Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message ...


[snip]


Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles? You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over. This was an outright lie imposed in order to save SR from very
observable superluminal speeds. It was a rationalization, it was a
fabrication, it was pulled out of their asses. Tell me, If a spot
(generated by a rotating laser) is moving at 2c along a fence wrt me,
then what speed will that spot be moving wrt an observer moving at x m/s
wrt the fence, as measured by that observer?

Primed frame moving with velocity vc w.r.t. unprimed frame.

Spot_event 1: (x',t') = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x',t') = ( wt', t' )
velocity of spot = wt' / t' = w
for instance 2c

Spot_event 1: (x,t) = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x,t) = ( g(wt'+vt'), g(t'+vwt'/c^2 )
velocity of spot = (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2)

w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c
w = c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) = c
w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c

Subluminal in one frame == subluminal in all frames
Luminal in one frame == Luminal in all frames
Superluminal in one frame == superluminal in all frames

Dirk Vdm

Which I have already stated Dirk. OTOH this requires that the time of
occurrence, i.e. the exact moment of transition between subluminal and
superluminal, be the same instant in every frame. Thus if wrt some
observer two spatially separated 'spots' make the transition from
subluminal to superluminal simultaneously, then they must do so
simultaneously wrt all frames, thus negating SR's relativity of
simultaneity.

Now I know that you will respond, "not so", but consider that if this is
not in fact the case, then at some given instant we will have one of the
spots moving superluminally wrt K, but not wrt K'. This directly
contradicts either SR, or your assessment above, take your pick. As far
as I'm concerned, when one goes the other goes with it, and thus the
book is closed.

Now I know this may be difficult to understand, but you cannot argue the
points made in the Gravitomagnetism thread, and the result of those
premises is that the actually correct theory requires the incorrectness
of SR. I have no choice but to stick to the theory that explains nature
coherently, and it just doesn't happen to be SR. OTOH if not for the
overwhelming counter evidence that I've provided, I might also find SR
agreeable from an aesthetic point of view. It has nothing to do with
sentiment, not in my case. It's a matter of pure empiricism and logical
principles. My disgust with the illogic of the theory wasn't spawned by
the theory, but by the mentality of the majority of its die-hard
adherents.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper