When I said:
This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)
demand both length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.

Morituri-Max said:

They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of einsteinian
space
both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.

And I responded: elucidate, whereupon Hobba ;pointed to:

A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to assert such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult fraud and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the method and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the results any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity requires
some bizarre result.

Roberts further asserts:

The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients independent
of position. That is

x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2

But I point out he has already positied x=0, t=0, x'=0, t'=0, x"=0, t"=0.

Whence the sudden intercept requirement or possibility?

I do not assert anything as to the relevance or correctness of Robert's post
en re the supposed effects Morituri-Max and Hobbba seem both to assert. I
have jsut started with Tom's piece.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...
When I said:
This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)
demand both length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.

Morituri-Max said:

They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of einsteinian
space
both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.

And I responded: elucidate, whereupon Hobba ;pointed to:

A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the usual acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.


THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to assert
such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of geometry - they should
just show up of their own accord?


b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the method and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the results any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above postulate. Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to experiments that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false. If you can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as valid.


Roberts further asserts:

The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients independent
of position. That is

x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2

But I point out he has already positied x=0, t=0, x'=0, t'=0, x"=0, t"=0.

Whence the sudden intercept requirement or possibility?

So? All that means is that E(u) and F(u) = 0.


I do not assert anything as to the relevance or correctness of Robert's
post
en re the supposed effects Morituri-Max and Hobbba seem both to assert. I
have jsut started with Tom's piece.

I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is a tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and 'demand both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's assertion from
basic principles.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the usual acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.

Uhh. Yes. Sorry.

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to assert
such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of geometry - they
should
just show up of their own accord?

No, but the idea is to fit the 'real' world, which is what Euclid tried to
do, and he did not pose any axioms on the basis that they might be ok.

Right?



b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the method
and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the results any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity
requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above postulate. Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to experiments that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false. If you can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as valid.

That's a strawman argument. A dumb**** asshole argument. The thesis posed
wasn't that they had been proved wrong but that not only had they not been
proved right but there was a simple, ancient model - compatible with the
sacred MMX and KTX - with which they are definitely not required.


I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is a tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

You aren't very smart, are you, crackpot? This was a new subject that you
brought up, Robert's article, which is mentioned in the subject along with
the names of the two players who might be interested.

There was no reason for others interested in the first thread somewhat to
have to dig into the roberts material.

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and 'demand both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's assertion
from
basic principles.

I don't think so. But am not sure yet. Probably an SR-cult delusion based on
strawman distortions.

eleaticus

Bill

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the usual
acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.

Uhh. Yes. Sorry.

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to
assert
such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of geometry - they
should
just show up of their own accord?

No, but the idea is to fit the 'real' world, which is what Euclid tried to
do, and he did not pose any axioms on the basis that they might be ok.

Right?

Wrong. He posed his axioms as statements about how the real world worked.
Although it probably did not occur to the Greeks, because the idea of
science was not well understood by them, once that is done they become
subject to experimental investigation. In particular, Gauss experimentally
investigated Euclid's 5th axiom to see if it was true. His results were
inconclusive - however things have moved on since then - and we know it is
violated - probably not for you though nor would you accept the evidence.




b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult
fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the method
and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the results
any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity
requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above postulate.
Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to experiments
that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false. If you
can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as valid.

That's a strawman argument. A dumb**** asshole argument. The thesis posed
wasn't that they had been proved wrong but that not only had they not been
proved right but there was a simple, ancient model - compatible with the
sacred MMX and KTX - with which they are definitely not required.

Still unable to point to a single experiment that invalidates the postulates
of the paper.



I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is a tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

You aren't very smart, are you, crackpot? This was a new subject that
you
brought up, Robert's article, which is mentioned in the subject along with
the names of the two players who might be interested.

There was no reason for others interested in the first thread somewhat to
have to dig into the roberts material.

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and 'demand
both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of
einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's assertion
from
basic principles.

