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) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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|limimting nature light-velocity casual factor underlying relativity]] |
Latest revision as of 20:03, 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.
