Henri Wilson wrote:

As to wavelength, as you pointed out it doesn't change. A one metre wavelength
in the source frame will remain 1 metre in the moving observer frame. That
means successive wave crests will simultaneously lie adjacent to the ends of a
1 metre rod in both frames.

So, in both frames, the wavecrests of the same light passing over identical
gratings, at grazing angle, would have a similar relationship with the lines on
the grating. It would appear that a grating should NOT reveal doppler shift
according to the ballistic theory. However, when you consider light coming onto
the grating at an oblique angle, you will see that this angle itself changes in
the moving observer frame.

I have not resolved the difference between this problem and that of a prism
which I believe is 'frequency sensitive'.
We have no idea what frequency means, when applied to single photons (if such
exist)
I think that by looking at this whole subject from the ballistic point of view,
we might actually discover something important.

Indeed.
Yet another falsification of the ballistic theory.

Paul

On 17 Jan 2005 01:15:53 -0800, "Thomas Wong"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 16:08:25 -0800, "Thomas Wong"

wrote:

changes in
the moving observer frame.

...and I was very careful to deal only with the incident light
normal
with the grating situation.

there are several situations to consider.
Your idea is a transmission grating where the light is incident
normally. you
can also have a reflection grating where the light comes in at an
angle.

When you wrote, "when you consider light coming onto the grating at an
oblique angle, you will see that this angle itself changes in the
moving observer frame," I -thought- you were referring to aberration
resulting from transverse velocity changing the angle of incidence, and
answered accordingly. But now I see that you weren't.

A grating will not detect ballistic Doppler shift with light incident
at -any- angle.

Why should it detect Einsteinian doppler shift?


OK. Let's stuck with the transmision grating with light arriving normally.

|
|
|
--------------
\
\

I think we have to go right back to the beginning to see what actually causes
diffraction. Maybe light speed (relative to the grating) enters into the
picture somewhere. ..I cannot see how but I wouldn't rule out the possibility
either.





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:23:46 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

As to wavelength, as you pointed out it doesn't change. A one metre wavelength
in the source frame will remain 1 metre in the moving observer frame. That
means successive wave crests will simultaneously lie adjacent to the ends of a
1 metre rod in both frames.

So, in both frames, the wavecrests of the same light passing over identical
gratings, at grazing angle, would have a similar relationship with the lines on
the grating. It would appear that a grating should NOT reveal doppler shift
according to the ballistic theory. However, when you consider light coming onto
the grating at an oblique angle, you will see that this angle itself changes in
the moving observer frame.

I have not resolved the difference between this problem and that of a prism
which I believe is 'frequency sensitive'.
We have no idea what frequency means, when applied to single photons (if such
exist)
I think that by looking at this whole subject from the ballistic point of view,
we might actually discover something important.

Indeed.
Yet another falsification of the ballistic theory.

I don't think so.

What exactly is 'wavelength of light'?

For an observer moving towards a source, we have an equation lambda=(c-v)/f but
we don't know what f and lambda really signify.

If 'frequency' is regarded as constant, then wavelength at a moving observer
decreases the faster he moves. So a grating should detect doppler.

All past theory is based on experiments involving light sources at rest with
the apparatus. You don't know what might be revealed is moving sources are
used.


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

Thomas Wong writes
Hi, Everybody!

I'm in my ultrafast spaceship traveling with my buddies Androcles and
Henri on a tourist trip to Uranus. It will take us only a few hours to
reach our destination, because our ship is capable of reaching NAFAL
(nearly-as-fast-as-light) velocities. We're in no real hurry though,
and we don't want to waste our supply of antimatter fuel, so right now
the speedometer says that we're driving slowly at only 35,940 km/s away
from Earth.

The driver gets to choose the radio station. I'm in the driver's seat
so I tune the radio to my favorite Houston oldies radio station KLDE-FM
(107.5).

Unfortunately, what is coming out of the speakers is COUNTRY!

