Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson has asked for the math of LET

First of all, it was Larmor who first came up with the Lorentz
transform. However, one of these two observers must be the absolute
frame of reference. That was 1897 or 1898 time frame. This version
should be called Larmor’s transform to avoid later confusions.
shrug

Writing down two Larmor’s transforms:

** #1 and #0 observe #2.
** #3 and #0 observe #2.

We get the following transform for #1 and #0 observing #2:

** dx12 = (dx02 - B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy12 = dy02
** dz12 = dz02
** dt1 = (dt0 – B01 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** B01 c = speed of #1 as observed by #0

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx12 + B01 c dt1) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy02 = dy12
** dz02 = dz12
** dt0 = (dt1 + B01 dx12 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

And the following transform for #3 and #0 observing #2:

** dx32 = (dx02 - B03 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy32 = dy02
** dz32 = dz02
** dt3 = (dt0 – B03 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx32 + B03 c dt3) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy02 = dy32
** dz02 = dz32
** dt0 = (dt3 + B03 dx32 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

In 1905 a few months before the monumental publications of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, it was Poincare who first
combined the above transforms into a single one where any reference to
#0 can be eliminated by introducing B13 for example. The result is
what he would call the Lorentz transform. He’ll leave it as a
homework exercise for those interested to do so. shrug

So far so good, right? Larmor’s transform turns out to the Lorentz
transform all along. Relativity rules, and there is no way to detect
the absolute frame of reference, right? Wrong! shrug

Notice with the above analysis, both #1 and #3 are moving in
parallel. What if they are not? To answer this question, you need to
write Larmor’s transform where #1 is moving in any arbitrary
direction:


** d[s12] = d[s02] + [B01] ([B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1 – B01^2))
- c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

** dt1 = (dt - [B01] * d[s02]) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** d[s] = Displacement vector
** [b] c = Velocity
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
to the absolute frame vanish. If it does, the Lorentz transform is
valid. If not, the Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. It is a fantasy that does not represent anything real
life. It is a manifestation of mathematical mistake, and 100 years of
physics have developed based on that mathematical mistake. shrug

You will be surprised as I was totally shocked a few years ago. The
demystification of special relativity must be done sooner or later.
shrug

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

First of all, it was Larmor who first came up with the Lorentz
transform. However, one of these two observers must be the absolute
frame of reference. That was 1897 or 1898 time frame. This version
should be called Larmor’s transform to avoid later confusions.
shrug

Writing down two Larmor’s transforms:

** #1 and #0 observe #2.
** #3 and #0 observe #2.

We get the following transform for #1 and #0 observing #2:

** dx12 = (dx02 - B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy12 = dy02
** dz12 = dz02
** dt1 = (dt0 – B01 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** B01 c = speed of #1 as observed by #0

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx12 + B01 c dt1) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy02 = dy12
** dz02 = dz12
** dt0 = (dt1 + B01 dx12 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

And the following transform for #3 and #0 observing #2:

** dx32 = (dx02 - B03 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy32 = dy02
** dz32 = dz02
** dt3 = (dt0 – B03 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx32 + B03 c dt3) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy02 = dy32
** dz02 = dz32
** dt0 = (dt3 + B03 dx32 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

In 1905 a few months before the monumental publications of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, it was Poincare who first
combined the above transforms into a single one where any reference to
#0 can be eliminated by introducing B13 for example. The result is
what he would call the Lorentz transform. He’ll leave it as a
homework exercise for those interested to do so. shrug

So far so good, right? Larmor’s transform turns out to the Lorentz
transform all along. Relativity rules, and there is no way to detect
the absolute frame of reference, right? Wrong! shrug

Notice with the above analysis, both #1 and #3 are moving in
parallel. What if they are not? To answer this question, you need to
write Larmor’s transform where #1 is moving in any arbitrary
direction:


** d[s12] = d[s02] + [B01] ([B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1 – B01^2))
- c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

** dt1 = (dt - [B01] * d[s02]) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** d[s] = Displacement vector
** [b] c = Velocity
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
to the absolute frame vanish. If it does, the Lorentz transform is
valid. If not, the Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. It is a fantasy that does not represent anything real
life. It is a manifestation of mathematical mistake, and 100 years of
physics have developed based on that mathematical mistake. shrug

You will be surprised as I was totally shocked a few years ago. The
demystification of special relativity must be done sooner or later.
shrug

Koobee that's all very interesting but what we are actually debating is
whether or not SR is any different from LET.

