Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jul 2010 01:24 On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green wrote: > > Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > > relativistic dynamics? > > In modern physics the essence of SR is summarized thus: all theories of physics > must be locally Lorentz invariant. Ahahaha... Yours truly was recently bitched at by one of these Einstein Dingleberries for using the phrase "essence of SR" or "essence of the Lorentz transform". I am confident that Professor Roberts reads my posts. That is why unconsciously he is picking up my phrases. Ahahaha... > Relativity itself has no dynamics, and it kinematic content is contained in the > above aphorism. Gee! I have learnt a new word "aphorism". > The use of any special or unique inertial frame that is > referenced in the dynamic equations of a theory is inconsistent with local > Lorentz invariance. The above aphorism is called barking up the wrong tree. The Lorentz transform only represents a more general Larmor' transform. Larmor's transform explains the null results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. An absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy Larmor's transform. The Lorentz transform , satisfying the principle of relativity, being a special case to Larmor's transform cannot possibly represent the mathematical model to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > So, for instance, LET violates the above requirement, as does the theory derived > from the preferred-frame postulates Daryl gave. LET can be confusing. It can be based on Larmor's transform which calls out for an absolute frame of reference, or it can be based on the faulty Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of relativity. So, trying to play a chess game with LET is cheating. <shrug> > This is so even though both of > those theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and both of them > have an unobservable preferred frame. Only to the ill-informed. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jul 2010 01:31 - On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that > all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > > enter the fray, KW wrote: > That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > > Eric, addressing colp wrote: > > Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. > > enter the fray, KW wrote: > Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from > Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in > physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in > engagement? <shrug> > > hanson wrote: > > ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, > don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody > is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger > look-alike. So beating like you do [1] on shortchanged, > obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the > laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson Have you bumped into me walking my dog before? Working for Broadcom or Blizzard?
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36 Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR?
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36 Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR?
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36
Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR? |