I don't think so. But am not sure yet. Probably an SR-cult delusion based
on
strawman distortions.

Translation - he can not fault it except to claim the postulates have not
been proven. But what he of course does not mention is that no postulates
can ever be proven - they are simply in accord with experiment or not. If
not they are wrong - if otherwise then they may be true.

Bill


eleaticus

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the usual
acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.

Uhh. Yes. Sorry.

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S
is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to
assert
such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of geometry - they
should
just show up of their own accord?

No, but the idea is to fit the 'real' world, which is what Euclid tried
to
do, and he did not pose any axioms on the basis that they might be ok.

Right?

Wrong.

Wrong? You psycho. You go on to repeat as fact what I said:

He posed his axioms as statements about how the real world worked.
Although it probably did not occur to the Greeks, because the idea of
science was not well understood by them, once that is done they become
subject to experimental investigation. In particular, Gauss
experimentally
investigated Euclid's 5th axiom to see if it was true. His results were
inconclusive - however things have moved on since then - and we know it is
violated - probably not for you though nor would you accept the evidence.

b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult
fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the
method
and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because
the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the results
any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity
requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above postulate.
Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to experiments
that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false. If you
can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as valid.

That's a strawman argument. A dumb**** asshole argument. The thesis
posed
wasn't that they had been proved wrong but that not only had they not
been
proved right but there was a simple, ancient model - compatible with the
sacred MMX and KTX - with which they are definitely not required.

Still unable to point to a single experiment that invalidates the
postulates
of the paper.

And you are still making asshole comments that have nothing to do with any
assertion of mine. That's called a strawman argument, a very common form of
illogic.

I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is a
tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

You aren't very smart, are you, crackpot? This was a new subject that
you
brought up, Robert's article, which is mentioned in the subject along
with
the names of the two players who might be interested.

There was no reason for others interested in the first thread somewhat
to
have to dig into the roberts material.

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and 'demand
both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of
einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's
assertion
from
basic principles.

I don't think so. But am not sure yet. Probably an SR-cult delusion
based
on
strawman distortions.

Translation - he can not fault it except to claim the postulates have not
been proven.

Which, strange to say, is all I said. You can do no better than make
strawman attacks?

But what he of course does not mention is that no postulates
can ever be proven - they are simply in accord with experiment or not. If
not they are wrong - if otherwise then they may be true.

Strawman again.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the usual
acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.

Uhh. Yes. Sorry.

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate
system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S'
is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S
is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need to
assert
such
a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of geometry -
they
should
just show up of their own accord?

No, but the idea is to fit the 'real' world, which is what Euclid
tried
to
do, and he did not pose any axioms on the basis that they might be ok.

Right?

Wrong.

Wrong? You psycho. You go on to repeat as fact what I said:

He posed his axioms as statements about how the real world worked.
Although it probably did not occur to the Greeks, because the idea of
science was not well understood by them, once that is done they become
subject to experimental investigation. In particular, Gauss
experimentally
investigated Euclid's 5th axiom to see if it was true. His results were
inconclusive - however things have moved on since then - and we know it
is
violated - probably not for you though nor would you accept the
evidence.

The point being, seeing you are too stupid to see it, the validity of axioms
is an experimental matter. Note what I said 'Although it probably did not
occur to the Greeks' - I did not say they proposed it as the one and only
reality. What I should have said is not 'Wrong' but - 'How the hell would
you know'.


b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B. SR-cult
fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but the
method
and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it because
the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the
results
any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v) relativity
requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above
postulate.
Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to
experiments
that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false. If
you
can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as valid.

That's a strawman argument. A dumb**** asshole argument. The thesis
posed
wasn't that they had been proved wrong but that not only had they not
been
proved right but there was a simple, ancient model - compatible with
the
sacred MMX and KTX - with which they are definitely not required.

Still unable to point to a single experiment that invalidates the
postulates
of the paper.

