Difference between revisions of "The Limimting Nature of Light-Velocity as the Casual Factor Underlying Relativity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
# The Lorentz-Poincare approach is not satisfactory anyway because its basic postulation of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction was <em>ad hoc.</em> | # The Lorentz-Poincare approach is not satisfactory anyway because its basic postulation of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction was <em>ad hoc.</em> | ||
− | [[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|limimting nature light-velocity casual factor underlying relativity]] |
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Relativity]] |
Revision as of 11:18, 1 January 2017
Scientific Paper | |
---|---|
Title | The Limimting Nature of Light-Velocity as the Casual Factor Underlying Relativity |
Author(s) | Trevor Morris |
Keywords | light-velocity, relativity, ether, superfluous |
Published | 1994 |
Journal | None |
Pages | 203-208 |
Abstract
THE ETHER: ED HOC OR SUPERFLUOUS?
It is commonly accepted that Einstein's 1905 paper setting out the Special Theory of Relativity was a turning-point, and his approach has entirely displaced the earlier one developed by Lorentz (1892, 1904) and Poincare (1904). Two main reasons for this preference are usually given:
- Einstein's version is more economical because it makes a preferred frame of reference, the ether, "superfluous" (Einstein, 1905; Jeans, 1925).
- The Lorentz-Poincare approach is not satisfactory anyway because its basic postulation of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction was ad hoc.