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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426571 > unrolled thread

Why SR and LET are the Same Theory

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

Contents

  Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:25 +1000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:56 +0000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:35 +1000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-09 03:18 +0000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:55 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:49 +0000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-30 21:30 +0200
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 18:46 +0200
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 12:13 +1000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:36 +0000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:49 +1000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:40 +0000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 09:19 -0500
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:00 -0700
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-03 01:38 +0200
                Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:51 +1000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-01 11:47 -0400
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:42 +1000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:58 -0700
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:19 +0000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:39 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:46 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 14:15 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 10:27 -0700
    Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-07 10:47 -0700
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:52 +1000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:14 -0700
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:18 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 12:29 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 10:12 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:36 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:38 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:39 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 16:09 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 23:34 -0500
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:57 +1000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:39 -0500
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:22 +1000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:50 +0000
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:27 +1000
                Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:14 -0500
                  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:37 +1000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 21:56 -0500
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:05 +1000
                Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:48 -0500
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:07 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:15 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:30 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:32 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:38 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:40 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 10:53 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 14:51 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 15:43 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2017-08-20 14:12 -0700
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 08:46 +1000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:28 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#426571 — Why SR and LET are the Same Theory

After the contractions of Fitzgerald and Lorentz were added to Aether 
theory to explain the MMX null result, the subsequent theory known as 
LET culminated in the following conclusions:
1. Because an absolute, light carrying medium exists, the speed of light 
from all sources is unified by that medium.
2. Because the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks are modified by 
the same factor, gamma, all attempts to measure the OW speed of light 
will produce the same answer, c, irrespective of the absolute speed of 
the apparatus.

Einstein's SR begins with two postulates, the first of which, P1, 
virtually denies the concept of absolutism.

The second, P2, states that (a) light speed is the same irrespective of 
source speed and (b) that light speed is the same irrespective of 
observer speed.

P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.

Having begun in that way, Einstein then derived the equations necessary 
for those conditions to prevail and, not surprisingly found they were 
the same as those of LET.
Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added 
that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri 
Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a 
medium did exist.
Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any 
observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether and 
the same equations of LET would apply to objects moving relative to that 
observer....but Poincare had pointed out that this was approximately 
true ONLY IF v was <<c.

Einstein's version of aether theory also lacked a mechanism that would 
bring about light speed unification from all sources. It simply stated 
it as a postulate.

What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of 
medium, AND THAT INCLUDES FIELDS, some predictions of LET (and SR) might 
be partially observed, the extent being dependent on the 'densities' of 
matter or fields present.

That concept is part of BaTh, as is the fact that most of space is 
sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically, 
as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.


.
-- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#426577

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>After the contractions of Fitzgerald and Lorentz were added to Aether 
>theory to explain the MMX null result, the subsequent theory known as 
>LET culminated in the following conclusions:
>1. Because an absolute, light carrying medium exists, the speed of light 
>from all sources is unified by that medium.

Ralph, if LET really stated that (which I doubt) it would be wrong, 
because it takes a postulate (there is an aether) and elevates it to
fact.

>2. Because the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks are modified by 
>the same factor, gamma, all attempts to measure the OW speed of light 
>will produce the same answer, c, irrespective of the absolute speed of 
>the apparatus.

>Einstein's SR begins with two postulates, the first of which, P1, 
>virtually denies the concept of absolutism.

Yes, if the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, that
would mean that there can be no such thing as an absolute frame.
(I need to mark this on my calendar! Ralph Rabbidge was actually correct 
for once!!)

>The second, P2, states that (a) light speed is the same irrespective of 
>source speed and (b) that light speed is the same irrespective of 
>observer speed.

>P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.

No, Ralph, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
motion of the source or observer.

>Having begun in that way,

Having started with a false assumption, Ralph Rabbidge has come to a
wrong conclusion.  Congratulations, Ralph, you just demonstrated GIGO!

