Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 26 Jun 2010 01:11 On Jun 25, 9:41 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. they are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR). Don't hide behind interpretations of mathematical models. There are Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9886f187e761954c?hl=en And http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en Larmor's transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity while the Lorentz transform does, but only Larmor's transform satisfies the null results of the MMX while the Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor's transform. <shrgu> > This is one way of deriving the > equations of LET (Lorentz Ether Theory). Lorentz used a completely different > method in his 1904 paper. Nonsense! You cannot derive anything with convoluted logics. <shrug> > There is a much larger class of theories equivalent to SR, consisting of all > theories in which these two criteria apply: > a) the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial > frame This requires Voigt's postulate. <shrug> > and > b) the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in one frame This has never shown so by any experimentations. <shrug> > Note that (a) is solidly established experimentally, Not quite! Through interpretations to experimental results. <shrug> > and (b) is basically what > it means to have an aether frame, or any sort of "preferred" frame. > > If you work out the details, you find that all of these theories > have transforms between inertial frames that differ from the > Lorentz transform only in the way coordinate clocks are > synchronized in inertial frames. Note that except for SR and > LET, the synchronization method is ad hoc and artificial. Mysticism is making you ever so confused. <shrug> > I posted a much longer series of three articles on this 'way back in 1999 -- > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/15ceaad17be... You have not learnt anything in the past 9 years. There is a difference between Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. <shrug>
From: Peter Webb on 26 Jun 2010 02:13 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dbb516ea-11aa-4a0b-a20b-73f772448fee(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 9:41 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. >> they are >> experimentally indistinguishable from SR). > > Don't hide behind interpretations of mathematical models. There are > Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. See: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9886f187e761954c?hl=en > > And > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > > Larmor's transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity while > the Lorentz transform does, but only Larmor's transform satisfies the > null results of the MMX while the Lorentz transform is a special case > to Larmor's transform. <shrgu> Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree? Or do you believe that every experimental prediction of SR is absolutely correct?
From: Koobee Wublee on 29 Jun 2010 02:57 On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > colp: > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > Daryl: > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > and physically nonsense. > > colp: > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. Good job. <high five and regards>
From: colp on 29 Jun 2010 04:41 On Jun 29, 6:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > colp: > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > Daryl: > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > and physically nonsense. > > > colp: > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > nothing else. > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. Good job. > <high five and regards> TY
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 09:17
On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > colp: > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > Daryl: > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > and physically nonsense. > > > colp: > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > nothing else. > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. :>) I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have your own KW variant. > Good job. > <high five and regards> |