Ahah, I know what is going on! Doppler shift!

Out of curiosity, I want to find out what station I'm listening to.

The relativistic Doppler shift equation is
f/f_0 = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
and when I plug the spaceship velocity into the equation, it tells me
that I'm tuned to KHYT (95.3).

Androcles looks at me sort of funny.

Henri screws his mouth up.

"Uh, Tom," says Androcles. "The relativistic Doppler shift equation is
wrong. Light travels ballistically."

To Androcles and Henri:

1) What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2) What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to me?
3) What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4) What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5) What station am I listening to?

Finally,
Instead of driving away from the Earth in my spaceship, I attach a huge
Bergenholm drive to the Earth and PUSH Earth away from my stationary
spaceship at a speed of 34,840 km/s.
1') What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2') What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to me?
3') What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4') What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5') What station am I listening to?

Thanks, buddies.

If you start with a general Doppler equation - e.g. sound

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c-vs)

then essentially SR assumes always that the observer is stationary w.r.t
the propagating medium and it is always the source which moves, (second
postulate) so put vo = 0

f'/fx = (c)/(c-vs) = 1/(1-v/c)

where fx is f affected by time dilation fx = fSqr(1 - vv/cc)

f'/f = sqr(1 - vv/cc)/(1-v/c)

Which is actually the same as your equation give or take the direction
of v taken as positive.

and ballistic theory that the source is stationary w.r.t the propagating
medium and it is the observer who moves. - put vs =0

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c) = 1 + v/c

Fans of both theories will of course argue that there is no actual
medium involved. The difference is very small anyway at 34,840 km/s the
difference predicted is still only 0.7% which is well within the signal
capture range of KHYT (95.3)

The problem is that the only way of measuring speed tends to be by
measuring Doppler shift. When you say that you are going at 34,840 km/s
that is what you will have calculated it to be, using your chosen theory
by measuring the frequency of a known station on earth and using the SR
Doppler equation. Henri will use the ballistic theory and you will
disagree as to what your speed is and you will both conclude that the
frequency shift agrees with the speed you calculate because it is
circular.

If you have an exceedingly long ruler marked off in km you could measure
your speed relative to that but relativity says that the faster you go
the shorted the ruler will be so to compute your actual relative speed
you would have to allow for the length contraction which SR predicts. As
Henri doesn't accept length contraction You and he still wouldn't agree
as to what speed you are going at.

Essentially there isn't a theory-independent method of measuring
relative velocity.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:51:53 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Thomas Wong writes
Hi, Everybody!

I'm in my ultrafast spaceship traveling with my buddies Androcles and
Henri on a tourist trip to Uranus. It will take us only a few hours to
reach our destination, because our ship is capable of reaching NAFAL
(nearly-as-fast-as-light) velocities. We're in no real hurry though,
and we don't want to waste our supply of antimatter fuel, so right now
the speedometer says that we're driving slowly at only 35,940 km/s away
from Earth.

The driver gets to choose the radio station. I'm in the driver's seat
so I tune the radio to my favorite Houston oldies radio station KLDE-FM
(107.5).

Unfortunately, what is coming out of the speakers is COUNTRY!

Ahah, I know what is going on! Doppler shift!

Out of curiosity, I want to find out what station I'm listening to.

The relativistic Doppler shift equation is
f/f_0 = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
and when I plug the spaceship velocity into the equation, it tells me
that I'm tuned to KHYT (95.3).

Androcles looks at me sort of funny.

Henri screws his mouth up.

"Uh, Tom," says Androcles. "The relativistic Doppler shift equation is
wrong. Light travels ballistically."

To Androcles and Henri:

1) What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2) What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to me?
3) What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4) What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5) What station am I listening to?

Finally,
Instead of driving away from the Earth in my spaceship, I attach a huge
Bergenholm drive to the Earth and PUSH Earth away from my stationary
spaceship at a speed of 34,840 km/s.
1') What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2') What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to me?
3') What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4') What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5') What station am I listening to?