 Einstein then derived the equations necessary 

>Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added 
>that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri 
>Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a 
>medium did exist.
>Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any 
>observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether

No, Ralph. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated
that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make
up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this
"personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up.

>Einstein's version of aether theory

Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't
have it both ways, Ralph.

> also lacked a mechanism that would 
>bring about light speed unification from all sources.

Because there was no need for any "unification", Ralph.

> It simply stated 
>it as a postulate.

It was a postulate, Ralph, one based on all observation.  Even back
then they could measure the speed of light accurately enough that they
knew the speed of light was constant, Ralph.

>What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of 
>medium, AND THAT INCLUDES FIELDS, some predictions of LET (and SR) might 
>be partially observed, the extent being dependent on the 'densities' of 
>matter or fields present.

Babbling nonsense, Ralph.

>That concept is part of BaTh,

So babbling nonsense is part of DirtyBaThWater, Ralph? I think all of it
is babbling nonsense, Ralph.

> as is the fact that most of space is 
>sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically, 
>as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.

Now Ralph, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Ralph.
As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see.

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

#426598

On 30/07/17 11:56, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>


<garbage nipped


  light speed is the same irrespective of
>> observer speed.
> 
>> P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.
> 
> No, Henry, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
> the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
> motion of the source or observer.

The fact tghat TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found 
to always have hte same value c is proof that light is balloistic.
> 
>> Having begun in that way,
> 
> Having started with a false assumption, Ralph Rabbidge has come to a
> wrong conclusion.  Congratulations, Ralph, you just demonstrated GIGO!
> 
>   Einstein then derived the equations necessary
> 
>> Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added
>> that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri
>> Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a
>> medium did exist.
>> Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any
>> observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether
> 
> No, Henry. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated
> that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make
> up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this
> "personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up.

You obviously know nothing about SR.

>> Einstein's version of aether theory
> 
> Again Henry, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
> you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't
> have it both ways, Henry.
> 
>> also lacked a mechanism that would
>> bring about light speed unification from all sources.
> 
> Because there was no need for any "unification", Henry.

Then how did Einstein's postulate unify all light speeds? Did he hire 
Paul Andersen's famous fairies to do the jobl?

>> It simply stated
>> it as a postulate.
> 
> It was a postulate, Henry, one based on all observation.  Even back
> then they could measure the speed of light accurately enough that they
> knew the speed of light was constant, Henry.

Well I agree with you that Einstein would not have been bright enough to 
know the difference between OWLS and TWLS.

>> What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of

>> as is the fact that most of space is
>> sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically,
>> as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.
> 
> Now Henry, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
> light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
> images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Henry.
> As you know, Henry, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
> from binary stars, Henry, something we don't see.

Double images are not expected. They never occur because of light speed 
unification. PLenty of bizarre curves are observed and they usually 
signify the presence of a complex planetary system.


-- 

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

#427824

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 30/07/17 11:56, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>>


><garbage nipped


>  light speed is the same irrespective of
>>> observer speed.
>> 
>>> P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.
>> 
>> No, Ralph, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
>> the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
>> motion of the source or observer.

>The fact tghat TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found 
>to always have hte same value c is proof that light is balloistic.

No,Ralph, the fact that TWLS has been measured millions of times and been 
found to always has the value of c, plus the fact that it has been proven
that the speed of light is isotropic, disproves DirtyBaThWater. Actually
TWLS being constant is enough to disprove ballistic light, Ralph.

>>> Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added
>>> that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri
>>> Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a
>>> medium did exist.
>>> Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any
>>> observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether
>> 
>> No, Ralph. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated
>> that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make
>> up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this
>> "personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up.

>You obviously know nothing about SR.

It is you who knows nothing about SR, Ralph. If you did, you wouldn't
say the stupid things you do, Ralph.

