GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 22 Jun 2007 20:43 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182553288.722225.183380(a)j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is >> the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not >> dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > > The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light, The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit in all frame of references. That speed is the c that appears in the transforms. > quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a > consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of > light speed. Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'. > In light of this, your sentence : > "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as > GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms" That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call it c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also give you a finite maximum speed. Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply (SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c. > ....is grossly incorrect No .. it is not > If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try > at least to learn your SR. I do. Such a comment is rich coming from you. Are you going to stalk me now, because I showed you were completely wrong in your aberration claims (despite you calling me an idiot, and stoooopid etc). VERY childish. But that is nothing more than I'd expect from you so far.
From: Jeckyl on 22 Jun 2007 20:44 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182556219.267817.85480(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > The conversation between Jeckyl and Dono exhibits very strong signs of > an argument between two village idiots. <shrug> Now that you've joined in .. yes. Which village are you from? :)
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 02:05 On Jun 22, 5:43 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1182553288.722225.183380(a)j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is > >> the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not > >> dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > > > The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light, > > The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit in > all frame of references. > Nice try to cover up the fumble but this is not what you wrote. > That speed is the c that appears in the transforms. > > > quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a > > consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of > > light speed. > > Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that > the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this > hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so > not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms > as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the > second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed > of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'. > > > In light of this, your sentence : > > "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as > > GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms" > > That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call it > c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also give > you a finite maximum speed. No, the Lorentz transforms "give you" nothing. Since they were derived using the postulate of light constancy, they simply CONFIRM it. > Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply > (SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c. > You just learned what LET is a few days ago. Either way, neither theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light. Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms. > > ....is grossly incorrect > > No .. it is not > Of course it, is. I didn't expect you to be a man and admit your error. I admitted to my error, it is not yet clear that you can finish the calculations I asked you to, so the jury is still out.
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 02:10 On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:01 pm, Dono <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is > > > the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not > > > dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > > > The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light, > > quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a > > consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of > > light speed. > > The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in > the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant > wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the > Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not > satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is > obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the > mathematics to be valid. You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed constancy.The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be derived. So, as usual, go take a hike.
From: Koobee Wublee on 23 Jun 2007 02:33
On Jun 22, 11:10 pm, Dono <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms > since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed > constancy. I never said the constancy in the speed of light can be derived from the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be > derived. However, under the Lorentz transform, it leaves no room for anyone other interpretations except the constancy in the speed of light. <shrug> > So, as usual, go take a hike. Done. I have done 54 miles this week. What else do you want of me? |