Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357565 > unrolled thread

When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-17 01:35 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 10:41 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 05:48 -0400
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 11:54 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 06:32 -0400
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 12:48 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:10 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:04 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:31 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:20 +0200
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:29 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:58 +0200
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:45 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 22:02 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:26 -0700
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:42 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:10 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:16 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:35 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 06:31 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:24 -0500
    When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:29 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 13:52 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:13 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:04 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:06 -0500
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-17 21:59 +0000
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 18:39 -0400
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:24 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 15:10 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 19:59 -0500
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:03 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:16 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:38 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-19 16:47 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:13 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:35 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-20 15:04 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:28 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-18 23:36 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:30 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:35 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:22 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:43 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:59 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:06 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:18 -0700
      Stephane Baune repeats the same imbecilities as before "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-18 21:34 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-19 11:01 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:20 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:26 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:49 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:15 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-22 07:32 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 09:42 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 05:58 -0700
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:36 -0500
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:58 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:51 -0500
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-07 08:20 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:17 -0500
                          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:20 -0500
                            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:23 -0500
                              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:24 -0500
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:43 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#357594

On 7/17/15 7/17/15 - 3:41 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> For any sane man, a good clock is
> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.

OK. Note that we have many good clocks that meet this (rather loose) requirement.

	Well, for any clock there are circumstances that break it,
	so it is no longer a clock.... Exclude such circumstances.

Of course if one OBSERVES a good clock from afar (via EM signals), and compares 
to a good (identical) clock at hand, their rates might not compare equal. But 
this is not a property of the clocks, it is an aspect of how differences in 
altitude and/or relative motion affect the comparison/measurement. Those aspects 
are accurately modeled by GR, so we can correct for them when necessary.


> "Good" is a fuzzy term

Yes. But for clocks we have a standard: good clocks remain in sync with each 
other, and better clocks do so more accurately. Today the best clocks known are 
the signals from isolated pulsars after correcting for signal-propagation 
effects. The next-best clocks are ion clocks at NIST and other standards 
laboratories, and after them come fountain atomic clocks and then ordinary 
atomic clocks. Long-term accuracies of these clocks range from a few parts in 
10^14 to a few parts in 10^18.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357574

In the current philosophy of physics, the "but why?" is irrelevant. Suffice to have a (math) model of the phenomena;to be able to predict the measured values. The "but why's" won't change the math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357575

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 13:29, rotchm pisze:

> In the current philosophy of physics, the "but why?" is irrelevant.

Theoretically, of course. Morons like rotchm raise this rule
gladly, when they can't answer.
When they can, they forget it's irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357577

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:35:21 PM UTC-10, nero wrote:
> It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?

The clocks run slow because less time can pass the clock when the clock goes fast. More space and less time is passing the traveler. Matter shrinks space and grows time. Time grows from matter at the speed of light and space goes into matter at the speed of light. The traveling clock speeds away from Earth, parallel to time that this relative to.

I magine the clock going away from Earth at 0.9 c while time goes parallel to that at 1.0 c. So only 0.1 of tne time passes the clock, while the clock encounters all the distance it travels (c*t) plus the space going to Earth at 0.9 c : c*t. Therefore the space encountered is more than a stationary clock and the time that passes the clock is less. The molecules get less time, so they change less and the indicated time is less. Moleecules need time to function and the speeding clock gets less time going past it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357581

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 13:53, Alan Folmsbee pisze:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:35:21 PM UTC-10, nero wrote:
>> It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>
> The clocks run slow because less time can pass the clock when the clock goes fast. More space and less time is passing the traveler. Matter shrinks space and grows time. Time grows from matter at the speed of light and space goes into matter at the speed of light. The traveling clock speeds away from Earth, parallel to time that this relative to.
>

As nobody has ever seen time, any bullshit idiot physicist invents about 
it can't be refuted.
But, clocks are different matter, and we can clearly see, that those 
from practic don't follow physicist's sick imagination. His moronic 
rules can be applied only to clocks he controls directly, and it's not 
always too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357578

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:35:21 AM UTC-4, nero wrote:
> It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?