>>> Einstein's version of aether theory
>> 
>> Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
>> you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't
>> have it both ways, Ralph.
>> 
>>> also lacked a mechanism that would
>>> bring about light speed unification from all sources.
>> 
>> Because there was no need for any "unification", Ralph.

>Then how did Einstein's postulate unify all light speeds? Did he hire 
>Paul Andersen's famous fairies to do the jobl?

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that was a really stupid thing to say, even for
you.  I just got through telling you there was simply no need to "unify"
light speed since the speed of light is always c, Ralph! And you ask again
how does Einstein do something that never needed to be done?!?!?!?!?

>>> What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of
>>> as is the fact that most of space is
>>> sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically,
>>> as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.
>> 
>> Now Ralph, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
>> light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
>> images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Ralph.
>> As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
>> from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see.

>Double images are not expected.

Of course they are expected, Ralph! If the speed of light was variable,
then faster light emitted later would catch up and pass slower light and
that that would cause all kinds of bizarre images, Ralph!

> They never occur because of light speed 
>unification.

Oh cute, Ralph!  You are saying that the speed of light is not constant
except for when it is, and it always is.  Why not embrace this statement
of yours as proof that DirtyBathWater and variable light speed are failed
concepts.

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

#427851

On 09/08/17 13:18, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
>> On 30/07/17 11:56, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>>>
> 
> 
>> <garbage nipped
> 
> 
>>   light speed is the same irrespective of
>>>> observer speed.
>>>
>>>> P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.
>>>
>>> No, Ralph, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
>>> the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
>>> motion of the source or observer.
> 
>> The fact tghat TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found
>> to always have hte same value c is proof that light is balloistic.
> 
> No,Henry, the fact that TWLS has been measured millions of times and been
> found to always has the value of c, plus the fact that it has been proven
> that the speed of light is isotropic, disproves DirtyBaThWater. Actually
> TWLS being constant is enough to disprove ballistic light, Henry.

Readers note, the above statement from Moron-y proves he is an incurable 
and desperate idiot.


>>> Because there was no need for any "unification", Henry.
> 
>> Then how did Einstein's postulate unify all light speeds? Did he hire
>> Paul Andersen's famous fairies to do the jobl?
> 
> Henry George Wilson, that was a really stupid thing to say, even for
> you.  I just got through telling you there was simply no need to "unify"
> light speed since the speed of light is always c, Henry! And you ask again
> how does Einstein do something that never needed to be done?!?!?!?!?

Poor old country shithouse cleaner! Light speed was never always c and 
never will be.
No speed has a particular value, all objects including photons move at 
an infinite range of speeds relative to an infinite number of different 
objects.

>>>> What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of
>>>> as is the fact that most of space is
>>>> sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically,
>>>> as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.
>>>
>>> Now Ralph, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
>>> light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
>>> images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Ralph.
>>> As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
>>> from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see.
> 
>> Double images are not expected.
> 
> Of course they are expected, Ralph! If the speed of light was variable,
> then faster light emitted later would catch up and pass slower light and
> that that would cause all kinds of bizarre images, Henry!
> 
>> They never occur because of light speed
>> unification.
> 
> Oh cute, Henry!  You are saying that the speed of light is not constant
> except for when it is, and it always is.  Why not embrace this statement
> of yours as proof that DirtyBathWater and variable light speed are failed
> concepts.

I see no point in wasting any more time with this a fool...

> 


-- 

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

#426604

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>Einstein's version of aether theory
> 
> Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,

He said that "without aether, relativity was unconscionable" in live link 
TV, broadcast from the moons surface, through an umbrella used as 
unidirectional sender parabolic dish reflector antenna.

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

#426637

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Jeèným Ludnými":

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>Einstein's version of aether theory
>> Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
> 
> He said that "without aether, relativity was unconscionable" in live link
> TV, broadcast from the moons surface, through an umbrella used as
> unidirectional sender parabolic dish reflector antenna.

No, he did not.

