"Androcles" wrote in message
...
SNIP
I think you misunderstand how to correctly use the velocity addition
formula:

Too right I do!
Seems to me that you can try to use the Galilean PoR when it suits you and
the
Poincare PoR when that suits in a desperate attempt to prop up your absurd
pet theory under any circumstances.

It applies to the addition of the speed of something as measured in a
moving system by a stationary system.

Really? Is that the Poincare or the Galileo version?

Poincare.

How are we supposed to know the difference?
I think you misunderstand how to correctly apply logic.

Here we have only the speed of something relative to a light beam. The
measured speed of light relative to that system is c.

Measured? By whom? When was it measured? I'm calling you on it. You are
bluffing, you are making it up. In short, you are telling a deliberate
lie.
Einstein never claimed it was measured, so why do you?

Einstein defined the relevant concepts "time" and "length" as that what
clocks and rulers indicate. That is full reliance on measurements only.

Still, IMO (and O'Barr etc.) Einstein's explanation is Pure Crap, but the
explanation of Lorentz still makes sense.
Mathematically there is no difference as long as we consider the empirical
facts (see for example Gerald O'Barr and Tom Roberts).
In SRT-Lorentz, measurement instruments at rest in a system are affected by
their speed relative to the ether in such a way that it looks as if the
system's own instruments are fully unaffected.
This was rephrased by Einstein to mean that measurement instruments are
affected by their speed relative to any freely chosen frame of reference.
Mathematically that is identical but conceptually it is incomparable and the
cause of much debate.

Now back up your ridiculous claim with some facts.

What ridiculous claim?! You can calculate for yourself that according to
that equation the measured speed of light relative to both systems is c, as
it should be according to SRT. As long as you don't get that answer you
obviously misapply the equation, as that equation is based on that
assumption. Simply put, it applies to a switch between measurement systems -
which is, technically, what SRT is about.

I think you misunderstand how to correctly lie convincingly.
I think that you are a liar.

I can be mistaken sometimes but I don't think that I am a liar.

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
SNIP
I think you misunderstand how to correctly use the velocity addition
formula:

Too right I do!
Seems to me that you can try to use the Galilean PoR when it suits you
and
the
Poincare PoR when that suits in a desperate attempt to prop up your
absurd
pet theory under any circumstances.

It applies to the addition of the speed of something as measured in a
moving system by a stationary system.

Really? Is that the Poincare or the Galileo version?

Poincare.


OK. The "something" is "the tip of the ray".
As the source passes by me, it emits "the tip of the ray" toward a mirror,
also moving.
the distance it moves is x'= x-vt, as beasured by my clock, and x measured
in my frame. How long does it take for tip of the ray to reach the mirror?
Is it
a) V = c+v, x'/V,
or
b)V = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c, x'/V ?




How are we supposed to know the difference?
I think you misunderstand how to correctly apply logic.

Here we have only the speed of something relative to a light beam. The
measured speed of light relative to that system is c.

Measured? By whom? When was it measured? I'm calling you on it. You are
bluffing, you are making it up. In short, you are telling a deliberate
lie.
Einstein never claimed it was measured, so why do you?

Einstein defined the relevant concepts "time" and "length" as that what
clocks and rulers indicate. That is full reliance on measurements only.
Ok, so it hasn't been measured, right?

Fine. Which postulate do I use, Galileo's or Poincare's to do the
measurement of time and distance when the source, mirror and light pass by
me?
Is it
a) V = c+v, x'/V,
or
b)V = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c, x'/V ?



Still, IMO (and O'Barr etc.) Einstein's explanation is Pure Crap, but the
explanation of Lorentz still makes sense.
IMO, aetherialism is Pure Crap as well.



Mathematically there is no difference as long as we consider the empirical
facts (see for example Gerald O'Barr and Tom Roberts).
I've posted the empirical facts. The observations that produce light curves
from stars. As long as O'Barr and Roberts agree, then both are wrong.



