GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

Muddypaws wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
[The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C).
So they remain different theories in this view.]

Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether
Theory)
and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR

I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being
different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a
different acronym for the same thing

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this
(you don't STUDY enough):

No .. he hasn't, although I have asked

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein
criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there
is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity"
and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of
the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the
end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam
Wormley:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...90046b3bff4c1?

but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to
this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom
Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of
Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may
still reply if their questions are not too silly.

I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above
message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies'
attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d18321ed514ad2
Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod
with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates
{X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED
onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now
rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the
X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"???
No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length
of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing
happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is
a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like
yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It
is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll
ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane
is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time
coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a
measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark
both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance
between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the
"length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a
very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is
unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length
projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much
confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection."

It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length
contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is
the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no
length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length
contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves
any length contraction problems:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...724e78e78dde0?

So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction.
If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the
"dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam
Wormley.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Muddypaws wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
[The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C).
So they remain different theories in this view.]

Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether
Theory)
and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR

I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET
being
different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just
a
different acronym for the same thing

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this
(you don't STUDY enough):

No .. he hasn't, although I have asked

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein
criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there
is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity"
and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of
the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the
end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam
Wormley:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...90046b3bff4c1?

but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to
this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom
Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of
Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may
still reply if their questions are not too silly.

I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above
message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies'
attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d18321ed514ad2
Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod
with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates
{X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED
onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now
rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the
X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"???
No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length
of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing
happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is
a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like
yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It
is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll
ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane
is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time
coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a
measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark
both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance
between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the
"length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a
very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is
unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length
projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much
confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection."

It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length
contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is
the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no
length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length
contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves
any length contraction problems:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...724e78e78dde0?

So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction.
If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the
"dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam
Wormley.

That sounds exactly like my understanding of "length contraction" ..
informally that the proper length is unvaried, but the object rotates in
space-time.

"Muddypaws" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
[The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C).
So they remain different theories in this view.]

Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether
Theory)
and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR

I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being
different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a
different acronym for the same thing

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this
(you don't STUDY enough):

No .. he hasn't, although I have asked

Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl

Changing nicks are you pentcho?

[snip more nonsense]

On 27 Jun, 18:04, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

t...





sean wrote:
Take both the MMx
and the sagnac experiments. Remove the mirrors( or ring fibre) and
detector from sagnac and the mirrors and detector from MMx.

Then you have nothing -- the mirrors and detector are essential parts of
both experiments.

What do you have left? Two sources rotating around a central axis
To me except for a diameter difference the two sources are
essentially doing the same thing. Therefore it seems a rational
conclusion to say that light must propagate away from these
two sources in the same way for both.

But the two experiments measure different aspects of the light.

And theres only two
options. [...]

It is almost never correct to argue via exhaustive enumeration. There is a
third possibility: the measurements of the two experiments differ because
the configurations of the two apparatuses are different. shrug

Sean never did understand that concept.

Tom, I haven't been following the thread but in case you
haven't realised, Sean has an unusual understanding of
the phrase "source dependent". This animation shows what
his model would mean for two photons emitted from Earth
and Mars, both aimed at Sirius. Relative to the source,
they move in a straight line at speed c, tracking the
orbital motion of their respective source planets:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html

You might find that helps you understand his YouTube videos
which I'm sure he will mention.

I havent seen this latest version of yours george , but if its
like your other version from a few months ago then your pic has
light travelling away from the moving source in straight
lines relative to the source.
And contrary to the false assumption you try to pretend here
that light in fact isnt observed to travel at c in straight lines
from any source ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.
So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
from a source at c .
MMx refutes SR and supports classical.
And If you thought about it my understanding of classical
emmision theory is the only one.
Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate
that light propagates away from any source in straight lines
at c relative to the source?? Surely you cant deny this well
accepted tenet.
If this is true then if the source moves relative to another
object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by
the source from the independent observors pov.
Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light
left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the
sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be
moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it?
So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical
is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model.
If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical
emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source
at variable speeds and in curved paths as you would incorrectly
have us believe classical theory predicts.
The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration
of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite
the observations that prove that light does not travel away from
any source at c in straight lines.
You cant as this proof you imagine does not exist.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For sagnac explained by classical theory see...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.

