Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
"There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get
him out of the subject he was educated."
- Mark Twain
Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/That applies primarily to Americans.
European academics, and German ones in particular,
tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt)
A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man,
in the first place.
(and only a subject specialist only in the second)
In other words, professors were supposed and required
to have general cultural awareness and knowledge,
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When a
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:56:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that they do, and in consequence have an unshakeable belief that there something wrong with it.
The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or even science
in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently the most sure of themselves).
--
Jan
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the etherwind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
Since he discards the ether wind,
they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless.
The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind formula without using zeros.
Kindly explain.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.No, false.
Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.Not even wrong.
When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
It's impossible to explain anything to you because you don't haveWho made you the explainer jan?
any basics in physics. You just post gobbledygook and assume
that the fact that things don't make sense to you imply there is
something wrong with them.
--
Jan
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When a
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:37:11 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.No, false.
Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.Not even wrong.
When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
It's impossible to explain anything to you because you don't have
any basics in physics. You just post gobbledygook and assume
that the fact that things don't make sense to you imply there is
something wrong with them.
--Who made you the explainer jan?
Jan
Go back to your education.
There is a reason to question it.
Your teachers never supplied
the whole truth.
Just enough
for bias through you to continue...
authority is the problem and
it comes through education.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
He still had the same formulas. This is an accepted fact. Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result. Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether, which isContrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and
without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
does not use ether at all.
--
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
He still had the same formulas. This is an accepted fact.Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and
without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties). >>> Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
does not use ether at all.
--
Jan
Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.
Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether, which is undeniably what Einstein did.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
does not use ether at all.
--He still had the same formulas.
Jan
This is an accepted fact.
Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.
Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,
which is undeniably what Einstein did.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing. Amazing, you can't understand that. The point is, there is no use for it without an ether. Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no otherContrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.
Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the formulas are not "ether wind formulas".--He still had the same formulas.
Jan
It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for
the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means, the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
(as was done by Laplace), etc.
I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
This is an accepted fact.Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They
only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
have yielded a different formula.
Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived. And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.
You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in
Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
which is undeniably what Einstein did.Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.
All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of
thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just
common sense logic and mundane life experience.
--
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:theory. When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
purpose for it.Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.
Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the--He still had the same formulas.
Jan
formulas are not "ether wind formulas".
It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means,
the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
(as was done by Laplace), etc.
I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
This is an accepted fact.Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
have yielded a different formula.
Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived.
And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.
You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
which is undeniably what Einstein did.Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in
it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.
All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just common sense logic and mundane life experience.
--It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing. Amazing, you can't understand that. The point is, there is no use for it without an ether. Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no other
Jan
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result."Relativists
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
"There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get
him out of the subject he was educated."
Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/
That applies primarily to Americans.
European academics, and German ones in particular,
tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt)
A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man,
in the first place.
(and only a subject specialist only in the second)
In other words, professors were supposed and required
to have general cultural awareness and knowledge, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education>
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:theory. When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
treats ether as a linear medium.
and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.
Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the--He still had the same formulas.
Jan
formulas are not "ether wind formulas".
It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means,
the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
(as was done by Laplace), etc.
I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
This is an accepted fact.Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
have yielded a different formula.
Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived.
And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.
You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
which is undeniably what Einstein did.Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in
it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.
All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just common sense logic and mundane life experience.
--It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing.
Jan
Amazing, you can't understand that.
The point is, there is no use for it without an ether.
Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no other purpose for it.
[equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formula
and does exactly the same thing.
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
"Relativists
are the best logicians but only as long as the logic supports their weird theory. The
minute logic appears to confront their weird theory;
they turn themselves into the
weirdest thinkers and overthrow even the most straight forward logic.
Another trait
of relativists is that they can be both stupid and intelligent at the same time just like
the Schrodinger’s
cat which is both dead and alive at the same time.(So relativists
while arguing for relativity are actually proving the quantum theory!)" - "Photon clock and the maya of time dilation"
On 8/25/23 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
[equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formulaNope. In LET, the Lorentz transform describes the transform from the
and does exactly the same thing.
ether rest frame to a moving frame. In SR the Lorentz transform
describes the transform from ANY inertial frame to ANY inertial frame.
Apparently you cannot tell the difference between "the ether rest frame"
and "any inertial frame". How stupid.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:52:07 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/25/23 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Something tells me this explanation will go way over somebody's head.
[equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing.Nope. In LET, the Lorentz transform describes the transform from the
ether rest frame to a moving frame. In SR the Lorentz transform
describes the transform from ANY inertial frame to ANY inertial frame.
Apparently you cannot tell the difference between "the ether rest frame" and "any inertial frame". How stupid.I think the root problem with Laurence is both much deeper and much simpler.
--
Jan
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 11:22:44 |
Calls: | 6,981 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,411 |
Messages: | 5,451,783 |