In SRT-Lorentz, measurement instruments at rest in a system are affected
by
their speed relative to the ether in such a way that it looks as if the
system's own instruments are fully unaffected.
This was rephrased by Einstein to mean that measurement instruments are
affected by their speed relative to any freely chosen frame of reference.
Mathematically that is identical but conceptually it is incomparable and
the
cause of much debate.

Now back up your ridiculous claim with some facts.

What ridiculous claim?!
"Here we have only the speed of something relative to a light beam. The
measured speed of light relative to that system is c."
You have never made that measurement. So back up your ridiculous claim with
some facts.

You can calculate for yourself that according to
that equation the measured speed of light relative to both systems is c,
as
it should be according to SRT. As long as you don't get that answer you
obviously misapply the equation, as that equation is based on that
assumption. Simply put, it applies to a switch between measurement
systems -
which is, technically, what SRT is about.

I think you misunderstand how to correctly lie convincingly.
I think that you are a liar.

I can be mistaken sometimes but I don't think that I am a liar.

Harald
Fair enough. "The measured speed of light relative to that system is c." was
a mistake.
You are not a liar, just confused about facts. If you can accept that, then
you may become a scientist. I don't wish you any ill will, but I will come d
own hard when people attempt to claim fact when there are no facts.
Both relativity and aetherialism have a common error, because both cannot
accept that the speed of light in a vacuum is source dependent. They differ
in that the aetherialist wants a physical medium and the other wants
mathemagic. You have three choices, not two.
A) the speed of light is media dependent, c in the medium
B) the sol is observer dependent, always c
C) the sol is source dependent.
A is wrong. MMX shows it.
However, it isn't completely wrong, the sol in air or water or diamond or
glass really is media dependent, but it isn't c.
B is wrong, and as you say it, Pure Crap, so I don't need to convince you of
that.
C is consistent with empirical data, once you know how to interpret it.
Space is empty, but material things, stars, the Earth, bullets, satellites
pass through it unimpeded. So does light. There is no aether. Light is a
stream of photons, not a wave.
But the photons act like waves, so they give the appearance of a wave.
Androcles

Androcles wrote:

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
SNIP

I think you misunderstand how to correctly use the velocity addition
formula:

Too right I do!
Seems to me that you can try to use the Galilean PoR when it suits you

and

the
Poincare PoR when that suits in a desperate attempt to prop up your

absurd

pet theory under any circumstances.


It applies to the addition of the speed of something as measured in a

moving system by a stationary system.

Really? Is that the Poincare or the Galileo version?

Poincare.



OK. The "something" is "the tip of the ray".
As the source passes by me, it emits "the tip of the ray" toward a mirror,
also moving.
the distance it moves is x'= x-vt, as beasured by my clock, and x measured
in my frame. How long does it take for tip of the ray to reach the mirror?
Is it
a) V = c+v, x'/V,
or
b)V = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c, x'/V ?
Assuming that x' is the positive length of the rod measured in your
system, and you want the time measured by your clock, then the answer is
neither, it is x'/(c-v)
Mirror: x=x'+vt
Light: x=ct
The meet when x'+vt=ct, so t=x'/(c-v)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


"Harry" wrote in message
e.com...


(Bilge) wrote in message

que-al.net...


Harry:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
ogle.com...

The group property of the Lorentz transformation suggests strongly
otherwise.

Not surprising: the group property was designed to comply to the
PoR.

Be serious. The so-called "group property" is a mathematical concept
that existed before physicists had any idea it was useful. The group
property for a set of objects A,B,... upon which a rule for
composition
is defined, satisfies the following properties:

(1) If A and B are members of the group, then C = AB is a member of
the group.

(2) There exists an inverse such that AA^-1 = 1, for all A.

(3) There is an identity, I, so that AI = A, for all A,

(4) The composition is associative: (AB)C = A(BC)

Physicists did, however rapidly come to appreciate the physics
that can be extracted from the symmetry which group theory makes
apparent - like deriving conservation laws instead of assuming
them.

