"RP" wrote in message
...


RP wrote:



Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Damn you're a funny guy! Why don't you just read the book that I
suggested to you?

Here again is what Roberts does wrong:
He starts from the ether frame, transforms to the frame of A. Moves B
and C at v wrt A, then transforms back to the ether frame to calculate
clock ticks. Clock ticks are calculated wrt the ether frame, not wrt
the
frame of A as specified in the argument. In the ether frame, indeed,
according to the lorentz transform there was an asymmetry of the
motions
of B and C wrt A. Problem is, this is no longer Lorentz, it's
Einstein.


That's Lorentz, and Poincare, and Einstein as well (except that the
last one would have called that the rest frame).
I explained similar things to you in the past, didn't I?

Apparently you don't recall...
Message-ID:

When Roberts transforms back to A to calculate ticks of the clocks B
and
C he sets A at rest wrt the ether, since this is exactly what the
lorentz transform accomplishes.

No, that is erroneous. You still didn't get it, after years... Then I
won't even try!

- I notice a significant No Comment...

Thus he has two ethers in motion wrt
each other, and yet maintains that A was in motion wrt the ether
throughout. Bull****. He's made precisely the same error as Lorentz,
you
know, the one that Einstein called him on. This is all a matter of
history, you are aware of that aren't you?

Richard Perry


And where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?
People like you make my life more amusing, thanks!


You read the gedanken, please show how Lorentz gets the right answer
using the Galilean transform and physical alterations (only) to sticks
and rulers.

That has been shown many times. But as I told you, I won't bother anymore as
you convinced me that you can't follow it. And you did not deliver the
goods:
Where was it that Einstein called on Lorentz' error?

Simply saying, "Well, we can just set A at rest wrt the
ether since we don't know which frame the ether frame is", is the exact
error that I'm addressing.

That's fighting windmills, as that error didn't occur.

In the gedanken I'm supposing that we "do
know" which frame the ether frame is, and that A is in turn in motion
wrt it.
Are you going to say that clocks B and C will both tick slower than the
A clock even though they are in different states of motion wrt the ether
and A occupies a state of motion between these two?

No - of course not for *you refer to the ether frame*. Apparently you lost
track of reference frames...

And if you do, which
you must in order to remain consistent with the special relativistic
conclusion,

That's a big error, Perry.

then you have abandoned the absolute ether (which BTW was
one of Lorentz' premises). What's so hard about this Harald?

Perry it's dead easy, but I'm not going to spell it out for you this time.
Just one remark: you still don't understand special relativity.

Here is the crux of the matter:
Lorentz is a special case of special relativity in which K in the
transform is the ether frame. In this case x=0 and t=o and the offset
cancels out leaving only the resync component.

x and t are coordinates - perhaps that's the crux of the matter!

Thus if you always assume
the ether frame to perform your calculations then you will be able to
derive the lorentz transform from Lorentz premises of: Galilean
relativity with absolute simultaneity, and physical resync of rulers and
clocks. The moment that you set K in motion wrt the ether frame all bets
are off. This is what the gedanken proves, that is, that the lorentz
transform forbids an absolute ether. This is something that Einstein saw
, that he failed to formalize a proof of the difference between his
theory and Lorentz doesn't change a thing.

I see that you won't deliver the goods...

Now you have an example that
provides different predictions of the two theories, and yet you refuse
to admit that LET and SR aren't equivalent. They are equivalent only i
the special case that I outlined, and ironically the one that Tom and
yourself choose whenever attempting to prove their universal equivalence.

In fact Ilja pointed out to me that Einstein's and Lorentz' interpretation
may not be equivalent for QM ...
Maybe talk again another day. Until then, Good luck!

Harald