*PLONK* & F’up2 trash can

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#426623

Den 30.07.2017 02.25, skrev HGW...:
> []

SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.

https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET2.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET3.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLET4.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#426658

On 31/07/17 02:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 30.07.2017 02.25, skrev HGW...:
>> []
> 
> SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
> they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.

They predict the same because they ARE the same.
How could they NOT be the same when Einstein's postulates are nothing 
but Lorentz's conclusions? Einstein merely wrote LET backwards.
-- 

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

#426772

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 31/07/17 02:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
>> they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.

>They predict the same because they ARE the same.

No, Ralph, they are not the same at all. LET explicitly uses an aether,
for one, while SR explicitly excludes the aether. That by itself is a
rather big difference, Ralph.

>How could they NOT be the same when Einstein's postulates are nothing 
>but Lorentz's conclusions? Einstein merely wrote LET backwards.

They are not Lorentz's conclusions, Ralph. Einstein's postulates are
merely the results of observations and experiments.  The laws of physics
were observed as not depending on where you are or how fast you are moving
inertially, and every experiment, even back then, shows the speed of light
is always a constant (plus Maxwell's Equations predict that very same
constant)

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

#426853

On 01/08/17 13:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
>> On 31/07/17 02:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>>> SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
>>> they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.
> 
>> They predict the same because they ARE the same.
> 
> No, Henry, they are not the same at all. LET explicitly uses an aether,
> for one, while SR explicitly excludes the aether. That by itself is a
> rather big difference, Henry.

'superfluous' certainly does not mean 'excluded'.
It is well known that Einstein admitted his theory woudl collapse if no 
aether existed....so why are you arguing with him?

>> How could they NOT be the same when Einstein's postulates are nothing
>> but Lorentz's conclusions? Einstein merely wrote LET backwards.
> 
> They are not Lorentz's conclusions, Henry. 


That shows how little you know abut this.

> Einstein's postulates are
> merely the results of observations and experiments.  

There are no references to any experiments or measurements in his 1905 
paper. Maybe you are referring to the fact that Einstein clearly did not 
understand the difference between OWLS and TWLS.

> The laws of physics
> were observed as not depending on where you are or how fast you are moving
> inertially, and every experiment, even back then, shows the speed of light
> is always a constant (plus Maxwell's Equations predict that very same
> constant)

HAHHAHHAHHAH! I knew you were stupid Moron-y but I didn't realize how 
badly you were afflicted. The LAWS have nothing to do with the VALUES.



-- 

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

#426895

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 01/08/17 13:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>> 
>>> On 31/07/17 02:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> 
>>>> SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
>>>> they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.
>> 
>>> They predict the same because they ARE the same.
>> 
>> No, Ralph, they are not the same at all. LET explicitly uses an aether,
>> for one, while SR explicitly excludes the aether. That by itself is a
>> rather big difference, Ralph.

>'superfluous' certainly does not mean 'excluded'.

Ralph, it means that it doesn't apply to his theory, his theory doesn't
depend on it and it isn't affected by it.  It is true that Einstein didn't
explicitly state "There is no aether!" at the time, he just stated that
his theory had nothing to do with any aether, Ralph.  Ralph, the only
mention of any aether in his SR paper was at the beginning where he stated
it was superfluous and would not be used.

Ralph, as much as you want to revive discredited aether theories and
blame them on Einstein (that's projection), it's simply not going to
work.  Einstein's SR doesn't need or use any aether, according to Einstein
himself.

>>> How could they NOT be the same when Einstein's postulates are nothing
>>> but Lorentz's conclusions? Einstein merely wrote LET backwards.
>> 
>> They are not Lorentz's conclusions, Ralph. 

>There are no references to any experiments or measurements in his 1905 
>paper. Maybe you are referring to the fact that Einstein clearly did not 
>understand the difference between OWLS and TWLS.