For continuous groups such as lie groups, (rotations in a plane,
lorentz boosts, etc.), you have a very simple structure. Everything
about the group is determined by examining the infinitessimal trans-
formation in the neighborhood of the identity.

Sorry, sometimes I omit dscriptive words that I think are understood.
Thanks anyway for the precision!

I meant that the Lorentz transformations were designed with in order
to comply with the PoR. In fact it happened in two steps: first
intuitively by Lorentz, and it seems not free of error, and then
corrected and rewritten by Poincare - who emphasised their group
properties - in the symmetric form that we use today.

Harald

The meaning of PoR is vague. Before Einstein it meant the vector

addition of

velocities, most simply expressed as V=u+v, omitting any angle.

That is not true.

Yes it is true.


You are equating the PoR with a consequence of the
PoR that depends on the additional assumption of absolute time.


Exactly. Well done.
So why do you continue to post this stuff?

Einstein was compelled to introduce a new postulate as his first, but
disguised it, not disclosing it until later, to introduce his second
postulate.
Hence his equation
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =

tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

is incorrect.
The term x'/(c+v) should use the composition of velocities, not the

vector

addition of velocities, otherwise he is using the wrong PoR.

No, relative velocity is correctly calculated using the vector law
between velocities in the same inertial system.

ROFLMAO!
Velocities in the same inertial system!
Stop it, my sides are splitting!
After all the explaining about the "greek" frame and the "latin" frame
from
Paul Andersen, or the "stationary" frame and the "moving" frame from
Einstein, you come up with a howler like that!

Please explain what you consider to be a howler. Velocity is rate of
change of position with time. Relative velocities are calculated by
dividing the change of displacement by the time of the change. In a
single inertial system, the denominator is a simple scalar and the
vector law results.
Explain the PoR and the concept of frame? Well, I'll try. Imagine there are
just two objects in the universe. They are moving. One of them, it doesn't
matter which, considers itself to be at rest, because the only reference is
the other object, and that is the one that moves. If you like, go back to
Ptolemy's geocentric universe. The Earth doesn't move. All else, the sun,
moon and planets, the heavenly sphere, revolve around the Earth.
In our two body universe, we don't move. Now, the other body might come
directly toward us, slow down to a stop, and then move away again. Or it
might collide, or just miss. Call this a 'T' crossing. Or it might be going
around in a perfect circle, but we have no way of knowing that, it remains
the same distance and we have no other reference. And of couse, we might be
going around it. or we might be going around in a circle some distance away.
We just cannot tell.
Now we introduce a third body, a reference. Where before we only had a line
to the other body, and its motion was along that line, now we have a plane.
We can introduce a Y-axis, at right-angles to our previous X-axis. All three
bodies lie in this plane.
Now we have a 'frame' of 'reference'.We have two spatial dimension in our
frame, and can watch the relative motion of the other two bodies. We cannot
only see them approach and recede, we can see the angle as well, where
before we could not. To get Z-axis, we need a fourth body. Ok, consider it
done, we set out our rulers.
Now we have four 'frames' of reference in which to measure the motion of the
other three bodies, but well call it one frame. If we want to measure
velocity, we need a concept of time to add to it, as well.
What shall we use for a reference? The speed of light? ok, let's try. We
have speed. Speed with respect to what? The body we consider to be at rest,
or any of the other three, arbitrarily chosen? Where does the light come
from? The other three bodies, of course, and every one of them has its own
frame of reference, different from ours. When one approaches, you are going
to tell me that it's rulers along its axis have shrunk, and its time has
stretched so that it sees the same c that we do. I cannot rely on its frame
of reference. I still have no reference for time. But wait! There is one. We
give each of the other bodies a planet, annd count the revolutions of those
planets to tell us a time for the whole system. If we find that Body A has a
planet that makes one revolution to every 3 revolutions of Body B, that's
ok, we can handle it.
But for convenience we'll stop all motion of he bodies, and let just the
planets run, and well make then all have the same period. Time is now
universal. To make it relative, change the obital period of one of the
planets by causing its system to move. There is a problem. What if OUR
system moves? Does our planet slow? That means the other three speed up. But
by the PoR, we never move. It is OUR inertial frame of reference, nobody
else's, and the other three planets must slow down. If our's slows and
their's slows, time is universal once again. As to the howler, velocities in
the same inertial system can only refer to the motion of the other three
bodies in OUR frame of reference, and si se no correct calculation. But ok,
we, as gods, have created this imaginary universe. Let's put Albert in it
and send him and his spaceship from the Eden we gave him to a different
body, and ask him if our planets changed their period, for that IS his
reference for time. I wonder if he'll use the velocity of light from the
light shining up his arse where he was, or down his throat from where he is
going?






