"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

Dirk Vdm

Quite to the contrary: 102 years ago was a time of great frustration as it
was one year before Lorentz came with his theory, and two years before
Poincare and Einstein perfected it.

Harald

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well LET may be superior from your novice vantage point. But LET is not
superior, to SR, for those who actually work in experimental physics.

Sure, if their only interest is their work - they couldn't care less.

Harald

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Perry

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

Harald

Richard Perry wrote:
....
Tom Roberts posted a lengthy proof of the experimental equality of LET
and Special Relativity, but in the end it is nothing more than the an
argument proving the equivalence of Special Relativity to itself.

Why is even a lengthy proof needed? Aren't they the same thing except
LET assumes one special frame (but can't tell which one because it's
indistinguishable from others, so not so special afterall), is there
more to it?

"Harry" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

Dirk Vdm

Quite to the contrary: 102 years ago was a time of great frustration

among physicists, yes. Not among idiots and crackpots.
And not among engineers either.

Dirk Vdm


as it
was one year before Lorentz came with his theory, and two years before
Poincare and Einstein perfected it.

Harald

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

Dirk Vdm

Quite to the contrary: 102 years ago was a time of great frustration

among physicists, yes. Not among idiots and crackpots.
And not among engineers either.

But one problem, for O'Barr, is that the standard typewriters
of that day did not have exclamation marks. (You had to compose
that glyph with a double-strike.) Surely this would have been
a great source of frustration for him.

wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our reality!
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:

In our reality, it appears as if every frame is
the absolute reference frame.

And therefore we abandoned the concept.
With the exception of Ken Seto, we can't all have our
navels as the centre of the Universe, can we?
If you had died 102 years ago, you would have been
the happiest and least frustrated person on the planet.
Too bad.

Dirk Vdm

Quite to the contrary: 102 years ago was a time of great frustration

among physicists, yes. Not among idiots and crackpots.
And not among engineers either.

But one problem, for O'Barr, is that the standard typewriters
of that day did not have exclamation marks. (You had to compose
that glyph with a double-strike.) Surely this would have been
a great source of frustration for him.

;-)
But then, would he have been a physicist?
Nah...

Dirk Vdm

Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP


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

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


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


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


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


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

Richard Perry


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

You read the gedanken, please show how Lorentz gets the right answer
using the Galilean transform and physical alterations (only) to sticks
and rulers. Simply saying, "Well, we can just set A at rest wrt the
ether since we don't know which frame the ether frame is", is the exact
error that I'm addressing. In the gedanken I'm supposing that we "do
know" which frame the ether frame is, and that A is in turn in motion
wrt it.

Are you going to say that clocks B and C will both tick slower than the
A clock even though they are in different states of motion wrt the ether
and A occupies a state of motion between these two? And if you do, which
you must in order to remain consistent with the special relativistic
conclusion, then you have abandoned the absolute ether (which BTW was
one of Lorentz' premises). What's so hard about this Harald?

Richard Perry

In . com
wrote:
Richard Perry wrote: ...
Tom Roberts posted a lengthy proof of the
experimental equality of LET and Special
Relativity, but in the end it is nothing more than
the an argument proving the equivalence of Special
Relativity to itself.

wrote:
Why is even a lengthy proof needed? Aren't they the
same thing except LET assumes one special frame (but
can't tell which one because it's indistinguishable
from others, so not so special after all), is there
more to it?

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
It is much like this: It is like cooking an apple
pie. One person knows that there is a baker who has
an oven, and 20 minutes in this oven makes a perfect
pie. This would be called a math theory. You have
an equation, you get an answer, and the answer works!
Everyone is happy!
But then there comes along a man who says that it
is not really the oven that does this, but it is the
temperature in the over that does it. And the time
it really takes depends on the temperature within the
oven. Now both of these individuals get good pies!
But which one knows the most? The one who only has
the correct math, or the one who knows the cause?

Yes, it is true, that LET and SR provides the
exact some results! But with one, there is involved
in the concept the cause. Cause and effects are
involved in LET, but not in SR. All you have in SR
is just the math. Thus, LET is superior! And it is
superior because it involves the physical ether, and
it describes exactly what the ether physically does
so that what we measure is measured.
Now it is true that the ether frame is not
directly available to us. Is this a problem? It
would be a problem, if the theory demanded that it
was to be available. But the theory itself shows
that it cannot be distinguish from any other frame,
specifically because of what it causes to happen. So
if we find that it does cause to happen exactly what
the theory says it causes to happen, then the fact
that the either cannot be made available is actually
support for the ether. It is good that things are
the way they are. Otherwise, the theory could not be
correct!
And anyone with a brain will know that what I say
is correct. LET provides to us a physical
understanding of why the math works. It is not
perfect. LET does not tell us as much as we would
want to know. But it does give us the correct
kinematics, the correct spatial conditions, the
correct relationships upon which things become fully
and completely known on the kinematics level. This
is a great achievement. It is important. And it
removes from SR most of the mystery, all the assumed
paradoxes, all the assumed problems! It becomes a
real theory, not just a math relationship that gives
answers but no understanding.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

RP wrote:



Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP


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

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



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


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



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


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

Richard Perry



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


You read the gedanken, please show how Lorentz gets the right answer
using the Galilean transform and physical alterations (only) to sticks
and rulers. Simply saying, "Well, we can just set A at rest wrt the
ether since we don't know which frame the ether frame is", is the exact
error that I'm addressing. In the gedanken I'm supposing that we "do
know" which frame the ether frame is, and that A is in turn in motion
wrt it.

Are you going to say that clocks B and C will both tick slower than the
A clock even though they are in different states of motion wrt the ether
and A occupies a state of motion between these two? And if you do, which
you must in order to remain consistent with the special relativistic
conclusion, then you have abandoned the absolute ether (which BTW was
one of Lorentz' premises). What's so hard about this Harald?

Here is the crux of the matter:
Lorentz is a special case of special relativity in which K in the
transform is the ether frame. In this case x=0 and t=o and the offset
cancels out leaving only the resync component. Thus if you always assume
the ether frame to perform your calculations then you will be able to
derive the lorentz transform from Lorentz premises of: Galilean
relativity with absolute simultaneity, and physical resync of rulers and
clocks. The moment that you set K in motion wrt the ether frame all bets
are off. This is what the gedanken proves, that is, that the lorentz
transform forbids an absolute ether. This is something that Einstein saw
, that he failed to formalize a proof of the difference between his
theory and Lorentz doesn't change a thing. Now you have an example that
provides different predictions of the two theories, and yet you refuse
to admit that LET and SR aren't equivalent. They are equivalent only i
the special case that I outlined, and ironically the one that Tom and
yourself choose whenever attempting to prove their universal equivalence.

Richard Perry


Richard Perry