And you are still making asshole comments that have nothing to do with any
assertion of mine. That's called a strawman argument, a very common form
of
illogic.

Again you fail to provide one simple bit of experimental evidence against
the assertions of the linked paper.


I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is a
tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

You aren't very smart, are you, crackpot? This was a new subject
that
you
brought up, Robert's article, which is mentioned in the subject along
with
the names of the two players who might be interested.

There was no reason for others interested in the first thread
somewhat
to
have to dig into the roberts material.

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and
'demand
both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of
einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's
assertion
from
basic principles.

I don't think so. But am not sure yet. Probably an SR-cult delusion
based
on
strawman distortions.

Translation - he can not fault it except to claim the postulates have
not
been proven.

Which, strange to say, is all I said. You can do no better than make
strawman attacks?

Then you can not say that SR is incorrect. If the assumptions it is based
on have not been experimentally disproved, and the logic is sound, then the
conclusion has not been disproved.

Bill


But what he of course does not mention is that no postulates
can ever be proven - they are simply in accord with experiment or not.
If
not they are wrong - if otherwise then they may be true.

Strawman again.

eleaticus

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...
When I said:
This post is a moderately concise debunking of the
ridiculous
conclusion that the Basic Equations of Einstein's
Relativity (BEER)
demand both length contraction and time dilation for moving
objects.

Morituri-Max said:

They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of
einsteinian
space
both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.

And I responded: elucidate, whereupon Hobba ;pointed to:

A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity

Wherein Roberts asserts as part of his derivation of the LET:

By LET do you mean the Loretnz Transformations? - LET is the
usual acronym
for Lorentz Ether Theory.


THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate
system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate
system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S,
then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]

In plain words: If Sam observes S'eth moving away from him at
50mph going east, then S'eth observes Sam moving away from him at
50mph going west. How is that a departure from classical physics?
Ah, yes, on the basis that it assumes a local frame that is at
rest for both individuals.

And I say:

a. if the postulate is correct there is probably no real need
to assert
such a postulate, it 'should' just show up of its own accord.

So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of
geometry - they should
just show up of their own accord?


b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B.
SR-cult fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but
the method and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like
and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it
because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the
results any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially
as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v)
relativity requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above
postulate. Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to
experiments that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false.
If you can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as
valid.

Why is that postulate being argued? For guys in trains or waiting
for them, you could argue on the basis of common sense, since
both the guy on wheels and the guy waiting at the station know
the station's nailed down and wheels roll... but for celestial
considerations...? Did I miss the announcement concerning the
giant back-lit You Are Here map cosmologists have discovered?

As far as aether goes, though, it seems some part of spacetime is
effected by gravity. hmmmm... so it's feared that proof of the
presence of an aether would disprove Relativity? It would take
more than that. Have you ever been caught under water in high
surf waves? It's really hard to tell which direction is up, and
that's in a depth of only a few feet of water.

Even if we were to prove that not only is there an aether but we
are stationary wrt it, we still wouldn't know where we were in
the Universe... unless we took the position that is most human
and concluded we were the center of it. (Which differs from our
current assessment... how?) Then little odd people in very fast
cigars would come announcing that ours is one of the few galaxies
that has run completely out of gas and is stuck in the aethereal
mud of a backwater Universal drainage ditch, that's why almost
all the other galaxies are running off and leaving us. To which
revelation we would respond by producing autopsied little odd
people.

Roberts further asserts:

The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply
that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients
independent
of position. That is

x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2

But I point out he has already positied x=0, t=0, x'=0, t'=0,
x"=0, t"=0.

Whence the sudden intercept requirement or possibility?

So? All that means is that E(u) and F(u) = 0.


I do not assert anything as to the relevance or correctness
of Robert's
post
en re the supposed effects Morituri-Max and Hobbba seem both
to assert. I
have jsut started with Tom's piece.

