Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426577

Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory
Date	2017-07-30 01:56 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<oljecn$c03$4@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	<olj91f$n58$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>After the contractions of Fitzgerald and Lorentz were added to Aether 
>theory to explain the MMX null result, the subsequent theory known as 
>LET culminated in the following conclusions:
>1. Because an absolute, light carrying medium exists, the speed of light 
>from all sources is unified by that medium.

Ralph, if LET really stated that (which I doubt) it would be wrong, 
because it takes a postulate (there is an aether) and elevates it to
fact.

>2. Because the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks are modified by 
>the same factor, gamma, all attempts to measure the OW speed of light 
>will produce the same answer, c, irrespective of the absolute speed of 
>the apparatus.

>Einstein's SR begins with two postulates, the first of which, P1, 
>virtually denies the concept of absolutism.

Yes, if the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, that
would mean that there can be no such thing as an absolute frame.
(I need to mark this on my calendar! Ralph Rabbidge was actually correct 
for once!!)

>The second, P2, states that (a) light speed is the same irrespective of 
>source speed and (b) that light speed is the same irrespective of 
>observer speed.

>P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.

No, Ralph, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
motion of the source or observer.

>Having begun in that way,

Having started with a false assumption, Ralph Rabbidge has come to a
wrong conclusion.  Congratulations, Ralph, you just demonstrated GIGO!

 Einstein then derived the equations necessary 

>Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added 
>that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri 
>Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a 
>medium did exist.
>Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any 
>observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether

No, Ralph. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated
that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make
up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this
"personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up.

>Einstein's version of aether theory

Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't
have it both ways, Ralph.

> also lacked a mechanism that would 
>bring about light speed unification from all sources.

Because there was no need for any "unification", Ralph.

> It simply stated 
>it as a postulate.

It was a postulate, Ralph, one based on all observation.  Even back
then they could measure the speed of light accurately enough that they
knew the speed of light was constant, Ralph.

>What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of 
>medium, AND THAT INCLUDES FIELDS, some predictions of LET (and SR) might 
>be partially observed, the extent being dependent on the 'densities' of 
>matter or fields present.

Babbling nonsense, Ralph.

>That concept is part of BaTh,

So babbling nonsense is part of DirtyBaThWater, Ralph? I think all of it
is babbling nonsense, Ralph.

> as is the fact that most of space is 
>sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically, 
>as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.

Now Ralph, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Ralph.
As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see.

Thread

Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:25 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:56 +0000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:35 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-09 03:18 +0000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:55 +1000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:49 +0000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-30 21:30 +0200
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 18:46 +0200
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 12:13 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:36 +0000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:49 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:40 +0000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 09:19 -0500
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:00 -0700
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-03 01:38 +0200
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:51 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-01 11:47 -0400
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:42 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:58 -0700
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:19 +0000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:46 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 14:15 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 10:27 -0700
  Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-07 10:47 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:52 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:14 -0700
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:18 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 12:29 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 10:12 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:36 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 16:09 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 23:34 -0500
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:57 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:39 -0500
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:22 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:50 +0000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:27 +1000
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:14 -0500
                Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:37 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 21:56 -0500
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:05 +1000
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:48 -0500
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:07 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:15 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:30 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:32 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:40 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 10:53 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 14:51 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 15:43 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2017-08-20 14:12 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 08:46 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:28 -0700

csiph-web