RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS PLAGIARIZE ONE ANOTHER

Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4dc146100e32c?

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the
photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the
special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations
which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4dc146100e32c?

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the
photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the
special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations
which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Just because two people both say the same things that is true doesn't mean
there is plagiarism.

Regardless.. this is a forum, not a scientific paper or thesis.

Seems like as you have no arguments of your own to make, so you attack those
replying instead of addressing the substance of what they are saying.

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4dc146100e32c?

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the
photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the
special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations
which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Just because two people both say the same things that is true doesn't mean
there is plagiarism.

Generally yes but in this particular case they say something so absurd
that the probability of two independent discoveries of the absurdity
is virtually zero. Similarly, recently I discovered that "the
greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length" and if someone else
claims to have made the same discovery be sure he is a plagiarist. Of
course, a third hypnotist may have discovered that special relativity
is conserved if Einstein's principle of constancy of light is false:
then both Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and Tom Roberts are plagiarists. But
this is not very important.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4dc146100e32c?

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the
photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the
special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations
which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Just because two people both say the same things that is true doesn't mean
there is plagiarism.

Generally yes but in this particular case they say something so absurd
that the probability of two independent discoveries of the absurdity
is virtually zero. Similarly, recently I discovered that "the
greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length" and if someone else
claims to have made the same discovery be sure he is a plagiarist. Of
course, a third hypnotist may have discovered that special relativity
is conserved if Einstein's principle of constancy of light is false:
then both Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and Tom Roberts are plagiarists. But
this is not very important.

The "relativity without Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed
of light" example perfectly illustrates the criminal nature of the
relativity cult. Hypnotists know that, in Einstein zombie world,
constantly repeating "the light postulate is redundant", "relativity
without c" etc. makes Einstein's theory eternal: after all, if even
the falsehood of Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of
light cannot destroy the theory, what else could? In textbooks you may
find this:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf
p. 35: "10.8 Relativity without c. In Section 10.1, we introduced the
two postulates of Special Relativity, namely the speed-of-light
postulate and the relativity postulate. In Appendix I, we show that
together these imply that the coordinate intervals in two frames must
be related by the Lorentz transformations, eqs. (10.13). It is
interesting to see what happens if we relax these postulates. It is
hard to imagine a "reasonable" universe where the relativity postulate
does not hold (geocentric theories aside), but it is easy to imagine a
universe where the speed of light depends on the frame of reference.
Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the
speed-of-light postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate
transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate."

The textbook author describes the problem in such a way that the
student has the impression that, even if "the speed of light depends
on the frame of reference" and light behaves "like a baseball", the
consequences would not be fatal for the theory. Then, on p. 37, the
student will find a text that says the consequences ARE fatal but he/
she will not read/understand this text. And Einstein's theory REALLY
becomes eternal.

Pentcho Valev

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

The "relativity without Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed
of light" example perfectly illustrates the criminal nature of the
relativity cult.

Criminal .. you're obsessed and deluded

Hypnotists know that, in Einstein zombie world,

Zombie world .. you mean a world with people like you who cannot think
outside their obsessed view?

constantly repeating "the light postulate is redundant",

People who understand SR don't constantly repeat anything of the sort

"relativity
without c" etc. makes Einstein's theory eternal: after all, if even
the falsehood of Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of
light cannot destroy the theory, what else could? In textbooks you may
find this:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf
p. 35: "10.8 Relativity without c. In Section 10.1, we introduced the
two postulates of Special Relativity, namely the speed-of-light
postulate and the relativity postulate. In Appendix I, we show that
together these imply that the coordinate intervals in two frames must
be related by the Lorentz transformations, eqs. (10.13). It is
interesting to see what happens if we relax these postulates. It is
hard to imagine a "reasonable" universe where the relativity postulate
does not hold (geocentric theories aside), but it is easy to imagine a
universe where the speed of light depends on the frame of reference.
Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the
speed-of-light postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate
transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate."

Yeup .. an interesting excercise .. you end up with two possible solutions
... Galillean transforms or Lorentzian

The textbook author describes the problem in such a way that the
student has the impression that, even if "the speed of light depends
on the frame of reference" and light behaves "like a baseball", the
consequences would not be fatal for the theory.

Its not "fatal" .. you just end up with a different theory if there is no
maximum limit to speed

Then, on p. 37, the
student will find a text that says the consequences ARE fatal but he/
she will not read/understand this text.

You mean YOU don't understand it .. its very clear. Given the first
postulate only you can end up with either a Galillean-transform theory (with
no maximum speed) or a Lorentzian tranform theory.

