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.

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. The other is to do LET
maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame. Obviously
this is not going to change any predictions - it is a legitimate way of
doing LET maths and LET maths and SR maths are equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is simply
mathematical modelling, and as the historical route to SR is no longer
considered a necessary part of modern physics, even perhaps something of
an embarrassment, then one way of mathematical modelling would appear to
be as good as any other provided it gives the same answers.

Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer. The alternative
approach, choosing the source as the aether frame does not do this and
therefore has potential to be simpler while giving the same answers.

It is possible that there is some point I have missed but I was
wondering if that approach has been tried, how it works out in practice.

Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making the
source frame and aether frame one and the same so this approach might be
a way by which the predictions of relativistic maths and ballistic
theory are more easily highlighted.

--
John Kennaugh

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.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.

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. The other is to do LET maths
always choosing the source frame as the aether frame. Obviously this is
not going to change any predictions - it is a legitimate way of doing LET
maths and LET maths and SR maths are equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is simply
mathematical modelling, and as the historical route to SR is no longer
considered a necessary part of modern physics, even perhaps something of
an embarrassment, then one way of mathematical modelling would appear to
be as good as any other provided it gives the same answers.

Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer. The alternative
approach, choosing the source as the aether frame does not do this and
therefore has potential to be simpler while giving the same answers.

It is possible that there is some point I have missed but I was wondering
if that approach has been tried, how it works out in practice.

Yes you missed something fundamental. There is no need at all to choose as
reference frame a frame in which people are in rest. One can choose any
inertial frame that is most convenient. For example, Einstein chose in 1905
a star as reference for his calculation of aberration.

Regards,
Harald

Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making the
source frame and aether frame one and the same so this approach might be a
way by which the predictions of relativistic maths and ballistic theory
are more easily highlighted.

--
John Kennaugh

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.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

The original choice is the best of all -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

Imagine that,an entire vocabulary grew up around the choice of
reference frames which Newton give himself and in direct conflict with
the methods and insights of Copernicus which are recognised by Kepler
and Galileo among others.

Here is the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our and their
common orbital around the central Sun hence no hypothetical observer
on the Sun is needed to explain retrogrades -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Want to know where absolute/relative space comes from then understand
Galileo first -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .



You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

I love these false challenges,all they ever do is support Newton and
the remarkable choice he give himself,a choice which has no precedence
in Copernican or pre-Heliocentric astronomies.Thankfully ,the rest of
humanity no longer knows nor cares what claims you make or what you
have to say.












On Nov 26, 11:06 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
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.

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. The other is to do LET
maths always choosing the source frame as the aether frame. Obviously
this is not going to change any predictions - it is a legitimate way of
doing LET maths and LET maths and SR maths are equivalent.

Today SR has no pretensions to address physical processes, it is simply
mathematical modelling, and as the historical route to SR is no longer
considered a necessary part of modern physics, even perhaps something of
an embarrassment, then one way of mathematical modelling would appear to
be as good as any other provided it gives the same answers.

Again considering it from the perspective of LET then what SR does is
change 'aether frame' every time you change observer. The alternative
approach, choosing the source as the aether frame does not do this and
therefore has potential to be simpler while giving the same answers.

It is possible that there is some point I have missed but I was
wondering if that approach has been tried, how it works out in practice.

Now ballistic theory is also the *mathematical* equivalent of making the
source frame and aether frame one and the same so this approach might be
a way by which the predictions of relativistic maths and ballistic
theory are more easily highlighted.

--
John Kennaugh

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 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

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

Every Tom,John and Harry can now understand that Isaac would be
livid
that his followers lost the plot even when the guy 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


Isaac rejects an aether but his followers in the early 20th century
won't let him and invent an aether to dump back 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 otherwise known as the theory of arbitrary
choices,oh,I mean,the theory of relativity.


Galileo had a comment to make on such fine people as do and believe
these things -


"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

Being ill with rage by arguing with a person is far more preferable
than being ill through indoctrination,most here suffer from the
latter .

"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

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

Being ill with rage by arguing with a person is far more preferable
than being ill through indoctrination,most here suffer from the
latter .

Now THAT is a good point.

Harald

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"harry" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.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.

ROTFLOL.....pot calling the kettle black. LET uses the ether frame to do
calculations.

If you freeze "LET" at 1904 perhaps...

That is the same as the LET observer assumes that he is at
rest in the ether frame.

No, quite to the contrary: the "LET" observer assumes that he is IN MOTION
(only by incredible chance could he be in rest!)
IF you manage to grasp how the Lorentz-Poincare theory works and how it
yielded the Lorentz Transformations in 1905, THEN you may come to understand
SRT as well.

Harald

On Nov 26, 3:06 am, John Kennaugh wrote:

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. [...]

Both LET and SR share the same mathematics --- the Lorentz transform.
They are, in each, merely different interpretations to the same
mathematics. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to prove which
interpretation is wrong. Since the Lorentz transform manifests the
nonsense of the twin's paradox as well as relative simultaneity, both
conjectures of LET and SR are manure of the same pile in height and
odor.