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