GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 10:50 On Jun 23, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 Thank you, Tom The issue under discussion was that the constancy of lightspeed cannot be "derived" from the Lorentz transforms (and/or should not be claimed to be a consequence of the Lorentz transforms) since the postulate lies at the basis of the derivation of the Lorentz transforms. Jeckyl is blabbing a lot of nonsense.
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Jun 2007 12:45 Dono wrote: > On Jun 23, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > 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 > > Thank you, Tom Now the world will know forever that "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". But Master Tom Roberts had forgotten this discovery (or was trying to forget it) and if I had not exposed it Master Tom Roberts would never have remembered it. So I think you should thank ME - if it were not for my contribution, you would still believe that "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)", SR would be AFFECTED. No, that was a wrong belief. The truth is: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be UNAFFECTED". Master Tom Roberts discovered that, but my contribution is essential. Pentcho Valev
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 12:55 On Jun 23, 9:45 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Go away, crank.
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Jun 2007 13:03 Tom Roberts wrote: > 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... Roberts Roberts why do you expose the specific methods used by Einstein criminal cult in the destruction of human rationality? Those methods are secret Roberts Roberts. Your brothers hypnotists may kick you out. Pentcho Valev
From: THE_ONE on 23 Jun 2007 14:39
CHOICE OF WORDING CAN HELP. Constantly it is said that the speed of light is consistent. It should be mad clear weather or not one is speaking of the speed of light itself, or the results gained as the result of the measuring of the speed of light. 1) Experiments show that the measurement of the speed of light always gives the same result when the light is in motion across space in a vacuum. 2) Motion contains two variables, SPEED and DISTANCE. Variables range from zero to infinity. If both variables are set to infinite, this would mean that the traveler would travel onwards forever across an infinite depth of space, and do so at an infinite speed. At an infinite speed, any distance traveled is done so without the passage of any Time. If time did take place, then this means that one is traveling at a finite speed that could be surpassed. Therefore the traveler would travel across Space forever, and do so with no passage of Time occurring at all. For this to be possible, it is necessary that the faster one moves across space, the slower one moves across time. It becomes an exchange game. With being the case, if eventually the motion of the traveler was entirely across Space, then motion across Time would now be at a standstill. Therefore, to the observers, the traveler goes on traveling forever, while to the traveler, his clock is not ticking at all, hence the traveler goes on forever, in no time at all. 3) From # 2) it can be said that objects are in constant motion, and that this constant motion can be pointed in different directions across Space-Time. Therefore the more the motion is directed across space, the less motion there is across time, and vise versa. 4) It is also determined that measurement instruments change, and change by an amount that is dependent upon the velocity across Space such instruments have. This agrees with ( # 3) ) because as one changes ones direction of travel across Space-Time, one also rotates, and this therefore changes the depth of which one extends across the dimensions of Space, and also across the dimension of Time. Hence the spatial length of an object will change, such as the change of the length of a train, and clocks positioned at the ends of a train for instance, will no longer be in zero spatial velocity sync.. Once the train is motion across Space, the rotation, which reduces the Train's degree of extension across Space, and begins to extend across the dimension of Time instead, will set the two clocks out of sync. And so we have instruments that change. Rulers become spatially shorter if not at rest in Space. Clocks that run slower if not at rest in Space. Clocks at opposite ends of the ruler for instance, are no longer in sync, if the ruler is not at rest in Space. Despite all of these changes, the measurement of the speed of light always gives the same results. Therefore, the speed of that light across Space is consistent, and its consistency is related to the consistent magnitude of motion of all objects moving across the open Space-Time environment. On top of that. if you have a spinning particle which can throw off a photon, then when the particle's spatial velocity is increased, the spinning particle also rotates across the dimension of Time to a greater degree. This means that the spin axis extends across the dimension of Time to a greater degree. As the result of such rotation of the axis across time, the photon thrown off, or released, no longer is released with the same spatial velocity in all directions since the angular spatial velocity is no longer the same as previously. In fact, if the photon is thrown in the opposite direction of which the spinning particle is moving across space, the photons spatial velocity relative to the spinning particle becomes ( c + v ). In the forward direction it becomes ( c - v ). With the velocity of the particle's spatial velocity taken into account as well, the end result is ( c + v - v = c ) and ( c - v + v = c ). The final outcome is that the photons always end up moving across Space at the velocity of c, even though they are released by a moving body. Meanwhile, due to the measurement instruments altering to degrees that depend upon the velocity of such instruments motion across Space, the measuring of these photons always gives the same results thanks for instance to slower clocks, shorter rulers, and of course clocks at the ends of the ruler being out of sync. Thinking four dimensionally resolves all problems ! http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm |