Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

Harry I was quoting wikipedia and I disagree with the quote. -- Original Message -- From: "H L V" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 21:10 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether I have heard different accounts of what motivated his

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

SR is quite a solid model as it can adequately "predict" the electron mass/energy in a storage ring. I use the word solid because all current models of physics, also called standard model, have a very low precision (usually < 4 digits without fudging) and thus never can be basic models. The

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR. The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't know but it makes him appear very thorough. harry On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > says -> >>The aberration of light, together with

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics , the moving magnet and conductor problem , the negative aether drift

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I should not have said "seems". It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy) harry On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > >>>seems <<< > > > ??? > > > When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

>>>seems <<< ??? When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation - its usually not given. -- Original Message -- From: "H L V" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

criticism of the Hafele Keating experiment is that it is cherry picking. On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr. Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: >>I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but much less so with SR. It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<< QM I (SChrödigner) is

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established, but much less so with SR. It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<< Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

On 12.11.2023 01:50, Jonathan Berry wrote: Another idea I came across is that gravity is a result of time dilation! Gravity, as shown exactly in SOP, is a very weak "nuclear" force. Time dilation as origin of a force is a nice fantasy - just good for a Disney movie. J.W. -- Jürg