It is only when
transforming velocity between inertial systems that the composition law
is required.

Yeah, right, ok! LOL... so the REAL velocity of light is c+v, and it
takes
the REAL time of x'/(c+v) to travel a distance x'.

The relative velocity between light with velocity 'c' and a fixed point
moving at velocity '-v' is 'c+v', so yes, if x' describes the length of
a rod moving in the opposite direction of a light signal, then the time
of travel is x'/(c+v). It is easy to prove.

What happens when two contra-revolving satellites pass each other? Each
see
the other's clock as running slow, right? But when they meet again, they
have exactly the same time! Amazing. What a tremendous conclusion! They
pass
each other 4 times,
twice when on the same side of the Earth and twice when they are on
opposite
sides, and always each sees the other's clock running slow and telling
the
right time. When did they see the other's clock speed up again? DUH!

The satellites are not inertial systems, so you must take the
acceleration into account. I have not done the math, but the change due
to the equivalence principle will probably show the correct speedup when
the satellites are on opposite sides of the Earth. Try it.
Nah... you try it. Do the math. I'm not interested in showing that two
side-by-side motions, separated only by a distance, have the peculiar
phenomenon of agreeing on the same time while each see the other's speed up.
It is just as absurd as when they pass in opposite directions.

Time is absolute, proven by reductio-ad-absurdum.
Not yet. You have done an incomplete analysis.
Have I ? ...
oh well, I'm bored by it anyway.

Androcles

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


"Harry" wrote in message
e.com...


(Bilge) wrote in message

que-al.net...


Harry:

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
ogle.com...

The group property of the Lorentz transformation suggests strongly
otherwise.

Not surprising: the group property was designed to comply to the
PoR.

Be serious. The so-called "group property" is a mathematical concept
that existed before physicists had any idea it was useful. The group
property for a set of objects A,B,... upon which a rule for
composition
is defined, satisfies the following properties:

(1) If A and B are members of the group, then C = AB is a member of
the group.

(2) There exists an inverse such that AA^-1 = 1, for all A.

(3) There is an identity, I, so that AI = A, for all A,

(4) The composition is associative: (AB)C = A(BC)

Physicists did, however rapidly come to appreciate the physics
that can be extracted from the symmetry which group theory makes
apparent - like deriving conservation laws instead of assuming
them.

For continuous groups such as lie groups, (rotations in a plane,
lorentz boosts, etc.), you have a very simple structure. Everything
about the group is determined by examining the infinitessimal trans-
formation in the neighborhood of the identity.

Sorry, sometimes I omit dscriptive words that I think are understood.
Thanks anyway for the precision!

I meant that the Lorentz transformations were designed with in order
to comply with the PoR. In fact it happened in two steps: first
intuitively by Lorentz, and it seems not free of error, and then
corrected and rewritten by Poincare - who emphasised their group
properties - in the symmetric form that we use today.

Harald

The meaning of PoR is vague. Before Einstein it meant the vector

addition of

velocities, most simply expressed as V=u+v, omitting any angle. But

after

Einstein we have the composition of velocities, which includes c into

the

equation, making it
V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
Clearly these are different PoRs, they have different equations.
Einstein was compelled to introduce a new postulate as his first, but
disguised it, not disclosing it until later, to introduce his second
postulate.