I have no idea why you started another thread - although it is
a tactic
often used by cranks to shift context. But the context was:

eleaticus wrote:
'This post is a moderately concise debunking of the ridiculous
conclusion
that the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER)' and
'demand both
length contraction and time dilation for moving objects.'

Morituri-Max wrote:
'They are the same thing.. in any object bound by the rules of
einsteinian
space both effects occur to such an object if it has mass.'

eleaticus wrote:
Elucidate, please.

To which I gave Toms ancient post that derives Morituri-Max's
assertion from
basic principles.

Bill


Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

Then you can not say that SR is incorrect. If the assumptions it is based
on have not been experimentally disproved, and the logic is sound, then
the
conclusion has not been disproved.

What can be said is what was said. There are innumerable ways in which SR's
claims are demonstrably wrong at the basics, which is where I have been
operating.

eleaticus

Pax wrote:
About a million years ago Tom Roberts wrote:
THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE There is no "preferred velocity", or
"Preferred coordinate system" - only relative velocities are
observable. If coordinate system S' is moving with velocity v,
as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'. [This is Einstein's
fundamental departure from classical physics. Today, it seems
natural.]

In plain words: If Sam observes S'eth moving away from him at
50mph going east, then S'eth observes Sam moving away from him at
50mph going west. How is that a departure from classical physics?

It's not. That was written in 1987 or so, before I had fully understood
the details or historical context. I have learned A LOT about the
foundations and history of SR and GR in the intervening years....

[Yes, USENET predates the Internet. Think uucp over phone
lines. Bell Labs was a major participant in those early
years.]


[...]
Why is that postulate being argued? [...]

Because eleaticus has no understanding of logic, mathematics, or
physics. The real "argument" is not about the postulate itself, but
about his personal failures. His inability to understand logic make him
singularly unable to follow the "argument".


Tom Roberts

"Pax" wrote in message
. ..

THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate
system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate
system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S,
then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.

b. as I showed years ago and very recently in article "B.
SR-cult fraud
and
corruption" Michelson-Morley is not only c+v compatible but
the method and
results show that if there were an absolute frame, MMX-like
and
Kennedy-Thorndike-like experimenters could not detect it
because the
velocity relative to the absolute frame would not effect the
results any
more than any other relative velocity.

Hence, the postulate must be suspect at least superficially
as
biasing/screwing up any conclusion that galilean (v+v)
relativity requires
some bizarre result.

Please point me to the experiments that disprove the above
postulate. Not
to arguments that show an aether may still exist - but to
experiments that
show for sure it does exist and the above assertion is false.
If you can
not do that then it is allowable to accept the postulate as
valid.

Why is that postulate being argued? For guys in trains or waiting
for them, you could argue on the basis of common sense, since
both the guy on wheels and the guy waiting at the station know
the station's nailed down and wheels roll... but for celestial
considerations...? Did I miss the announcement concerning the
giant back-lit You Are Here map cosmologists have discovered?

No, but as said above:

a. a simple c+v model fits Michelson-Morley exactly, and
b. an absolute reference frame would 'behave' mathematically just like any
relative velocity frame and thus not be detectable by MMX or
Kennedy-Thorndike.

Hence, making a postulate that there is no absolute frame may bias analysis
so it would not be detected even if it could, or may act as the basis of
circular reasoning in derivations.


Even if we were to prove that not only is there an aether but we
are stationary wrt it, we still wouldn't know where we were in
the Universe... unless we took the position that is most human
and concluded we were the center of it. (Which differs from our
current assessment... how?) Then little odd people in very fast
cigars would come announcing that ours is one of the few galaxies
that has run completely out of gas and is stuck in the aethereal
mud of a backwater Universal drainage ditch, that's why almost
all the other galaxies are running off and leaving us. To which
revelation we would respond by producing autopsied little odd
people.

lol

I do not feel that an absolute frame necessitates the existence of aether.
That would be presuming the nature of a cause we don't even know exists.

Live long and prosper.

eleaticus