As SR says

So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
from a source at c .

Of course it does

MMx refutes SR

No .. it doesn't

and supports classical.

It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the
MMx results.

And If you thought about it my understanding of classical
emmision theory is the only one.
Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate
that light propagates away from any source in straight lines
at c relative to the source??

Just like SR predicts

Surely you cant deny this well
accepted tenet.
If this is true then if the source moves relative to another
object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by
the source from the independent observors pov.
Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light
left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the
sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be
moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it?

It does in SR.

So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical
is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model.

Classical model says the speed of light is not always c .. it is observer /
source dependant

If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical
emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source
at variable speeds

The point is .. different observers will see it as having different speeds
to c in classical models. We dont' have evidence of light travelling at
less or more than c.

and in curved paths as you would incorrectly
have us believe classical theory predicts.
The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration
of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite
the observations that prove that light does not travel away from
any source at c in straight lines.

That is not the point of contention .. it is the speed observers moving
relative to the source will measure the light as travelling at.

Jeckyl wrote:
"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.

As SR says

So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
from a source at c .

Of course it does

MMx refutes SR

No .. it doesn't

and supports classical.

It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the
MMx results.

Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson-
Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the
presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. However
if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley
experiment refutes special relativity and proves the validity of the
emission theory. But you do not know whether the miracles are too
idiotic because Master Tom Roberts explains nothing? Then I am telling
you they ARE too idiotic and Master Tom Roberts will confirm this
sooner or later:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...724e78e78dde0?

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"sean" wrote in message
roups.com...
,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.

As SR says

So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
from a source at c .

Of course it does

MMx refutes SR

No .. it doesn't

and supports classical.

It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the
MMx results.

Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson-
Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the
presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc.

Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form,
no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period.

However
if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley
experiment refutes special relativity

What the hell does that mean? There is no version of
SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which
is refuted by M-M.

Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and
is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does
it say about transformation of velocities?

- Randy

Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"sean" wrote in message
roups.com...
,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.

As SR says

So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
from a source at c .

Of course it does

MMx refutes SR

No .. it doesn't

and supports classical.

It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the
MMx results.

Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson-
Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the
presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc.

Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form,
no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period.

However
if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley
experiment refutes special relativity

What the hell does that mean? There is no version of
SR without those effects.

Of course. Conclusion: SR is too idiotic.

Pentcho Valev

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: Jeckyl wrote:
: "sean" wrote in message
: roups.com...
: ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light
: does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines.
:
: As SR says
:
: So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation
: Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away
: from a source at c .
:
: Of course it does
:
: MMx refutes SR
:
: No .. it doesn't
:
: and supports classical.
:
: It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both
explain the
: MMx results.
:
: Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson-
: Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the
: presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc.
:
: Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form,
: no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period.

Any liar can say it, but can you prove it?
Tell us, incoherent raving lunatic, how SR predicted MMX years
before SR was written.

On Jul 3, 10:19 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson-
Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the
presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc.

Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form,
no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period.

The Voigt transform and infinite others also support MMX.

However
if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley
experiment refutes special relativity

What the hell does that mean? There is no version of
SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which
is refuted by M-M.

Under the Lorentz transform, the combination of time dilation and the
principle of relativity results in relative simultaneity. In doing
so, it would not allow any consistent interference patterns.
Therefore, the interferometer uner MMX should not have worked. Since
MMX works, therefore relative simultaneity must be wrong. Therefore,
the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity must
also be wrong. Therefore, the Loretnz transform must be wrong as
well. Finally, SR being merely an interpretation to the mathematics
of the Lorentz transform must be wrong too.

Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and
is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does
it say about transformation of velocities?

The velocity transform of the Voigt transform is exactly the same as
the Lorentz transform. You can also find other transforms that also
gives the same velocity transform. shrug