Because the speed of arrival of energy to make  a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the atom. When the atom is accelerated it will take a longer time for the required energy to arrive at the Cs 133 atom. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357592

On 7/17/15 7/17/15 - 3:35 AM, nero wrote:
> It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity
> ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why
> ?

This is NOT observed. Good clocks are observed to always tick at their usual rate.

	Note the use of standard English: this was of phrasing means
	observations of the clock AND NOTHING ELSE. In the context of
	relativity that means observation by a co-located and co-moving
	observer.

It certainly is true that if one observes a moving clock, or a clock at a 
different elevation in a gravitational potential, one can observe different 
behavior, and the results depend in detail on the way the measurement(s) are 
made. But that is CLEARLY not the clock itself, because those other 
"environmental" aspects affect THE OBSERVATION. Moreover, such observations are 
modeled accurately by General Relativity, in which they are various types of 
geometrical projections.

	All too many elementary and popular books on physics take
	a shortcut and claim "moving clocks run slow". This is a
	gross oversimplification that is tantamount to being wrong.
	Moving clocks are OBSERVED to run slow, but the clock
	itself still ticks at its usual rate.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357638

kenseto wrote:

> Go read a book....idiot.

Excellent idea, as usual Ken. What books have you read lately?

I recently read a fun book, nicely researched too, which considers
the role of mathematics in describing the natural world, and
explores the question of whether math is invented or discovered.

The book: Livio, M., "Is God a mathematician?"

Relativity is mentioned, but it's not a main focus at all (God is
also not a main focus, despite the title). But there is a lot of
food for thought which does at least indirectly relate to many of
the threads in this newsgroup. Let us know if you read it, Ken, and
maybe we can use it as a springboard to discuss the inner workings
and details of the IRT math that you've so painstakingly developed.


         ---Tim Shuba---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357642

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:58:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/17/2015 12:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > What does "always tick at their usual rate" mean? The LT says that a clock moving wrt
>> > the observer is predicted to tick at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
>> 
>> No, that's not what the LT says. Where did you read that's what it says? 
>> Don't remember where you read it? That's because you made it up.
>
>That's what the LT says according to the LET. Go read a book....idiot.

        After more than 100 years of LET, what has
it accomplished?      Nothing!    that's what, not a 
single thing.
        And in that 100 years,relativity has enabled
innumerable technologies, and brought physics
out of the dark ages when everybody was so
stupid and wrongly opinionated, they believed
the aether horse shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357755

On 7/18/15 7/18/15   10:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> IWhy would any normal person
> ASSume an undetectable frame?

Well Lorentz certainly did, when he developed LET. Of course initially he did 
not know it would turn out to be undetectable.

And, of course, the ether is presumed to be a PHYSICAL ESSENCE. So in LET, NO 
OBSERVER can "assume" he is at rest in the ether frame (as kenseto fantasizes). 
Or at least not one located on earth, as it clearly rotates and orbits the sun, 
so could not possibly be at rest relative to a PHYSICAL ESSENCE that is 
immutable, all-pervasive, and at rest in a UNIQUE frame.

	These last are all properties of the ether in LET. That's
	one of its biggest drawbacks: it requires an "unmoved mover".
	[If you don't recognize that quote, look up Aristotle.]


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357762

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 3:24:41 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 7/18/15 7/18/15   10:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Why would any normal person ASSume an undetectable frame?
> 
> Well Lorentz certainly did, when he developed LET. Of course initially he did 
> not know it would turn out to be undetectable.

Yes, he can be somewhat forgiven for his naivete :-)

> And, of course, the ether is presumed to be a PHYSICAL ESSENCE. So in LET,
> NO OBSERVER can "assume" he is at rest in the ether frame (as kenseto
> fantasizes).  Or at least not one located on earth, as it clearly rotates
> and orbits the sun,

And the sun clearly rotates around the galaxy, and the galaxy clearly ....
 