Thanks, buddies.

If you start with a general Doppler equation - e.g. sound

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c-vs)

then essentially SR assumes always that the observer is stationary w.r.t
the propagating medium and it is always the source which moves, (second
postulate) so put vo = 0

f'/fx = (c)/(c-vs) = 1/(1-v/c)

where fx is f affected by time dilation fx = fSqr(1 - vv/cc)

f'/f = sqr(1 - vv/cc)/(1-v/c)

Which is actually the same as your equation give or take the direction
of v taken as positive.

and ballistic theory that the source is stationary w.r.t the propagating
medium and it is the observer who moves. - put vs =0

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c) = 1 + v/c

Fans of both theories will of course argue that there is no actual
medium involved. The difference is very small anyway at 34,840 km/s the
difference predicted is still only 0.7% which is well within the signal
capture range of KHYT (95.3)

The problem is that the only way of measuring speed tends to be by
measuring Doppler shift. When you say that you are going at 34,840 km/s
that is what you will have calculated it to be, using your chosen theory
by measuring the frequency of a known station on earth and using the SR
Doppler equation. Henri will use the ballistic theory and you will
disagree as to what your speed is and you will both conclude that the
frequency shift agrees with the speed you calculate because it is
circular.

If you have an exceedingly long ruler marked off in km you could measure
your speed relative to that but relativity says that the faster you go
the shorted the ruler will be so to compute your actual relative speed
you would have to allow for the length contraction which SR predicts. As
Henri doesn't accept length contraction You and he still wouldn't agree
as to what speed you are going at.

Essentially there isn't a theory-independent method of measuring
relative velocity.

I take your point John.

What if a third observer does the measuring? Would the three theories disagree
then?


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:51:53 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Thomas Wong writes
Hi, Everybody!

I'm in my ultrafast spaceship traveling with my buddies Androcles and
Henri on a tourist trip to Uranus. It will take us only a few hours
to
reach our destination, because our ship is capable of reaching NAFAL
(nearly-as-fast-as-light) velocities. We're in no real hurry though,
and we don't want to waste our supply of antimatter fuel, so right
now
the speedometer says that we're driving slowly at only 35,940 km/s
away
from Earth.

The driver gets to choose the radio station. I'm in the driver's seat
so I tune the radio to my favorite Houston oldies radio station
KLDE-FM
(107.5).

Unfortunately, what is coming out of the speakers is COUNTRY!

Ahah, I know what is going on! Doppler shift!

Out of curiosity, I want to find out what station I'm listening to.

The relativistic Doppler shift equation is
f/f_0 = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
and when I plug the spaceship velocity into the equation, it tells me
that I'm tuned to KHYT (95.3).

Androcles looks at me sort of funny.

Henri screws his mouth up.

"Uh, Tom," says Androcles. "The relativistic Doppler shift equation
is
wrong. Light travels ballistically."

To Androcles and Henri:

1) What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2) What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to me?
3) What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4) What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5) What station am I listening to?

Finally,
Instead of driving away from the Earth in my spaceship, I attach a
huge
Bergenholm drive to the Earth and PUSH Earth away from my stationary
spaceship at a speed of 34,840 km/s.
1') What is the Ballistic Doppler Shift equation for this case?
2') What is the speed of light from the radio stations relative to
me?
3') What frequency on Earth am I tuned to?
4') What is the wavelength of the radio waves that I am receiving?
5') What station am I listening to?

Thanks, buddies.

