| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Chris" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2003 04:49:58 PM |
| Object: |
Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
(
If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
follow.
Can anyone explain this?
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
20 Jul 2003 04:05:51 AM |
|
|
"Alfred Einstead" <whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:e58d56ae.0307191614.58def29c@posting.google.com...
cmay@walshgroup.com (Chris) wrote:
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
If in all cases, the [first two equations] are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
If x' and t' are functions of x and t, then x'-ct' is a function
of x and t:
x'-ct' = f(x,t).
The condition is that f(ct,t) = 0.
If a function F(x) has continuous derivative between x and a, then
it can be expressed in the form:
F(x) = F(a) + (x-a) U(x),
where
U(x) = integral F'(a + t(x-a)) dt: t = 0 to 1.
The integral is defined because F'(a+t(x-a)) is continuous and
integrals of continuous functions are defined.
Therefore, the function f(x,t), expressed as a function of x,
is
f(x,t) = f(ct,t) + (x-ct) U(x,t)
= (x-ct) U(x,t).
Therefore,
x' - ct' = (x - ct) U(x, t)
for some function U(x, t).
Oh yes, that's nice.
So using the same reasoning that provides
x' + ct' = (x + ct) V(x, t)
we get
x' = a(x,t)*x - b(x,t)*ct
ct' = a(x,t)*ct - b(x,t)*x
where
a(x,t) = [U(x,t)+V(x,t)]/2
b(x,t) = [U(x,t)-V(x,t)]/2
which is *not* a linear transformation *yet*.
It merely turns out to be linear when we find that
a(x,t) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant
b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
I hadn't looked at it this way before.
Nice :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
20 Jul 2003 04:07:14 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PXsSa.22164$F92.1951@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
typo: v/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred Einstead" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
22 Jul 2003 08:34:39 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh yes, that's nice.
So using the same reasoning that provides
x' + ct' = (x + ct) V(x, t)
we get
x' = a(x,t)*x - b(x,t)*ct
ct' = a(x,t)*ct - b(x,t)*x
where
a(x,t) = [U(x,t)+V(x,t)]/2
b(x,t) = [U(x,t)-V(x,t)]/2
which is *not* a linear transformation *yet*.
Your reply is very predictable. In fact, I also used the same V,
thinking through the issue.
It merely turns out to be linear when we find that
a(x,t) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant
b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
I hadn't looked at it this way before.
Unfortunately, there is one further stage you're probably not aware
of, that I was considering.
In 1+1-dimensions that's as far as you can go. For 3+1-dimensions
there are enough constraints in the requirement that light speed be
preserved in all directions to prove that the corresponding factors
have to be constants.
That arises from the fact that all geometric concepts: congruence,
length, angle, etc. can be defined SOLELY in terms of the primitive
"events a and b are light-like separated".
The most general transformation (of any kind, continuous or not)
that preserves light speed in N+1 dimensions (N > 2; or N > 1 I
think) is, up to a global change of scale and orientation of
time-like direction, a Poincare transformation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
18 Jul 2003 05:58:11 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
(
If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
follow.
Can anyone explain this?
I'm not sure where they get that but let me take a shot. The two equations
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
represents a wavefront of a light beam. I.e. the x is where the light is at
time t. Same with x',t' i.e. x' is where the light is at time t'.
In the relation
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
the x',t' and x,t do not neccesarily represent points on a wavefront of
light.
Hope that helps
Pmb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
18 Jul 2003 05:01:28 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
(
If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
follow.
Can anyone explain this?
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
18 Jul 2003 08:11:45 PM |
|
|
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bf9qjv$80o$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
(
If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
follow.
Can anyone explain this?
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
19 Jul 2003 03:22:16 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181711.630bac3e@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
Because it was invented and not discovered about 100 years ago
and failed to materialize ever since.
Evidence that falsifies it exist in enormous amount!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
19 Jul 2003 06:22:45 PM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bfauvt$nf8$1@news.onet.pl>...
[snip]
Evidence that falsifies it exist in enormous amount!