> so could not possibly be at rest relative to a PHYSICAL ESSENCE that is 
> immutable, all-pervasive, and at rest in a UNIQUE frame.
> 
> 	These last are all properties of the ether in LET. That's
> 	one of its biggest drawbacks: it requires an "unmoved mover".
> 	[If you don't recognize that quote, look up Aristotle.]
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Sounds to me more like first millennium (after the first century) Christian
mumbo-jumble about God.  It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian God (first
century and before) is an emergent phenomenon, or property, of the universe.

BTW, how do you feel about Paul Steinhardt's brand of string theory (i.e.,
a cyclic universe).

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357767

On 7/18/15 7/18/15   5:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> there is no inertial frame on earth

Yes. But there most definitely ARE frames on earth that are approximately 
inertial, and the approximation can be VASTLY better than the experimental 
resolution. That implies that one can indeed use SR in an inertial frame to 
analyze the experiment. This includes all elementary particle experiments, and 
most tabletop optical experiments (ones with kilometers of fiber coiled up are 
excluded). It also includes such things as billiard tables and thrown baseballs.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357915

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/18/15 7/18/15   5:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > there is no inertial frame on earth
> 
> Yes. But there most definitely ARE frames on earth that are approximately 
> inertial, 

How do your know? Assertion is not a valid argument. 


>and the approximation can be VASTLY better than the experimental 
> resolution. That implies that one can indeed use SR in an inertial frame to 
> analyze the experiment. This includes all elementary particle experiments, and 
> most tabletop optical experiments (ones with kilometers of fiber coiled up are 
> excluded). 

There is no difference between your inertial frame than the ether frame at that specific location.

It also includes such things as billiard tables and thrown baseballs.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357827

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:24:41 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/18/15, 10:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > IWhy would any normal person ASSume an undetectable frame?
>
> Well Lorentz certainly did, when he developed LET. Of course initially he did 
> not know it would turn out to be undetectable.

Tom is absolutely ignorant of mathematics as well as physics.  SR uses the Lorentz transform, but LET uses Larmor's transform.  SR and LET predict the same results under slow speeds but vastly differ in predictions at high speeds.  So far, all experimentations have done at low speeds.  Current technology is still elusive to propel an observer to high speed, and that is where SR and LET will diverge.  LET will certainly detect this absolute frame of reference --- granted at high observer's absolute speed.  <shrug>

> And, of course, the ether is presumed to be a PHYSICAL ESSENCE. So in LET, NO 
> OBSERVER can "assume" he is at rest in the ether frame (as kenseto fantasizes). 

Some OBSERVER can.  <shrug>

> Or at least not one located on earth, as it clearly rotates and orbits the sun, 
> so could not possibly be at rest relative to a PHYSICAL ESSENCE that is 
> immutable, all-pervasive, and at rest in a UNIQUE frame.

Tom is shooting from the hip.  You need experiments to find that out instead of ASSumptions.  <shrug>

> 	These last are all properties of the ether in LET. That's
> 	one of its biggest drawbacks: it requires an "unmoved mover".
> 	[If you don't recognize that quote, look up Aristotle.]

Absolutely nonsense from Tom, again.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357834

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>  SR uses the Lorentz transform, but LET uses Larmor's transform.  

Well, sort of. The 'axioms' of SR imply the LT's. Thus SR can use the LT's; the LT's are part of SR and implied by SR. 

Larmor's transform is part of LET's 'axioms'. These in turn also imply the 
LT's, thus LET can use the LT's; the LT's are part of LET and implied by LET. 

Note that both SR and LET imply the LT's for *observable phenomena*, for *measurable phenomena*. But let *also* has the Larmor trans for the unmeasurable, and hence is irrelevant to physics...since it cant be measured (as implied by LET).

> SR and LET predict the same results under slow speeds 

Correct

> but vastly differ in predictions at high speeds.  

Wrong. They both predict the exact same thing for *measurable phenomena*. They both use the LT's for this.

> So far, all experimentations have done at low speeds. 

Lies. Many exp's are done at highs speeds, at near speed of light speeds. You have like 75 yrs of physics to catch up to!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357854

On 7/19/15 7/19/15   1:38 PM, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> SR uses the Lorentz transform, but LET uses Larmor's transform.
>
> Well, sort of. [...]