PA claims their predictions are identical in every case...and so far he has
passed every test by pulling out the bogus RoS and applying circular logic
to support his case. I asked him to show the LET equations covering the
twins paradox. It seems he cannot do it.

However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims, then the
two theories must be the same...and Einstein is indeed revealed as the
hoaxer who plagiarized Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.

Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
to the absolute frame vanish.

W/O looking in to your approach, LET in any direction gives the
Lor.Trans (in that direction or equiv 3-dim version). In all cases,
the references to the absolute frame always vanish. This has been
shown many times throughout history in many works.

If it does, the Lorentz transform is valid.

Yup... It is mathematically consistent even in 3+1 Dims.

On Apr 26, 8:19*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
First of all, it was Larmor who first came up with the Lorentz
transform. *However, one of these two observers must be the absolute
frame of reference. *That was 1897 or 1898 time frame. *This version
should be called Larmor’s transform to avoid later confusions.
shrug

Writing down two Larmor’s transforms:

** *#1 and #0 observe #2.
** *#3 and #0 observe #2.

We get the following transform for #1 and #0 observing #2:

** *dx12 = (dx02 - B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** *dy12 = dy02
** *dz12 = dz02
** *dt1 = (dt0 – B01 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** *B01 c = speed of #1 as observed by #0

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** *dx02 = (dx12 + B01 c dt1) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** *dy02 = dy12
** *dz02 = dz12
** *dt0 = (dt1 + B01 dx12 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

And the following transform for #3 and #0 observing #2:

** *dx32 = (dx02 - B03 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** *dy32 = dy02
** *dz32 = dz02
** *dt3 = (dt0 – B03 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** *dx02 = (dx32 + B03 c dt3) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** *dy02 = dy32
** *dz02 = dz32
** *dt0 = (dt3 + B03 dx32 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

In 1905 a few months before the monumental publications of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, it was Poincare who first
combined the above transforms into a single one where any reference to
#0 can be eliminated by introducing B13 for example. *The result is
what he would call the Lorentz transform. *He’ll leave it as a
homework exercise for those interested to do so. *shrug

So far so good, right? *Larmor’s transform turns out to the Lorentz
transform all along. *Relativity rules, and there is no way to detect
the absolute frame of reference, right? *Wrong! *shrug

Notice with the above analysis, both #1 and #3 are moving in
parallel. *What if they are not? *To answer this question, you need to
write Larmor’s transform where #1 is moving in any arbitrary
direction:

** *d[s12] = d[s02] + [B01] ([B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1 – B01^2))
* * * * * * *- c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

** *dt1 = (dt - [B01] * d[s02]) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** *d[s] = Displacement vector
** *[b] c = Velocity
** *[] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
to the absolute frame vanish. *If it does, the Lorentz transform is
valid. *If not, the Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. *It is a fantasy that does not represent anything real
life. *It is a manifestation of mathematical mistake, and 100 years of
physics have developed based on that mathematical mistake. *shrug

You will be surprised as I was totally shocked a few years ago. *The
demystification of special relativity must be done sooner or later.
shrug



Idiot

In , on 04/27/2012
at 07:11 PM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims,
then the two theories must be the same

FSVO same.

and Einstein is indeed revealed as the hoaxer who plagiarized
Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.

ROTF,LMAO! The essence of Special Relativity is a new kinematics, not
the Lorentz Transform per se. Lorentz's theory was Galilean, and the
LT was grafted on in an ad hoc manner. Einstein provided a conceptual
simplification, similar to that of Copernicus.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

hogwash with quaternions; thank you.

If it does, the Lorentz transform is valid.

Yup... It is mathematically consistent even in 3+1 Dims.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:42:49 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
wrote:

In , on 04/27/2012
at 07:11 PM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims,
then the two theories must be the same

FSVO same.

and Einstein is indeed revealed as the hoaxer who plagiarized
Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.

ROTF,LMAO! The essence of Special Relativity is a new kinematics, not
the Lorentz Transform per se. Lorentz's theory was Galilean, and the
LT was grafted on in an ad hoc manner. Einstein provided a conceptual
simplification, similar to that of Copernicus.

Simplified bull**** is still bull****.

the rise of the lightconeheads!

simplification, similar to that of Copernicus.

In , on 04/28/2012
at 09:36 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

Simplified bull**** is still bull****.

So now you're trashing Lorentz's work as well?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:53:25 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
wrote:

In , on 04/28/2012
at 09:36 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

Simplified bull**** is still bull****.

So now you're trashing Lorentz's work as well?

Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.