And Einstein's theory REALLY
becomes eternal.

You really are obsessed.

On May 31, 3:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:





Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the
photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the
special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations
which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If one takes a fixed magnitude of mass and one pictures it in motion
across Space at half the speed of light, then one also is aware that
Time has slowed down for that quanta of mass. If the spatial motion
of this quanta of mass is increased, then the clock is ticking at an
even slower pace. This mass is now in a Time frame that is even
further from the Time frame of objects that have much less spatial
motion.

Imagine if all time surrounding you suddenly slowed down. You see a
baseball passing by you but it is passing by very slowly. If you then
try to alter its direction of spatial travel, it requires a whole lot
of effort due to it being in a different time frame, a slow time
frame. It would seem as though the baseball had a massive increase in
mass due to it being in a different Time frame, thus explaining why it
required a massive amount of your energy to alter its direction of
travel.

The same applies if this base ball was in motion across Space at a
high velocity. It moves through Time at a slow pace, and so if one
attempts to change its direction of spatial travel, it would seem as
though its mass had increased even though it had not. Granted, in the
limited minds of those whose minds are limited as the result of
attending universities, it will believed that the baseball actually
magically increased in mass even though it is simply the result of the
baseball being in a different Time frame.

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

As mentioned in the above web page, all matter is in constant motion
within Space-Time. With this being the case, if you have a Meson that
is at rest in Space, its entire constant motion is now directed across
the dimension of Time. If the Meson then decays, then it splits into
two photons which fly apart across space with each photon having the
velocity known as " c ".

However, the Meson was in motion across the dimension of Time at the
time of decay, and so these Photons are also still in motion across
Time. No sudden inexplicable 90 degree turn in the direction of travel
across Space-Time has occurred. Instead, the total magnitude of motion
across Space-Time for each Photon is ( c * Sqrt(2) ). The photon is in
motion across both Space, and across Time.

Therefore, the Photon does not give the impression that it has an
infinite mass because of it being at a stand still in the dimension of
Time, just like the baseball suspended in the air just next to you
would do if its Time frame was at a complete stop.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
: Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
:
: Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
: Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
: possible:
:
:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dc146100e32c?: : Mike wrote:: Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime: geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is: included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that itis: constant in all inertial FoRs.: : Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but: modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we: denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the: invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is: historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";: there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two: usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible: accuracy. IOW: 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).: : Mike:: If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]: : Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates: are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of: course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same: theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom: Roberts : : Mike:: It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was: wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested bySR: : Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of: light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's: equations and QED, not SR.: : Mike:: if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But: even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify: Einstein right in his postulates.: : Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.:: Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without: understanding anything::: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf: Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the: photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the: special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations: which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity.":: Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized: Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.:: Pentcho ValevThe real Humpty Roberts:"Todd wrote: [...]Good question, well phrased, but as I am not going to reply directly toyour text I have omitted it. I will get to the question in the Subject.The first problem to be faced is: what exactly is inertia? In modernphysics there is no definitive answer to this simple question. " -- HumptyRoberts.This is followed by a diatribe of Humpty's own opinion (which needless tosay I omit,Humpty having effectively said he doesn't know).

On May 31, 12:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

Regardless.. this is a forum, not a scientific paper or thesis.

Seems like as you have no arguments of your own to make, so you attack those
replying instead of addressing the substance of what they are saying.

I too have noticed the hypnotic spell that seems to halt clear
thinking in the relativity cult, which prevents them from addressing
valid criticisms. I've even seen Tom Roberts turned into a total moron
when faced with challenges that he couldn't answer honestly and
intelligently. I think that the coldness of a silent treatment or hot
outbursts of irrationality are most typical of the cults when they are
unable to response with anything of substance beyond their narrow
programming.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On May 31, 3:49 pm, Shubee wrote:
On May 31, 12:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:
Regardless.. this is a forum, not a scientific paper or thesis.

Seems like as you have no arguments of your own to make, so you attack those
replying instead of addressing the substance of what they are saying.

I too have noticed the hypnotic spell that seems to halt clear
thinking in the relativity cult, which prevents them from addressing
valid criticisms. I've even seen Tom Roberts turned into a total moron
when faced with challenges that he couldn't answer honestly and
intelligently. I think that the coldness of a silent treatment or hot
outbursts of irrationality are most typical of the cults when they are
unable to response with anything of substance beyond their narrow
programming.

You mean..."Why doesn't Shooby bother to show how his method
generalizes to higher dimensions like he claims?" or "Why can't Shooby
show how his method gives the expected energy and momentum relations?"


Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf