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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356529

Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:13:21 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/8/15 7/8/15 - 3:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> >> LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR,
> >
> > Given today's technology, both LET and SR are experimentally
> > indistinguishable.
> 
> Yes. They are indistinguishable given ANY POSSIBLE technology.
> 
> 
> >> and within their common domain is unrefuted.
> >
> > Only at observer's high absolute speed, LET and SR will start to diverge.
> 
> Not true. LET and SR will _NEVER_ "diverge". That's because they are both based 
> on Lorentz transforms, which form a group.
> 
> Yes, LET assumes a unique ether frame. But this frame and its ether are 
> COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNOBSERVABLE, and the predictions of the theory do not 
> depend on which frame one labels as "the ether frame".
> 
> 	This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
> 	transforms form a group. Note that on basic physical grounds
> 	the transforms among inertial frames MUST form a group.
> 
> 
> > This is what the mathematics of LET (Larmor's transform) and SR (Lorentz
> > transform) tell us.
> 
> Well there's your error: LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory, and it uses the 
> LORENTZ transforms.
> 
> 	But then, the Larmor transform is algebraically identical
> 	to the Lorentz transform, so you attempt to make a
> 	distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> >> But LET applies only to electrodynamics, while SR applies to the other
> >> three known forces of nature.
> >
> > This claim is absolutely nonsense.
> 
> No. it is manifestly true. You are VERY confused.
> 
> 	BTW SR applies to electrodynamics, too.
> 
> 
> >> the MMX refuted SOME aether theories, but not LET. And other experiments
> >> have refuted some additional aether theories, but not LET. This is not
> >> "inconsistent", because the properties of their respective aethers are
> >> DIFFERENT.
> >
> > In reality, there is only one Aether while there are several models of this
> > Aether.
> 
> You don't "know" that there is an Aether. You merely present you personal 
> fantasies and dreams as if they were fact.
> 
> 
>      Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
>      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>      and unwilling to learn anything.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.

Peter Riedt

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-02 18:51 -0500
  Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-02 18:42 -0700
    Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-04 18:29 -0700
      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:21 -0500
      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 18:15 -0700
      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-09 18:08 -0700
        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-09 18:25 -0700
          Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-09 18:45 -0700
            Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-09 22:25 -0400
            Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-09 19:30 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-11 04:49 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:47 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-14 16:56 +0200
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 18:59 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:50 +0200
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:54 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:58 +0200
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:09 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:26 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 09:48 +0200
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-14 18:37 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:00 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-15 03:13 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-15 08:53 -0400
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-15 21:09 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 04:42 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 19:04 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:28 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 14:55 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-14 23:58 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 00:59 -0700
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 03:29 -0700
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 04:48 -0700
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 10:01 -0500
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-16 10:26 -0500
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 18:38 -0700
                Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 12:41 -0700

csiph-web