Ralph, Einstein's postulates were based on observations, not on the LET
conclusions.  Ralph, one postulate is the laws of physics are the same in
all inertial frames, Ralph.  This was based on observation and scientists
were quite certain it was true but weren't sure why. The second postulate
was that the speed of light was the same for all observers.  This was also
an observation and was predicted by Maxwell's equations (for
electromagnetic phenomena).

Ralph, perhaps you should whine that Einstein's SR was based on Maxwell's 
equations and Maxwell's prediction of a constant c for all observers.

>> The laws of physics
>> were observed as not depending on where you are or how fast you are moving
>> inertially, and every experiment, even back then, shows the speed of light
>> is always a constant (plus Maxwell's Equations predict that very same
>> constant)

>HAHHAHHAHHAH! I knew you were stupid Moron-y but I didn't realize how 
>badly you were afflicted. The LAWS have nothing to do with the VALUES.

No, Ralph, the LAWS are the same.  Things like F=ma (a law of physics) are
the same for all inertial frames, no matter what the origin or motion of
the frame is.

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

#426897

On 8/1/17 5:49 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 01/08/17 13:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>>
>>> On 31/07/17 02:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>> SR and LET are not the same theory, but in flat space-time
>>>> they will predict exactly the same for all experiments.
>>
>>> They predict the same because they ARE the same.
>>
>> No, Henry, they are not the same at all. LET explicitly uses an aether,
>> for one, while SR explicitly excludes the aether. That by itself is a
>> rather big difference, Henry.
> 
> 'superfluous' certainly does not mean 'excluded'.

Right. But physics has an economy of concepts. If an idea is not needed, 
then don't include it in the theory.

> It is well known that Einstein admitted his theory woudl collapse if no 
> aether existed....so why are you arguing with him?

Completely different aether he was referring to in the two cases. Much 
different properties in both cases, which he was very careful to point out.

> 
>>> How could they NOT be the same when Einstein's postulates are nothing
>>> but Lorentz's conclusions? Einstein merely wrote LET backwards.
>>
>> They are not Lorentz's conclusions, Henry. 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know abut this.
> 
>> Einstein's postulates are
>> merely the results of observations and experiments. 
> 
> There are no references to any experiments or measurements in his 1905 
> paper. 

As was the style in 1905. Different today.

> Maybe you are referring to the fact that Einstein clearly did not 
> understand the difference between OWLS and TWLS.
> 
>> The laws of physics
>> were observed as not depending on where you are or how fast you are 
>> moving
>> inertially, and every experiment, even back then, shows the speed of 
>> light
>> is always a constant (plus Maxwell's Equations predict that very same
>> constant)
> 
> HAHHAHHAHHAH! I knew you were stupid Moron-y but I didn't realize how 
> badly you were afflicted. The LAWS have nothing to do with the VALUES.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#426941

W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 16:19:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

 
> Right. But physics has an economy of concepts.

Economy of poor idiots: let's cross out absolute time;
let's implement zillions of Times insead, not only different
for every observer but also for every fucking muon.

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

#426989

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/1/17 5:49 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 01/08/17 13:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Einstein's postulates are merely the results of observations and
>>> experiments.
>> There are no references to any experiments or measurements in his 1905
>> paper.
> 
> As was the style in 1905.  Different today.

No, not only was the accepted style back then _not_ very different from 
today; Einstein *did* refer to previous experiments:

