A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 16:57 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > except for the fairly > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is > >> > undergoing > >> > a "real" slowdown. > > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround > >> occurs. > > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what > > was said. > > Perhaps that was what he said. > > But now you know. > > No leap ahead. http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html This and the supporting links give some of the context here. ____________________________________ Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's question, if he could be bothered to look and read.
From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 17:18 On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > In LET, to convert from 'real' speed (or position or time etc) to measured > speed (etc) in a given frame, you apply Galilean transforms from your frame > to the aether frame, and then Lorentz transforms back to your frame again. > That is how it is done. That is what I did. > You are not only an idiot, you are downright insane. There is no Galilean transforms in LET, imbecile.
From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 17:21 On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > The 'real' speed is not isotropic, because to work out real speed you use > Galilean transforms between frames (not Lorentz transforms). The hidden > reality 'behind' what we measure (according to LET) is Galilean/Euclidean, > not Lorentzian/Minkowski. > You are retarded. There is no "Galilei transforms" in LET. I am done with you.
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 17:28 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:a7aa88c3-9426-402f-b4c1-96255a2cb530(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> In LET, to convert from 'real' speed (or position or time etc) to >> measured >> speed (etc) in a given frame, you apply Galilean transforms from your >> frame >> to the aether frame, and then Lorentz transforms back to your frame >> again. >> That is how it is done. That is what I did. >> > > You are not only an idiot, you are downright insane. There is no > Galilean transforms in LET, imbecile. Yes .. there are. The underlying 'reality' in LET is a simple 3D space with Galilean transforms. The compression and slowing and change in sync of objects and processes due to movement in the aether gives a Lorentz transform between what rulers and clocks will measure. Basically (grossly simplified for you): SR says the space and time behave as per Lorentz transforms and have a minkowski geometry, and that objects and processes do not experience any intrinsic changes. They are only measured to do so from relatively moving observers due to the goemtry of spacetiem. LET says space and time behave as per Galilean transforms and have a simple Euclidean geometry, but that objects and processes DO experience intrinsic changes due to motion in the aether. Those changes are such that what you measure, with rulers and clocks affected in this way) are related by Lorentz transforms, and the geometry of what is measured in Minkowski (just like in SR). Even simpler: SR has 'undistorted' objects and processes within a 'distorted' spacetime; LET has 'distorted' objects and processes within an 'undistorted' space and time. The results on measurements are the same. So LET and SR make exactly the same predictions about what we will measure. Ie, every experimental results predicted by SR is the same as predicted by LET. Really, you should learn your physics before jumping in and making a complete fool of yourself .. again.
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 17:42
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:06b7b066-e25e-4eb5-bef6-a05b2228556f(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> The 'real' speed is not isotropic, because to work out real speed you use >> Galilean transforms between frames (not Lorentz transforms). The hidden >> reality 'behind' what we measure (according to LET) is >> Galilean/Euclidean, >> not Lorentzian/Minkowski. >> > > > You are retarded. Wrong > There is no "Galilei transforms" in LET Wrong > I am done > with you. Once again, Dono yells out abuse as he turns his tail and runs and hides again when he knows he is beaten. That's what he has to do to maintain his over-inflated ego. Run away. little Dono. We'll laugh at you as you go. |