GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 23, 3:11 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 22, 5:43 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" 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,

The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit
in
all frame of references.
Nice try to cover up the fumble but this is not what you wrote.

There was no fumble

That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call
it
c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also
give
you a finite maximum speed.
No, the Lorentz transforms "give you" nothing. Since they were derived
using the postulate of light constancy, they simply CONFIRM it.

Then you do not understand the Lorentz transforms.

Just like you don't understand SR

Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply
(SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c.

You just learned what LET is a few days ago.

Nonsense.

Either way, neither
theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light.

Again, you are showing your ignorance

Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light
speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms.

Yes .. you can

....is grossly incorrect
No .. it is not
Of course it, is. I didn't expect you to be a man and admit your
error. I admitted to my error, it is not yet clear that you can finish
the calculations I asked you to, so the jury is still out.

I happily admit errors if I make them .. I have not made one.

You on the other hand are .. no I'll resist the temptation of lowering
myself to your standards again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another content free post. Congratulations!

On Jun 23, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts 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 (and/or should not be claimed
to be a consequence of the Lorentz transforms) since the postulate
lies at the basis of the derivation of the Lorentz transforms. Jeckyl
is blabbing a lot of nonsense.

Dono wrote:
On Jun 23, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts 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

Now the world will know forever that "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". But Master Tom Roberts had forgotten this
discovery (or was trying to forget it) and if I had not exposed it
Master Tom Roberts would never have remembered it. So I think you
should thank ME - if it were not for my contribution, you would still
believe that "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 AFFECTED. No, that was a
wrong belief. The truth is: "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".
Master Tom Roberts discovered that, but my contribution is essential.

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 23, 9:45 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]

Go away, crank.

Tom Roberts 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...

Roberts Roberts why do you expose the specific methods used by
Einstein criminal cult in the destruction of human rationality? Those
methods are secret Roberts Roberts. Your brothers hypnotists may kick
you out.

Pentcho Valev

CHOICE OF WORDING CAN HELP.

Constantly it is said that the speed of light is consistent. It should
be mad clear weather or not one is speaking of the speed of light
itself, or the results gained as the result of the measuring of the
speed of light.

1) Experiments show that the measurement of the speed of light always
gives the same result when the light is in motion across space in a
vacuum.

2) Motion contains two variables, SPEED and DISTANCE. Variables range
from zero to infinity. If both variables are set to infinite, this
would mean that the traveler would travel onwards forever across an
infinite depth of space, and do so at an infinite speed. At an
infinite speed, any distance traveled is done so without the passage
of any Time. If time did take place, then this means that one is
traveling at a finite speed that could be surpassed. Therefore the
traveler would travel across Space forever, and do so with no passage
of Time occurring at all. For this to be possible, it is necessary
that the faster one moves across space, the slower one moves across
time. It becomes an exchange game. With being the case, if eventually
the motion of the traveler was entirely across Space, then motion
across Time would now be at a standstill. Therefore, to the observers,
the traveler goes on traveling forever, while to the traveler, his
clock is not ticking at all, hence the traveler goes on forever, in no
time at all.

3) From # 2) it can be said that objects are in constant motion, and
that this constant motion can be pointed in different directions
across Space-Time. Therefore the more the motion is directed across
space, the less motion there is across time, and vise versa.

4) It is also determined that measurement instruments change, and
change by an amount that is dependent upon the velocity across Space
such instruments have. This agrees with ( # 3) ) because as one
changes ones direction of travel across Space-Time, one also rotates,
and this therefore changes the depth of which one extends across the
dimensions of Space, and also across the dimension of Time. Hence the
spatial length of an object will change, such as the change of the
length of a train, and clocks positioned at the ends of a train for
instance, will no longer be in zero spatial velocity sync.. Once the
train is motion across Space, the rotation, which reduces the Train's
degree of extension across Space, and begins to extend across the
dimension of Time instead, will set the two clocks out of sync.

And so we have instruments that change. Rulers become spatially
shorter if not at rest in Space. Clocks that run slower if not at rest
in Space. Clocks at opposite ends of the ruler for instance, are no
longer in sync, if the ruler is not at rest in Space.

Despite all of these changes, the measurement of the speed of light
always gives the same results. Therefore, the speed of that light
across Space is consistent, and its consistency is related to the
consistent magnitude of motion of all objects moving across the open
Space-Time environment.

On top of that. if you have a spinning particle which can throw off a
photon, then when the particle's spatial velocity is increased, the
spinning particle also rotates across the dimension of Time to a
greater degree. This means that the spin axis extends across the
dimension of Time to a greater degree. As the result of such rotation
of the axis across time, the photon thrown off, or released, no longer
is released with the same spatial velocity in all directions since the
angular spatial velocity is no longer the same as previously. In fact,
if the photon is thrown in the opposite direction of which the
spinning particle is moving across space, the photons spatial velocity
relative to the spinning particle becomes ( c + v ). In the forward
direction it becomes ( c - v ). With the velocity of the particle's
spatial velocity taken into account as well, the end result is ( c + v
- v = c ) and ( c - v + v = c ). The final outcome is that the photons
always end up moving across Space at the velocity of c, even though
they are released by a moving body.

Meanwhile, due to the measurement instruments altering to degrees that
depend upon the velocity of such instruments motion across Space, the
measuring of these photons always gives the same results thanks for
instance to slower clocks, shorter rulers, and of course clocks at the
ends of the ruler being out of sync.

Thinking four dimensionally resolves all problems !

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...
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).

"Dono" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 23, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts 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

"Dono" wrote in message
oups.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 ****ed 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.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:01:28 -0700, Dono wrote:

On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" 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.



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.