,-<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
| 
| ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
| by A. Einstein
| [Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891-921]
| 
|   It is well known that Maxwell's electrodynamics – as usually understood
| at present – when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries that do 
| not seem to attach to the phenomena. Let us recall, for example, the
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and a conductor. The
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| observable phenomenon depends here only on the relative motion of
| conductor and magnet, while according to the customary conception the two
| cases, in which, respectively, either the one or the other of the two
| bodies is the one in motion, are to be strictly differentiated from each
| other. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor is at rest, there
| arises in the surroundings of the magnet an electric field endowed with a
| certain energy value that produces a current in the places where parts of
| the conductor are located. But if the magnet is at rest and the conductor
| is in motion, no electric field arises in the surroundings of the magnet,
| while in the conductor an electromotive force will arise, to which in
| itself there does not correspond any energy, but which, provided that the
| relative motion in the two cases considered is the same, gives rise to
| electrical currents that have the same magnitude and the same course as
| those produced by the electric forces in the first-mentioned case.
| 
|   Examples of a similar kind, and the failure of attempts to detect a
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the conjecture
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| that not only in mechanics, but in electrodynamics as well, the phenomena 
| do not have any properties corresponding to the concept of absolute rest, 
| but that in all coordinate systems in which the mechanical equations are 
| valid, also the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has 
| already been shown for quantities of the first order. […]
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(see the margin notes in the translation for details)

Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905) *is* 
different to others because “he [had] answered a question no-one was 
asking”.  Also, Einstein did have a singular writing style.  (See also 
National Geographic, “Genius”, episode 4.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#427162

On 03/08/17 09:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> On 8/1/17 5:49 PM, HGW... wrote:

> | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> | by A. Einstein
> | [Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891-921]
> |
> |   It is well known that Maxwell's electrodynamics – as usually understood
> | at present – when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries that do
> | not seem to attach to the phenomena. Let us recall, for example, the
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and a conductor. The
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | observable phenomenon depends here only on the relative motion of
> | conductor and magnet, while according to the customary conception the two
> | cases, in which, respectively, either the one or the other of the two
> | bodies is the one in motion, are to be strictly differentiated from each
> | other. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor is at rest, there
> | arises in the surroundings of the magnet an electric field endowed with a
> | certain energy value that produces a current in the places where parts of
> | the conductor are located. But if the magnet is at rest and the conductor
> | is in motion, no electric field arises in the surroundings of the magnet,
> | while in the conductor an electromotive force will arise, to which in
> | itself there does not correspond any energy, but which, provided that the
> | relative motion in the two cases considered is the same, gives rise to
> | electrical currents that have the same magnitude and the same course as
> | those produced by the electric forces in the first-mentioned case.
> |
> |   Examples of a similar kind, and the failure of attempts to detect a
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the conjecture
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | that not only in mechanics, but in electrodynamics as well, the phenomena
> | do not have any properties corresponding to the concept of absolute rest,
> | but that in all coordinate systems in which the mechanical equations are
> | valid, also the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has
> | already been shown for quantities of the first order. […]
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That relates to his P1. ...the principle of relativity that Galileo 
already knew all about.

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

#426818

On 7/29/17 7/29/17   8:25 PM, HGW... wrote:
> [...]

SR and LET are most definitely NOT "the same theory". But to know this you do 
have to know something about both theories, which you CLEARLY do not.

Tom Roberts

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

#426851

On 02/08/17 01:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/29/17 7/29/17   8:25 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> SR and LET are most definitely NOT "the same theory". But to know this 
> you do have to know something about both theories, which you CLEARLY do 
> not.

Why did you bother to post that message?

> Tom Roberts


-- 

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

#426856

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:42:57 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>
> On 02/08/17 01:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > On 7/29/17 7/29/17   8:25 PM, HGW... wrote:
> > > [...]
> > 
> > SR and LET are most definitely NOT "the same theory". But to know this 
> > you do have to know something about both theories, which you CLEARLY do 
> > not.
> 
> Why did you bother to post that message?

Why do you bother to post your asinine DirtyBaThWater bull plop?  Tom
wouldn't have to correct your corrupt baloney if YOU didn't post it.

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

#426892

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 02/08/17 01:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 7/29/17 7/29/17   8:25 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> SR and LET are most definitely NOT "the same theory". But to know this 
>> you do have to know something about both theories, which you CLEARLY do 
>> not.

>Why did you bother to post that message?

Probably to correct your stupid mistake, Ralph.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web