Let me reverse your argument:

The speed of light does not obey the V=u+v law,

Evidence, please.
Fresnel's hypothesis, which has been experimentally verified, says that
light speed transforms as V=c/N+v(1-1/N^2). This is in obvious conflict
with V=c/N+v.
I asked for evidence, not assertion.

..Einstein equation,
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
says it does.

Actually, Einstein goes on from that equation to show that no velocities
obey the V=u+v law when changing reference systems.



so, if you are right,
then the "old" PoR does not apply to optics.

Evidence, please. I accept no assertions. The old PoR applies to optics,
see
the above, and see the attachment.
If the PoR is equivalent to, or requires, V=u+v, then Fresnel's formula
shows that light does not conform to the PoR.

Your attachment is not an application of the PoR.




Either the PoR is
restricted to mechanics, or it must be rejected.

See the above.


We are left with the interesting case that the results of optical
experiments are not sensitive to absolute velocity,

Keep going...


but the PoR does not
apply precisely because of the explanation of that failure.

Very good. What failure?
The failure to detect any dependence on absolute velocity.
IOW, experimentally, optics obeys the PoR, but theoretically it does not
(using your definition of the PoR). Fresnel's hypothesis explains the
failure to detect absolute velocity but it violates your definition of
the PoR.


I don't know what absolute velocity you are talking about.
I've stated my case, I'm not going to argue with you. Take it or leave it.
If you prefer to leave it, then do so, I've lost interest.
You can have the last word, I expect you can show there is no absolute
motion, and bright green elephants don't exist by Fresnel's hypothesis.
All I can offer is "so what, whoever said there was?"

Androcles

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
SNIP

I think you misunderstand how to correctly use the velocity addition
formula:

Too right I do!
Seems to me that you can try to use the Galilean PoR when it suits you

and

the
Poincare PoR when that suits in a desperate attempt to prop up your

absurd

pet theory under any circumstances.


It applies to the addition of the speed of something as measured in a

moving system by a stationary system.

Really? Is that the Poincare or the Galileo version?

Poincare.



OK. The "something" is "the tip of the ray".
As the source passes by me, it emits "the tip of the ray" toward a
mirror,
also moving.
the distance it moves is x'= x-vt, as beasured by my clock, and x
measured
in my frame. How long does it take for tip of the ray to reach the
mirror?
Is it
a) V = c+v, x'/V,
or
b)V = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c, x'/V ?
Assuming that x' is the positive length of the rod measured in your
system, and you want the time measured by your clock, then the answer is
neither, it is x'/(c-v)
Mirror: x=x'+vt
Light: x=ct
The meet when x'+vt=ct, so t=x'/(c-v)
Nit picking? Wrong.
t=x'/(v + (-c))
(By Galileo's Principle of Relativity, not Einstein's idiotic composition of
velocities.)

Androcles wrote:
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


No, relative velocity is correctly calculated using the vector law
between velocities in the same inertial system.

ROFLMAO!
Velocities in the same inertial system!
Stop it, my sides are splitting!
After all the explaining about the "greek" frame and the "latin" frame

from

Paul Andersen, or the "stationary" frame and the "moving" frame from
Einstein, you come up with a howler like that!


Please explain what you consider to be a howler. Velocity is rate of
change of position with time. Relative velocities are calculated by
dividing the change of displacement by the time of the change. In a
single inertial system, the denominator is a simple scalar and the
vector law results.