If you start with a general Doppler equation - e.g. sound

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c-vs)

then essentially SR assumes always that the observer is stationary
w.r.t
the propagating medium and it is always the source which moves,
(second
postulate) so put vo = 0

f'/fx = (c)/(c-vs) = 1/(1-v/c)

where fx is f affected by time dilation fx = fSqr(1 - vv/cc)

f'/f = sqr(1 - vv/cc)/(1-v/c)

Which is actually the same as your equation give or take the direction
of v taken as positive.

and ballistic theory that the source is stationary w.r.t the
propagating
medium and it is the observer who moves. - put vs =0

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c) = 1 + v/c

Fans of both theories will of course argue that there is no actual
medium involved. The difference is very small anyway at 34,840 km/s
the
difference predicted is still only 0.7% which is well within the
signal
capture range of KHYT (95.3)

The problem is that the only way of measuring speed tends to be by
measuring Doppler shift. When you say that you are going at 34,840
km/s
that is what you will have calculated it to be, using your chosen
theory
by measuring the frequency of a known station on earth and using the
SR
Doppler equation. Henri will use the ballistic theory and you will
disagree as to what your speed is and you will both conclude that the
frequency shift agrees with the speed you calculate because it is
circular.

If you have an exceedingly long ruler marked off in km you could
measure
your speed relative to that but relativity says that the faster you go
the shorted the ruler will be so to compute your actual relative speed
you would have to allow for the length contraction which SR predicts.
As
Henri doesn't accept length contraction You and he still wouldn't
agree
as to what speed you are going at.

Essentially there isn't a theory-independent method of measuring
relative velocity.

I take your point John.

I don't take his point at all.
Measuring relative velocity doesn't require theory, since by DEFINITION
velocity is distance divided by time. Theories can conclude time is not
invariant and distance is not invariant, based on assumption that
something else is, but that doesn't change the definition of velocity.




What if a third observer does the measuring? Would the three theories
disagree
then?


It doesn't matter. The third observer measures the distance and the
time, the result is that the velocity is whatever he finds it to be. If
that disagrees with the findings of any other observers, too bad.
The distance to be travelled is xi, the time to travel is tau, and the
velocity
upsilon = xi/tau (or d(xi)/d(tau) ), I really don't care if upsilon =/=
v.

The issue isn't whether the theories disagree with other theories, but
whether the theories are consistent within themselves.

So does upsilon, the velocity of the "stationary" frame as the world
passes beneath your feet, equal the velocity v of the "moving" frame as
seen from world looking up at the airplane? If not, then SR is either
incomplete, making no mention of upsilon, or inconsistent.

Androcles.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:29:35 GMT, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:51:53 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Thomas Wong writes
Hi, Everybody!


If you start with a general Doppler equation - e.g. sound

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c-vs)

then essentially SR assumes always that the observer is stationary
w.r.t
the propagating medium and it is always the source which moves,
(second
postulate) so put vo = 0

f'/fx = (c)/(c-vs) = 1/(1-v/c)

where fx is f affected by time dilation fx = fSqr(1 - vv/cc)

f'/f = sqr(1 - vv/cc)/(1-v/c)

Which is actually the same as your equation give or take the direction
of v taken as positive.

and ballistic theory that the source is stationary w.r.t the
propagating
medium and it is the observer who moves. - put vs =0

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c) = 1 + v/c

Fans of both theories will of course argue that there is no actual
medium involved. The difference is very small anyway at 34,840 km/s
the
difference predicted is still only 0.7% which is well within the
signal
capture range of KHYT (95.3)

The problem is that the only way of measuring speed tends to be by
measuring Doppler shift. When you say that you are going at 34,840
km/s
that is what you will have calculated it to be, using your chosen
theory
by measuring the frequency of a known station on earth and using the
SR
Doppler equation. Henri will use the ballistic theory and you will
disagree as to what your speed is and you will both conclude that the
frequency shift agrees with the speed you calculate because it is
circular.

If you have an exceedingly long ruler marked off in km you could
measure
your speed relative to that but relativity says that the faster you go
the shorted the ruler will be so to compute your actual relative speed
you would have to allow for the length contraction which SR predicts.
As
Henri doesn't accept length contraction You and he still wouldn't
agree
as to what speed you are going at.

