A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 1st 07, 01:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

Jeckyl wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...
Jeckyl wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:48 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
The "Lorentzian form of relativity", reduced to its essentials, is:
A) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest
Ok
B) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to those of the
ether frame by a Lorentz transform
Similarly reduced to its essentials, SR is:
C) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to any other inertial
frame's coordinates by a Lorentz transform
One can easily show mathematically that A+B imply C.

Hang on .. let me see

If we have three objects at rest in three inertial FoR A,B,C and we have
(say) that A is at rest relative to the 'ether' FoR, B is moving at
velocity v relative to A, and C is moving at 2v relative to A. So
according to premise A) and B) above, an object A has no length
contraction or time dilation (because it is stationary in the ether
frame), object B has some, and object C has more. So an observer in FoR
B would see objects in A as expanded and objects in C as contracted.


This is not true, basically because "length contraction" and "time
dilation" are not the entire story, and there is also "relativity of
simultaneity", and all 3 interrelate with each other.


I understand all that in terms of Lorentz transforms as part of SR ..


You don't. Consider carefully Master Tom Roberts' wisdom:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

Ads
  #2  
Old June 2nd 07, 08:21 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?


Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...
Jeckyl wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:48 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
The "Lorentzian form of relativity", reduced to its essentials, is:
A) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest
Ok
B) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to those of the
ether frame by a Lorentz transform
Similarly reduced to its essentials, SR is:
C) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to any other inertial
frame's coordinates by a Lorentz transform
One can easily show mathematically that A+B imply C.

Hang on .. let me see

If we have three objects at rest in three inertial FoR A,B,C and we have
(say) that A is at rest relative to the 'ether' FoR, B is moving at
velocity v relative to A, and C is moving at 2v relative to A. So
according to premise A) and B) above, an object A has no length
contraction or time dilation (because it is stationary in the ether
frame), object B has some, and object C has more. So an observer in FoR
B would see objects in A as expanded and objects in C as contracted.

This is not true, basically because "length contraction" and "time
dilation" are not the entire story, and there is also "relativity of
simultaneity", and all 3 interrelate with each other.


I understand all that in terms of Lorentz transforms as part of SR ..


You don't. Consider carefully Master Tom Roberts' wisdom:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."


Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected, does not seem to be
very popular in Einstein criminal cult. Perhaps cleverer hypnotists
feel that Tom Roberts' theory is too silly to be used as camouflage.

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old June 2nd 07, 09:51 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...
Jeckyl wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:48 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
The "Lorentzian form of relativity", reduced to its essentials,
is:
A) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest
Ok
B) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to those of the
ether frame by a Lorentz transform
Similarly reduced to its essentials, SR is:
C) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to any other
inertial
frame's coordinates by a Lorentz transform
One can easily show mathematically that A+B imply C.

Hang on .. let me see

If we have three objects at rest in three inertial FoR A,B,C and we
have
(say) that A is at rest relative to the 'ether' FoR, B is moving at
velocity v relative to A, and C is moving at 2v relative to A. So
according to premise A) and B) above, an object A has no length
contraction or time dilation (because it is stationary in the ether
frame), object B has some, and object C has more. So an observer in
FoR
B would see objects in A as expanded and objects in C as contracted.

This is not true, basically because "length contraction" and "time
dilation" are not the entire story, and there is also "relativity of
simultaneity", and all 3 interrelate with each other.

I understand all that in terms of Lorentz transforms as part of SR ..


You don't.


I do .. But I have serious doubt about your understanding, however.


  #4  
Old June 2nd 07, 09:54 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."


Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected


What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying to you
own posts).


  #5  
Old June 2nd 07, 10:13 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?


Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."


Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected


What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying to you
own posts).


Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"

Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old June 2nd 07, 11:46 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

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

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected


What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in
the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying to
you
own posts).


Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"

Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.


So . .where is it Tom has said that?


  #7  
Old June 2nd 07, 12:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?


Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected

What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in
the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying to
you
own posts).


Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"

Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.


So . .where is it Tom has said that?


Assume Master Tom Roberts has never said that, if light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special
relativity would be unaffected, and accordingly I am the author of
this statement, not Master Tom Roberts. Then would you find my (not
Master Tom Roberts') extended statement:

"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 but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."

extremely stupid?

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old June 2nd 07, 01:06 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

On Jun 2, 8:21 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

in Einsteincriminalcult.


Give it arrest.

  #9  
Old June 2nd 07, 01:45 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?

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

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc
Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if
light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected

What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in
the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying
to
you
own posts).

Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"

Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.


So . .where is it Tom has said that?


Assume Master Tom Roberts has never said that, if light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special
relativity would be unaffected, and accordingly I am the author of
this statement, not Master Tom Roberts. Then would you find my (not
Master Tom Roberts') extended statement:

"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 but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."

extremely stupid?


I find all your statements extremely stupid.


  #10  
Old June 2nd 07, 04:29 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?


Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "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 but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc
Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if
light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected

What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in
the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying
to
you
own posts).

Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:

"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"

Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.

So . .where is it Tom has said that?


Assume Master Tom Roberts has never said that, if light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special
relativity would be unaffected, and accordingly I am the author of
this statement, not Master Tom Roberts. Then would you find my (not
Master Tom Roberts') extended statement:

"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 but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."

extremely stupid?


I find all your statements extremely stupid


and all statements of Master Tom Roberts extremely perspicacious. That
is good. Your problem is that you do not know who is the author of the
following statement:

"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 but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."

If I am the author, the statement is extremely stupid. However if
Master Tom Roberts is the author, the statement is extremely
perspicacious. I think I am the author and therefore the statement is
extremely stupid. What do YOU think?

Pentcho Valev

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS ABOUT THE PHOTON MASS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 57 July 4th 07 09:44 AM
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS PLAGIARIZE ONE ANOTHER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 8 June 1st 07 12:28 AM
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS ABOUT THE PHOTON MASS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 May 25th 07 10:33 AM
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 29 May 21st 07 09:24 PM
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 May 17th 07 08:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.