GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 02:49 On Jun 22, 11:33 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? "Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. " The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz transforms were derived, the postulate is valid based on experimental confirmation, so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and their derivation.
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 06:11 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182578713.599141.243150(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > 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. There was no fumble >> 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. Then you do not understand the Lorentz transforms. Just like you don't understand SR >> 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. Nonsense. > Either way, neither > theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light. Again, you are showing your ignorance > Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light > speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms. Yes .. you can >> > ....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. I happily admit errors if I make them .. I have not made one. You on the other hand are .. no I'll resist the temptation of lowering myself to your standards again.
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 06:22 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182581393.405828.98150(a)i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > "Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be > constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. " The Lorentz transform gives that the speed of light must be constant in all frames of reference. ie if something travels at c, and you use the Lorentz tranform to find what the speed is in another iFoR. You'll note the the Lorentz transform predates SR, SR also derived the same transform. > The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz > transforms were derived, That's a chicken and egg issue. The postulate is an assertion that the speed of light is a constant speed in all iFoR. If Lorentz transforms apply between iFoR, then the speed of light is the same in both frames of reference.. Why is it a problem if you can derive one from the other. > the postulate is valid based on experimental > confirmation, Yes .. I didn't say otherwise > so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and > their derivation. What "it" are you talking about? The constant 'c' that we call "speed of light"? You can derive in constancy in all frame from systems where Lorentz transforms apply between the frames. it all depends on where you would like to take your starting point. Historically, Einstein derived the same Lorentz transforms starting his second postulate. But the Lorentz transforms had been derived before Einstein made his postulate (why do you think they are called Lorentz transforms, and not Einstein transforms?)
From: Tom Roberts on 23 Jun 2007 10:29 Dono wrote: > "Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be > constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. " > > The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz > transforms were derived, the postulate is valid based on experimental > confirmation, so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and > their derivation. This depends, at base, on what one means by "theory of physics". Specifically, which of these determine a given theory of physics: A) The set of theorems included in the theory B) The interpretations of the symbols in (A) C) The specific set of postulates used to derive (A) You are using a definition that includes (A), (B), and (C). Many physicists consider (A) and (B) to be sufficient -- that is, the specific postulates used to define the theory are not important to the essence of the theory -- certainly they have no effect on any physical measurements or predictions of the theory (which is all we have to test it). For SR, there are many different sets of postulates that yield the same set of theorems, and therefore the same theory. In particular, one can replace Einstein's original second postulate with this: 2') There is a finite upper bound on the speed of information transfer. Many/most physicists would agree that the resulting theory is still SR. But now determining that limiting speed becomes an _experimental_ issue, and it is found to be numerically equal to the speed of light in vacuum (with an errorbar of a few parts per billion). Now the constancy of the speed of light is not a fundamental aspect of the theory, which is appropriate, as SR is not really about light, anyway (it is about symmetries of spacetime). [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). So they remain different theories in this view.] Historically, the same symbol ("c") has been used as both the limiting speed of the Lorentz transform and as the speed of light in Maxwell's equations. This is understandable due to the way the former were originally derived from the latter, but it implies a union between them that is not really justified: at present experimental measurements of the photon mass are consistent with zero, but if in the future it was discovered to have a nonzero mass (presumably smaller than today's upper bound), Maxwell's equations and QED would need to be modified and/or their domains reduced; SR and the concept of Lorentz invariance would remain unchanged. Tom Roberts
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 10:35
On Jun 23, 3:11 am, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1182578713.599141.243150(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > There was no fumble > > >> 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. > > Then you do not understand the Lorentz transforms. > > Just like you don't understand SR > > >> 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. > > Nonsense. > > > Either way, neither > > theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light. > > Again, you are showing your ignorance > > > Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light > > speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms. > > Yes .. you can > > >> > ....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. > > I happily admit errors if I make them .. I have not made one. > > You on the other hand are .. no I'll resist the temptation of lowering > myself to your standards again.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Another content free post. Congratulations! |