GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Randy Poe on 29 Jun 2007 06:55 On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > > > So they remain different theories in this view.] > > > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) > > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR > > > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > > different acronym for the same thing > > Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this > (you don't STUDY enough): > > http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa... > Tom Roberts: "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 but both > Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains > of applicability would be reduced)." > > As you can see, SR remains unaffected no matter what happens to > Einstein's light postulate The point is too subtle for you. SR is unaffected because the postulate is unchanged. c is a speed limit in our universe and is the speed of massless particles. If photons have mass, then the theory no longer allows them to move at c, nor is their speed invariant. But all the theory about the invariance of c remains. Light is just not one of the things moving at c anymore in that (hypothetical) case. However, to date all evidence appears to show that light is massless and so does move at the invariant speed limit c. So you needn't worry your head about such hypotheticals, when dealing with the current universe is hard enough. - Randy
From: Jeckyl on 29 Jun 2007 07:04 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Jeckyl wrote: >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). >> > > So they remain different theories in this view.] >> >> > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether >> > Theory) >> > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR >> >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a >> > different acronym for the same thing >> >> Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this >> (you don't STUDY enough): No .. he hasn't, although I have asked [snip unrelated spamming be pentcho] Can you answer my question, Randy? >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a >> > different acronym for the same thing ie What is the difference between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and Lorentz Electromagnetic Theory and LT (Lorentz theory) ??? Are they all the same thing?
From: Randy Poe on 29 Jun 2007 10:45 On Jun 29, 7:04 am, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Jeckyl wrote: > >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > >> > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > >> > > So they remain different theories in this view.] > > >> > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether > >> > Theory) > >> > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR > > >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > >> > different acronym for the same thing > > >> Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this > >> (you don't STUDY enough): > > No .. he hasn't, although I have asked > > [snip unrelated spamming be pentcho] > > Can you answer my question, Randy? No, I can't. I'm not familiar with these Lorentz theories. Sorry. > > >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > >> > different acronym for the same thing > > ie What is the difference between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and Lorentz > Electromagnetic Theory and LT (Lorentz theory) ??? > > Are they all the same thing? No idea. - Randy
From: Muddypaws on 29 Jun 2007 11:33 Jeckyl wrote: > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Jeckyl wrote: > >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > >> > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > >> > > So they remain different theories in this view.] > >> > >> > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether > >> > Theory) > >> > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR > >> > >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > >> > different acronym for the same thing > >> > >> Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this > >> (you don't STUDY enough): > > No .. he hasn't, although I have asked Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity" and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam Wormley: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/15690046b3bff4c1? but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may still reply if their questions are not too silly. Pentcho Valev
From: Pentcho Valev on 29 Jun 2007 13:41
Muddypaws wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Jeckyl wrote: > > >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >> >news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > > >> > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > > >> > > So they remain different theories in this view.] > > >> > > >> > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether > > >> > Theory) > > >> > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR > > >> > > >> > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > > >> > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > > >> > different acronym for the same thing > > >> > > >> Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this > > >> (you don't STUDY enough): > > > > No .. he hasn't, although I have asked > > Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein > criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there > is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity" > and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of > the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the > end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam > Wormley: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/15690046b3bff4c1? > > but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to > this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom > Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of > Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may > still reply if their questions are not too silly. I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies' attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71d18321ed514ad2 Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates {X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"??? No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the "length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection." It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves any length contraction problems: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f01724e78e78dde0? So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction. If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the "dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam Wormley. Pentcho Valev |