Prev: Electricity is a vibrating phenomenon
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: J. Clarke on 24 Feb 2010 07:44
On 2/24/2010 3:19 AM, Androcles wrote:
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0baac22d-ad06-4136-b1b2-d7144955080f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 12:31 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>> You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something
>> magic. It's not, it's just a shorthand.
>
> The term "c" has multiple meanings.
>
> There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of
> communications, designated "c".

Still just a shorthand--there's no specific, known value that c is
compelled by theory to have.

That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is
meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from your
height" or "if the population of New York was different from the
population of New York".

> ==============================================
> There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of
> bullshit, designated "Jerry".
>
>
>
>
>

From: jem on 28 Feb 2010 09:03
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 11:06 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PaulStowewrote:
>>>> LET and SR have the very same collection of equations and
>>>> consequences, what's the difference between them?
>>> Lorentz invariance.
>>
>> That phase says it all. It's not the Einstein transform or Einstein
>> invariance is it? One wonders why :)
>
> No need to wonder, just study a bit of the history.
>
> IMHO "Poincar� invariance" is a better name for this -- Lorentz first
> published the restricted set of transforms, but Poincar� first published
> the complete set and proved they form a group (invariance necessarily
> applies to a group, which is why I call them Lorentz transforms but
> Poincar� invariance).
>
> The irony, of course, is that the theory with Lorentz's name in its
> title does NOT have Lorentz invariance (it has it only for observables,
> not the fundamental constituents of the theory).
>

The irony, of course, is that someone who insists that only the
invariant constituents of models are fundamental, is suggesting that
the fundamental constituents of the LET model aren't invariant.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Electricity is a vibrating phenomenon
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!