Explain the PoR and the concept of frame? Well, I'll try. Imagine there are
just two objects in the universe. They are moving. One of them, it doesn't
matter which, considers itself to be at rest, because the only reference is
the other object, and that is the one that moves. If you like, go back to
Ptolemy's geocentric universe. The Earth doesn't move. All else, the sun,
moon and planets, the heavenly sphere, revolve around the Earth.
In our two body universe, we don't move. Now, the other body might come
directly toward us, slow down to a stop, and then move away again. Or it
might collide, or just miss. Call this a 'T' crossing. Or it might be going
around in a perfect circle, but we have no way of knowing that, it remains
the same distance and we have no other reference. And of couse, we might be
going around it. or we might be going around in a circle some distance away.
We just cannot tell.
Now we introduce a third body, a reference. Where before we only had a line
to the other body, and its motion was along that line, now we have a plane.
We can introduce a Y-axis, at right-angles to our previous X-axis. All three
bodies lie in this plane.
Now we have a 'frame' of 'reference'.We have two spatial dimension in our
frame, and can watch the relative motion of the other two bodies. We cannot
only see them approach and recede, we can see the angle as well, where
before we could not. To get Z-axis, we need a fourth body. Ok, consider it
done, we set out our rulers.
Now we have four 'frames' of reference in which to measure the motion of the
other three bodies, but well call it one frame. If we want to measure
velocity, we need a concept of time to add to it, as well.
What shall we use for a reference? The speed of light? ok, let's try. We
have speed. Speed with respect to what? The body we consider to be at rest,
or any of the other three, arbitrarily chosen? Where does the light come
from? The other three bodies, of course, and every one of them has its own
frame of reference, different from ours. When one approaches, you are going
to tell me that it's rulers along its axis have shrunk, and its time has
stretched so that it sees the same c that we do. I cannot rely on its frame
of reference. I still have no reference for time. But wait! There is one. We
give each of the other bodies a planet, annd count the revolutions of those
planets to tell us a time for the whole system. If we find that Body A has a
planet that makes one revolution to every 3 revolutions of Body B, that's
ok, we can handle it.
But for convenience we'll stop all motion of he bodies, and let just the
planets run, and well make then all have the same period. Time is now
universal. To make it relative, change the obital period of one of the
planets by causing its system to move. There is a problem. What if OUR
system moves? Does our planet slow? That means the other three speed up. But
by the PoR, we never move. It is OUR inertial frame of reference, nobody
else's, and the other three planets must slow down. If our's slows and
their's slows, time is universal once again. As to the howler, velocities in
the same inertial system can only refer to the motion of the other three
bodies in OUR frame of reference, and si se no correct calculation.
Finally you try to identify the howler, and the you say, in agreement
with my statement, that we can identify the velocities of multiple
bodies in a single reference system. Some howler.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Androcles wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Harry" wrote in message
gle.com...



(Bilge) wrote in message

esque-al.net...



Harry:


"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0312041018.6cefc9dd@posting. google.com...

The group property of the Lorentz transformation suggests strongly
otherwise.

Not surprising: the group property was designed to comply to the

PoR.

Be serious. The so-called "group property" is a mathematical concept
that existed before physicists had any idea it was useful. The group
property for a set of objects A,B,... upon which a rule for

composition

is defined, satisfies the following properties:

(1) If A and B are members of the group, then C = AB is a member of
the group.

(2) There exists an inverse such that AA^-1 = 1, for all A.

(3) There is an identity, I, so that AI = A, for all A,

(4) The composition is associative: (AB)C = A(BC)

Physicists did, however rapidly come to appreciate the physics
that can be extracted from the symmetry which group theory makes
apparent - like deriving conservation laws instead of assuming
them.

For continuous groups such as lie groups, (rotations in a plane,
lorentz boosts, etc.), you have a very simple structure. Everything
about the group is determined by examining the infinitessimal trans-
formation in the neighborhood of the identity.

Sorry, sometimes I omit dscriptive words that I think are understood.
Thanks anyway for the precision!

I meant that the Lorentz transformations were designed with in order
to comply with the PoR. In fact it happened in two steps: first
intuitively by Lorentz, and it seems not free of error, and then
corrected and rewritten by Poincare - who emphasised their group
properties - in the symmetric form that we use today.

