On 1 Dec, 10:12, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

.uk...


What do you mean by 'physical interpretation'?

If a person has to define 'physical interpretation' for you then you
have a subhuman intellect .

If it is so easy then perhaps you could do it.


--
Martin Hogbin

On 1 Dec, 16:58, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...

On 1 Dec, 10:12, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

o.uk...

What do you mean by 'physical interpretation'?

If a person has to define 'physical interpretation' for you then you
have a subhuman intellect .

If it is so easy then perhaps you could do it.

--
Martin Hogbin


You must have missed the statement -

Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally,
and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all
men, and only a few can feel it." Blaise Pascal

I suppose you can make a living out of arguing over definitions and
make a giant wordplay to substitute for a lack of intutive
intelligence in geometric affairs but then again,that is what this
thread is all about.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
AT THIS POINT YOU DO AN UNACKNOWLEDGED SNIP AND FAIL TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.


Just as you have failed to answer mine.

On the contrary I am working on it. Have a little patience.


As SR now offers none it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to show that they are
different theories. What physics has done it to change the rules such
that physical interpretation...

What do you mean by 'physical interpretation'?




--
John Kennaugh

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
[...]

What I was saying is that it is possible to do the maths of LET choosing
the source as the aether FoR without changing any of the predictions.
My suggestion was that using that approach to do relativistic maths would
more easily *highlight the differences* between relativistic maths and the
maths of ballistic theory in that you then have in common the fact that
both are mathematically equivalent to assuming that the source is
stationary w.r.t the aether although neither relativists nor ballistic
theory supporters would accept that an aether is involved of course.

Hi John,

I already showed you that Einstein did just that in his 1905 paper when he
discussed aberration.
As for your question: why would such an approach highlight the differences?
If you only introduce one object that is in rest, a lot of effects that
should highlight the differences are 0 as well, and the speed of light
relative to that aether as determined in a standard frame that is at rest in
it is c according to both theories.

Regards,
Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...
:
: "John Kennaugh" wrote in message
: .uk...
: [...]
:
: What I was saying is that it is possible to do the maths of LET choosing
: the source as the aether FoR without changing any of the predictions.
: My suggestion was that using that approach to do relativistic maths
would
: more easily *highlight the differences* between relativistic maths and
the
: maths of ballistic theory in that you then have in common the fact that
: both are mathematically equivalent to assuming that the source is
: stationary w.r.t the aether although neither relativists nor ballistic
: theory supporters would accept that an aether is involved of course.
:
: Hi John,
:
: I already showed you that Einstein did just that in his 1905 paper when he
: discussed aberration.
: As for your question: why would such an approach highlight the
differences?
: If you only introduce one object that is in rest, a lot of effects that
: should highlight the differences are 0 as well, and the speed of light
: relative to that aether as determined in a standard frame that is at rest
in
: it is c according to both theories.

That doesn't highlight the differences between relativistic maths and the
maths of aether-free ballistic fact, idiot, so what "both" theories are you
babbling about?

On Dec 2, 2:46 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
:
: "John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
: [...]
:
: What I was saying is that it is possible to do the maths of LET choosing
: the source as the aether FoR without changing any of the predictions.
: My suggestion was that using that approach to do relativistic maths
would
: more easily *highlight the differences* between relativistic maths and
the
: maths of ballistic theory in that you then have in common the fact that
: both are mathematically equivalent to assuming that the source is
: stationary w.r.t the aether although neither relativists nor ballistic
: theory supporters would accept that an aether is involved of course.
:
: Hi John,
:
: I already showed you that Einstein did just that in his 1905 paper when he
: discussed aberration.
: As for your question: why would such an approach highlight the
differences?
: If you only introduce one object that is in rest, a lot of effects that
: should highlight the differences are 0 as well, and the speed of light
: relative to that aether as determined in a standard frame that is at rest
in
: it is c according to both theories.

That doesn't highlight the differences between relativistic maths and the
maths of aether-free ballistic fact, idiot, so what "both" theories are you
babbling about?


The notions are hilarious to behold and I am terrified that I will
never find another person who finds them genuinely funny -

"Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to
the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a
circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a
result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

I guess the guy never heard of the astrological framework of Flamsteed/
Newton or that Polaris does not trace an immense circle -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609...hambsch_f1.jpg


On a serious side,the idea that there is a huge super-intellectual
discussion going on between classical guys and the relativistic guys
is simply a myth,Newton and his astrological framework and ballistic
agenda always gets protected making this a nightmare for the rest of
humanity.