Essentially there isn't a theory-independent method of measuring
relative velocity.

I take your point John.

I don't take his point at all.
Measuring relative velocity doesn't require theory, since by DEFINITION
velocity is distance divided by time. Theories can conclude time is not
invariant and distance is not invariant, based on assumption that
something else is, but that doesn't change the definition of velocity.

The definition no... but those two 'other' theories would make out certain
corrections would have to be made to the answers.

Both the BAT and aether theories have straightforward methods of defining and
measuring relative velocities, albeit different, but I don't think SR really
knows what it is doing in this regard.






What if a third observer does the measuring? Would the three theories
disagree
then?


It doesn't matter. The third observer measures the distance and the
time, the result is that the velocity is whatever he finds it to be. If
that disagrees with the findings of any other observers, too bad.
The distance to be travelled is xi, the time to travel is tau, and the
velocity
upsilon = xi/tau (or d(xi)/d(tau) ), I really don't care if upsilon =/=
v.

The issue isn't whether the theories disagree with other theories, but
whether the theories are consistent within themselves.

That is certainly a big issue. ..but if theories disagree then some or all must
be wrong.



So does upsilon, the velocity of the "stationary" frame as the world
passes beneath your feet, equal the velocity v of the "moving" frame as
seen from world looking up at the airplane? If not, then SR is either
incomplete, making no mention of upsilon, or inconsistent.

SR is nonsense as you know... don't even think about it any more.


Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:29:35 GMT, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:51:53 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Thomas Wong writes
Hi, Everybody!


If you start with a general Doppler equation - e.g. sound

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c-vs)

then essentially SR assumes always that the observer is stationary
w.r.t
the propagating medium and it is always the source which moves,
(second
postulate) so put vo = 0

f'/fx = (c)/(c-vs) = 1/(1-v/c)

where fx is f affected by time dilation fx = fSqr(1 - vv/cc)

f'/f = sqr(1 - vv/cc)/(1-v/c)

Which is actually the same as your equation give or take the
direction
of v taken as positive.

and ballistic theory that the source is stationary w.r.t the
propagating
medium and it is the observer who moves. - put vs =0

f'/f = (c+vo)/(c) = 1 + v/c

Fans of both theories will of course argue that there is no actual
medium involved. The difference is very small anyway at 34,840 km/s
the
difference predicted is still only 0.7% which is well within the
signal
capture range of KHYT (95.3)

The problem is that the only way of measuring speed tends to be by
measuring Doppler shift. When you say that you are going at 34,840
km/s
that is what you will have calculated it to be, using your chosen
theory
by measuring the frequency of a known station on earth and using the
SR
Doppler equation. Henri will use the ballistic theory and you will
disagree as to what your speed is and you will both conclude that
the
frequency shift agrees with the speed you calculate because it is
circular.

If you have an exceedingly long ruler marked off in km you could
measure
your speed relative to that but relativity says that the faster you
go
the shorted the ruler will be so to compute your actual relative
speed
you would have to allow for the length contraction which SR
predicts.
As
Henri doesn't accept length contraction You and he still wouldn't
agree
as to what speed you are going at.

Essentially there isn't a theory-independent method of measuring
relative velocity.

I take your point John.

I don't take his point at all.
Measuring relative velocity doesn't require theory, since by
DEFINITION
velocity is distance divided by time. Theories can conclude time is
not
invariant and distance is not invariant, based on assumption that
something else is, but that doesn't change the definition of velocity.

The definition no... but those two 'other' theories would make out
certain
corrections would have to be made to the answers.

Both the BAT and aether theories have straightforward methods of
defining and
measuring relative velocities, albeit different, but I don't think SR
really
knows what it is doing in this regard.






What if a third observer does the measuring? Would the three
theories
disagree
then?


It doesn't matter. The third observer measures the distance and the
time, the result is that the velocity is whatever he finds it to be.
If
that disagrees with the findings of any other observers, too bad.
The distance to be travelled is xi, the time to travel is tau, and the
velocity
upsilon = xi/tau (or d(xi)/d(tau) ), I really don't care if upsilon
=/=
v.