Not just "sort of", YES. Because the Larmor transform is ALGEBRAICALLY IDENTICAL 
to the Lorentz transform, for any given pair of frames. Both Larmor and Lorentz 
presumed an ether frame from which to start.

This makes Koobee Wublee's writing here PURE NONSENSE. (As usual.)


> Larmor's transform is part of LET's 'axioms'.

Not at all. Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper in which he derives the eponymous 
transforms. While he does pull a "change of variables" out of thin air, he does 
not use Larmor's transforms at all.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357856

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 5:47:12 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

> Not just "sort of", YES. Because the Larmor transform 

> > Larmor's transform is part of LET's 'axioms'.
> 
> Not at all. Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper in which he derives the eponymous

Correct, but I was not referring to Lorentz derivation though. 
Although not explicit in my claim (and sloppy, since it was destined only for wooblee) I was referring to the inclusion of the Fitzgerald "transform" ("real" contraction, not Larmor transform), which in turn implies the LT's. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357866

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > SR uses the Lorentz transform, but LET uses Larmor's transform.  SR and
> > LET predict the same results under slow speeds but vastly differ in
> > predictions at high speeds.  So far, all experimentations have done at
> > low speeds.  Current technology is still elusive to propel an observer
> > to high speed, and that is where SR and LET will diverge.  LET will
> > certainly detect this absolute frame of reference --- granted at high
> > observer's absolute speed.  <shrug>

> Because the Larmor transform is ALGEBRAICALLY IDENTICAL to the Lorentz
> transform, for any given pair of frames.

This is only true when Larmor's transform is written in the form that the two observers are moving in parallel.  In general, Larmor's transform is not the Lorentz transform mathematically.  <shrug>

> Both Larmor and Lorentz presumed an ether frame from which to start.

Larmor's transform does presume Aether, and all observations must be referenced back to the absolute frame of reference.  The Lorentz transform if written into the general form where the velocity of the observers is not necessarily in parallel with the x axis, on the other hand, must reference every observations back to any frame of reference.  In another words, the Lorentz transform is pure fvcking nonsense.  <shrug>

> This makes Koobee Wublee's writing here PURE NONSENSE. (As usual.)

Hmmm...  A scholar's writing may occur to be pure nonsense to illiterate cave men.  <shrug>

> Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper in which he derives the eponymous transforms.
> While he does pull a "change of variables" out of thin air, he does not
> use Larmor's transforms at all.

Fudging the Lorentz transform out of Larmor's transform was entirely of Poincare's blunder.  Not Lorentz and certainly not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that the relativistic moron are so fondly of worshipping.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357909

On 19.07.2015 23:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/19/15 7/19/15   1:38 PM, rotchm wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>> SR uses the Lorentz transform, but LET uses Larmor's transform.
>>
>> Well, sort of. [...]
>
> Not just "sort of", YES. Because the Larmor transform is ALGEBRAICALLY
> IDENTICAL to the Lorentz transform, for any given pair of frames. Both
> Larmor and Lorentz presumed an ether frame from which to start.
>
> This makes Koobee Wublee's writing here PURE NONSENSE. (As usual.)
>
>
>> Larmor's transform is part of LET's 'axioms'.
>
> Not at all. Go read Lorentz's 1904 paper in which he derives the
> eponymous transforms. While he does pull a "change of variables" out of
> thin air, he does not use Larmor's transforms at all.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357756

On 7/18/15 7/18/15   12:35 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 18 lipca 2015 17:15:50 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
>> every LET observer assumes the aether frame to develop the LET math.
>
> No. The frame can't be assumed, but just resolved - measured experimentaly.

But in LET that is manifestly impossible. Its ether frame is completely 
undetectable, by any possible means.

	Stated differently: the predictions of LET do not depend
	in any way on which frame one labels "the ether frame".


> Every SR observer assumes the aether frame to develop the SR math.

That is just plain wrong. You REALLY need to learn something about the subject 
before attempting to write about it.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web