GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 19:18 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > 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. And, as I said, the wording of the second postulate would change as light would then not travel at the "speed of light" .. we'd need a new name like "limiting speed for light" (perhaps).
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 19:23 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182610259.885643.29500(a)i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 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 But it can > (and/or should not be claimed > to be a consequence of the Lorentz transforms) But it is > since the postulate > lies at the basis of the derivation of the Lorentz transforms. Irrelevant > Jeckyl is blabbing a lot of nonsense. Your prejudice is showing
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 19:24 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > Another content free post. Congratulations! Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing worthwhile saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you were wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent. It wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) mathematic justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you grow up, you'll learn.
From: Jeckyl on 23 Jun 2007 20:08 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:n5cr73pl78cvpe11rabgaib8van9ahad33(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:01:28 -0700, Dono <sa_ge(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. >> >> >>In light of this, your sentence : >> >>"However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as >>GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms" >> >>....is grossly incorrect.If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try >>at least to learn your SR. > > Is this the same Wilson who has shown conclusively that most star > brightness > variation can be attributed directly to c+v effects? > > What you morons can't see is that Einstein merely used the conclusions of > LET > as his second postulate then worked the maths backwards. It is a blatant > case > of plagiarisation. It achieved nothing new. It sidetracked physics by > ignoring > truth just as Earth Centrism did for centuries before. > > It is now clear that light travels ballistically, at least in deep space. > Around large masses like Earth, there usually exists some kind of local EM > speed control 'medium' which could easily make LET and Einstein's > postulate > appear to be somewhat true under lab conditions. > > It is only because of the extreme difficulty involved with measuring OW > light > speed from moving sources that SR has lasted this long. And nothing to do with the fact that it correctly predicts experimental results and observation .. including time dilation affecting the decay of sub-atomic particles etc .. things that ballistic theory does not account for.
From: Dono on 24 Jun 2007 03:01
On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > Another content free post. Congratulations! > > Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing worthwhile > saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you were > wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent. It > wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very > clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) mathematic > justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and > (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the > while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you grow > up, you'll learn. Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution to the problem you keep refering to? |