Einstein Contradicts Himself

On 7 Nov, 21:01, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Wings of Truth wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:33:08 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:
You are unaware of the actual history, in which Maxwell actually used an
aether to derive his equations.

It matters not that Maxwell used an aether
theoretically; my point stands that no such
thing ever existed, nor was ever needed by light
as it traveled/travels through space; thus, as
I said, Maxwell's equations could not have
needed an aether (since it never existed).

I submit that neither you nor anybody else knows whether or not some
sort of aether exists. The models we currently use do not have it, but
they are just MODELS, not the real world itself.

Returning to my prior point, Maxwell's equations
never pertained to light's coordinate speed,

They have ALWAYS done so. Just look at the wave solutions to them, and
see that dx/dt=c (for a specified phase of the wave). That is MANIFESTLY
a coordinate speed.

they have always
pertained only to light's speed through space.

"speed through space" has no meaning.

And as far as the Galilean transformation goes,
it STILL predicts a NON-null result in the one-way
light speed case, as long as absolutely synchronous
clocks are used.
Sure. But there is no experimental support for such notions.

You've got it backward; there is no way to prove
that we cannot absolutely synchronize clocks.

Science is not about "proof", and "proving" such a negative is nigh
impossible. But before you can even discuss "absolutely synchronized
clocks" you need to define what that means, and you have not. Indeed, to
date nobody has. Moreover, for the obvious meaning of that phrase (for a
set of "absolutely synchronized clocks", all clocks remain in synch
regardless of their motions), this is completely incompatible with
numerous observations of the world we inhabit.

I submit that you cannot show even on paper two
or more inertial frames getting the Michelson-Morley
null result without also showing at least one frame
suffering a physically-contracted x axis and a
physically-slowed clock.

It is dead easy to do so: use SR. In SR, neither "length contraction"
nor "time dilation" are physical -- they are purely geometrical. A
moving ruler does not physically get any shorter, it is merely MEASURED
shorter by an observer relative to whom it is moving along its length.
Ditto for clock tick-rates.

Simple example: take two meter sticks, A and B, and place
them in a V on the ground. Project the end of each
perpendicularly onto the other. The length of A projected
onto B is less than 1 meter; the length of B projected
onto A is likewise less than 1 meter. Yet NEITHER stick
is physically shorter. This is easily recognizable as a
geometric projection that does not affect the meter sticks
at all. In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation"
are PRECISELY the same -- geometric projections that do
not affect objects at all.


Roberts Roberts you are paid for teaching that length contraction and
time dilation are "purely geometrical", not "physical", and so teach
your French brothers - Thibault Damour and Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji for
instance. However most brothers in Einstein criminal cult teach the
opposite Roberts Roberts - they are paid for explaining how a long
train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, how a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn, and, what is most important Roberts
Roberts, those brothers of yours tell the "story of what causes the
particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to
shrink":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...32e7b2f752604?

Who gives the money for all those good salaries Roberts Roberts?
Taxpayers in Einstein zombie world?

Pentcho Valev