Harald

The meaning of PoR is vague. Before Einstein it meant the vector

addition of


velocities, most simply expressed as V=u+v, omitting any angle. But

after


Einstein we have the composition of velocities, which includes c into

the


equation, making it
V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
Clearly these are different PoRs, they have different equations.
Einstein was compelled to introduce a new postulate as his first, but
disguised it, not disclosing it until later, to introduce his second
postulate.

Let me reverse your argument:

The speed of light does not obey the V=u+v law,

Evidence, please.

Fresnel's hypothesis, which has been experimentally verified, says that
light speed transforms as V=c/N+v(1-1/N^2). This is in obvious conflict
with V=c/N+v.

I asked for evidence, not assertion.
Fizeau's 1851 experiment and it repetition by Michelson and Morley in
1886 provide evidence for Fresnel's formula, as do the observations of
Arago and Airy. It is not just assertion.


..Einstein equation,
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =

tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
says it does.


Actually, Einstein goes on from that equation to show that no velocities
obey the V=u+v law when changing reference systems.



so, if you are right,
then the "old" PoR does not apply to optics.

Evidence, please. I accept no assertions. The old PoR applies to optics,

see

the above, and see the attachment.

If the PoR is equivalent to, or requires, V=u+v, then Fresnel's formula
shows that light does not conform to the PoR.

Your attachment is not an application of the PoR.




Either the PoR is
restricted to mechanics, or it must be rejected.

See the above.



We are left with the interesting case that the results of optical
experiments are not sensitive to absolute velocity,

Keep going...



but the PoR does not
apply precisely because of the explanation of that failure.

Very good. What failure?

The failure to detect any dependence on absolute velocity.
IOW, experimentally, optics obeys the PoR, but theoretically it does not
(using your definition of the PoR). Fresnel's hypothesis explains the
failure to detect absolute velocity but it violates your definition of
the PoR.



I don't know what absolute velocity you are talking about.
The PoR is the principle that the physics of a system are the same
whether it is considered are rest or in uniform motion in a straight
line. Another way to say this is that no experimental results can
depend on an absolute velocity.

Experimentally, optics obeys the PoR. Theoretically, according to 19th
century physics, it does not. Fresnel's formula explains the failure to
detect absolute motion, and it shows that light speed does not transform
according to your velocity formula, which you claim is the PoR.

I've stated my case, I'm not going to argue with you. Take it or leave it.
If you prefer to leave it, then do so, I've lost interest.
You can have the last word, I expect you can show there is no absolute
motion, and bright green elephants don't exist by Fresnel's hypothesis.
All I can offer is "so what, whoever said there was?"

My argument is not that you claim that there is, or is not, absolute
motion. It is that, experimentally, light speed does not transform
according to V=c/N+v, so according to your definition, it does not obey
the PoR.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

[snip]
The speed of light does not obey the V=u+v law,

Evidence, please.

Fresnel's hypothesis, which has been experimentally verified, says that
light speed transforms as V=c/N+v(1-1/N^2). This is in obvious conflict
with V=c/N+v.

I asked for evidence, not assertion.
Fizeau's 1851 experiment and it repetition by Michelson and Morley in
1886 provide evidence for Fresnel's formula, as do the observations of
Arago and Airy. It is not just assertion.


Yada yada yada...
Gawd! GET OF YOUR ARSE and put on the Newsgroup.
Stop asserting and PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!!
Androcles

Androcles wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


[snip]

The speed of light does not obey the V=u+v law,

Evidence, please.

Fresnel's hypothesis, which has been experimentally verified, says that
light speed transforms as V=c/N+v(1-1/N^2). This is in obvious conflict
with V=c/N+v.

I asked for evidence, not assertion.

Fizeau's 1851 experiment and it repetition by Michelson and Morley in
1886 provide evidence for Fresnel's formula, as do the observations of
Arago and Airy. It is not just assertion.



Yada yada yada...
Gawd! GET OF YOUR ARSE and put on the Newsgroup.
Stop asserting and PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!!
Androcles
Are you dense? I just presented evidence. Apparently, you ignore what
you cannot explain.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----