GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 22, 4:01 pm, 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.

The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in
the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant
wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the
Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not
satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is
obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the
mathematics to be valid.

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.

The conversation between Jeckyl and Dono exhibits very strong signs of
an argument between two village idiots. shrug

"Dono" wrote in message
ups.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.

That speed is the c that appears in the transforms.

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.

Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that
the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this
hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so
not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms
as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the
second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed
of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'.

In light of this, your sentence :
"However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as
GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms"

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

....is grossly incorrect

No .. it is not

If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try
at least to learn your SR.

I do.

Such a comment is rich coming from you. Are you going to stalk me now,
because I showed you were completely wrong in your aberration claims
(despite you calling me an idiot, and stoooopid etc). VERY childish. But
that is nothing more than I'd expect from you so far.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
ups.com...
The conversation between Jeckyl and Dono exhibits very strong signs of
an argument between two village idiots. shrug

Now that you've joined in .. yes. Which village are you from?

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

ups.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.


That speed is the c that appears in the transforms.

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.

Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that
the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this
hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so
not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms
as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the
second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed
of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'.

In light of this, your sentence :
"However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as
GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms"

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.



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. Either way, neither
theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light.
Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light
speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms.

....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.

On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:01 pm, 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.

The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in
the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant
wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the
Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not
satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is
obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the
mathematics to be valid.

You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms
since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed
constancy.The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be
derived. So, as usual, go take a hike.

On Jun 22, 11:10 pm, Dono wrote:
On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms
since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed
constancy.

I never said the constancy in the speed of light can be derived from
the Lorentz transform. shrug

The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be
derived.

However, under the Lorentz transform, it leaves no room for anyone
other interpretations except the constancy in the speed of light.
shrug

So, as usual, go take a hike.

Done. I have done 54 miles this week. What else do you want of me?

On Jun 22, 11:33 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:10 pm, Dono wrote:

On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms
since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed
constancy.

I never said the constancy in the speed of light can be derived from
the Lorentz transform. shrug

The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be
derived.

However, under the Lorentz transform, it leaves no room for anyone
other interpretations except the constancy in the speed of light.
shrug

So, as usual, go take a hike.

Done. I have done 54 miles this week. What else do you want of me?



"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.

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

ups.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.

"Dono" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be
constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. "

The Lorentz transform gives that the speed of light must be constant in all
frames of reference.
ie if something travels at c, and you use the Lorentz tranform to find what
the speed is in another iFoR.

You'll note the the Lorentz transform predates SR, SR also derived the same
transform.

The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz
transforms were derived,

That's a chicken and egg issue.

The postulate is an assertion that the speed of light is a constant speed in
all iFoR.

If Lorentz transforms apply between iFoR, then the speed of light is the
same in both frames of reference..

Why is it a problem if you can derive one from the other.

the postulate is valid based on experimental
confirmation,

Yes .. I didn't say otherwise

so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and
their derivation.

What "it" are you talking about? The constant 'c' that we call "speed of
light"? You can derive in constancy in all frame from systems where Lorentz
transforms apply between the frames. it all depends on where you would like
to take your starting point. Historically, Einstein derived the same
Lorentz transforms starting his second postulate. But the Lorentz
transforms had been derived before Einstein made his postulate (why do you
think they are called Lorentz transforms, and not Einstein transforms?)

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