The issue isn't whether the theories disagree with other theories, but
whether the theories are consistent within themselves.

That is certainly a big issue. ..but if theories disagree then some or
all must
be wrong.

If it isn't self consistent, it's disqualified and not a contender.
If it is, then Occam's Razor decides. Neither SR nor LET are self
consistent.







So does upsilon, the velocity of the "stationary" frame as the world
passes beneath your feet, equal the velocity v of the "moving" frame
as
seen from world looking up at the airplane? If not, then SR is either
incomplete, making no mention of upsilon, or inconsistent.

SR is nonsense as you know... don't even think about it any more.

So is LET.
Lorentz's explanation of MMX is
"As regards its experimental proof, we must first of all note that
the lengthenings and shortenings in question are extraordinarily
small. We have v^2/c^2 = 1.0E-8, and thus, if epsilon = 0, the
shortenings of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to 6.5
cm." - Michelson's Interference Experiment, HA Lorentz, 1895.


This contraction is supposed to be caused by aether pressure.
You might as well push a shopping cart with a leaf-blower.

Lorentz was too dumb to realize you need upper and lower teeth to bite
an apple, one jaw pushes it away.

Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert
Bush

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:48:32 GMT, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:29:35 GMT, "Androcles" wrote:


That is certainly a big issue. ..but if theories disagree then some or
all must
be wrong.

If it isn't self consistent, it's disqualified and not a contender.
If it is, then Occam's Razor decides. Neither SR nor LET are self
consistent.


true... although LET might make some sense if an aether existed.


So does upsilon, the velocity of the "stationary" frame as the world
passes beneath your feet, equal the velocity v of the "moving" frame
as
seen from world looking up at the airplane? If not, then SR is either
incomplete, making no mention of upsilon, or inconsistent.

SR is nonsense as you know... don't even think about it any more.

So is LET.
Lorentz's explanation of MMX is
"As regards its experimental proof, we must first of all note that
the lengthenings and shortenings in question are extraordinarily
small. We have v^2/c^2 = 1.0E-8, and thus, if epsilon = 0, the
shortenings of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to 6.5
cm." - Michelson's Interference Experiment, HA Lorentz, 1895.


This contraction is supposed to be caused by aether pressure.
You might as well push a shopping cart with a leaf-blower.

Lorentz was too dumb to realize you need upper and lower teeth to bite
an apple, one jaw pushes it away.

Don't be too hard on him A.
He made more sense that Einstein.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:48:32 GMT, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:29:35 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


That is certainly a big issue. ..but if theories disagree then some
or
all must
be wrong.

If it isn't self consistent, it's disqualified and not a contender.
If it is, then Occam's Razor decides. Neither SR nor LET are self
consistent.


true... although LET might make some sense if an aether existed.


So does upsilon, the velocity of the "stationary" frame as the world
passes beneath your feet, equal the velocity v of the "moving" frame
as
seen from world looking up at the airplane? If not, then SR is
either
incomplete, making no mention of upsilon, or inconsistent.

SR is nonsense as you know... don't even think about it any more.

So is LET.
Lorentz's explanation of MMX is
"As regards its experimental proof, we must first of all note that
the lengthenings and shortenings in question are extraordinarily
small. We have v^2/c^2 = 1.0E-8, and thus, if epsilon = 0, the
shortenings of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to 6.5
cm." - Michelson's Interference Experiment, HA Lorentz, 1895.


This contraction is supposed to be caused by aether pressure.
You might as well push a shopping cart with a leaf-blower.

Lorentz was too dumb to realize you need upper and lower teeth to bite
an apple, one jaw pushes it away.

Don't be too hard on him A.
He made more sense that Einstein.


LOL! Donkey is smarter than Mule, huh?





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert
Bush