All your fallacy are belong to us!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "keith stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
20 Jul 2003 06:21:32 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181711.630bac3e@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a genuine
seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9qjv$80o$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
unprimed frames of reference.
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
more eh! :-)
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
22 Jul 2003 07:30:16 AM |
|
|
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2QxSa.6628$Df6.3709@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181711.630bac3e@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a genuine
seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9qjv$80o$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
unprimed frames of reference.
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
more eh! :-)
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
22 Jul 2003 07:55:42 AM |
|
|
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307220430.33821dcb@posting.google.com...
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<2QxSa.6628$Df6.3709@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181711.630bac3e@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a
genuine
seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9qjv$80o$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform,
but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone
can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
unprimed frames of reference.
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
more eh! :-)
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
Can you show as the experiment that demonstrates the property of space that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
22 Jul 2003 10:46:15 PM |
|
|
I make the following prediction:-
" TIME " AS INDICATED BY A CLOCK
IN AN ORBITING SATELLITE WILL NOT DEPEND
ON HOW LONG THE CLOCK HAS BEEN IN ORBIT.
And don't try telling me it's been tested, 'cos it has NOT!.
Not with adjacent clocks it hasn't, and trying to compare
moving clocks many kilometres apart is just not the way
to do this job, and any real physicist would know that eh!
keith stein
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfjc4l$g6i$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307220430.33821dcb@posting.google.com...
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<2QxSa.6628$Df6.3709@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181711.630bac3e@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a
genuine
seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9qjv$80o$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Chris" <cmay@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.0307181349.2ead99ae@posting.google.com...
My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz
Transform,
but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping
someone
can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
unprimed frames of reference.
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
more eh! :-)
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
Can you show as the experiment that demonstrates the property of space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant speed
of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
23 Jul 2003 08:41:47 AM |
|
|
keith stein wrote:
I make the following prediction:-
" TIME " AS INDICATED BY A CLOCK
IN AN ORBITING SATELLITE WILL NOT DEPEND
ON HOW LONG THE CLOCK HAS BEEN IN ORBIT.
And don't try telling me it's been tested, 'cos it has NOT!.
Continually being tested...
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
The difference between rates at which signals are emitted and received
at two locations with different gravitational potentials is minute in
laboratory circumstances. Yet take these differences into account is
crucial for the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) used
every day. If the relativistic effects of time dilation and the
gravitational effects are not properly taken into account. the system
would fail after only a fraction of an hour.
The GPS consists of a constellation of satellites, each in a half
sidereal day orbit about the Earth in a total of six orbital planes.
Each satellite carries accurate atomic clocks that keep proper time on
a satellite to accuracies of a few parts in 10^13 over a few weeks.
Corrections uploaded several times a day from the ground enable
accurate time to be kept over longer periods. The details of operation
of the system are complex, see for example the nearly 800 pages of
detail in Parkinson and Spilker (1996), but the basic idea is easily
explained in an idealization of the real situation.
Imagine an inertial frame in which the center of the Earth is
approximately at rest for the time it takes a signal to propagate from
a satellite to the ground. Periodically each satellite sends out
microwave signals encoded with the time and spacial location of
emission in the coordinates of the inertial frame. An observer that
receives a signal an interval of time later can calculate his or her
distance from the satellite by multiplying that time interval by the
speed of light c. By using the signal from three satellites the
observer's position in space can be narrowed down to the possible
intersection points of three spheres. By using four satellites, the
observer's position in both space and time can be fixed, even without
the observer possessing an accurate clock, giving a complete location
in spacetime. Signals from additional satellites reduce uncertainty
further.
Proper time on the satellite clocks has to be corrected to give the
time of the inertial frame for at least two reasons: time dilation of
special relativity and the effects of the Earth's gravitational field.
to understand this, suppose a GPS satellite emits signals at a constant
rate as measured by its clock. Suppose further that these are monitored
by a distant observer at rest in the inertial frame. A clock of this
observer, at rest and far from any source of gravitational effects,
measures the time of the inertial frame. The signals will be received
at a slower rate than they were emitted. Time dilation of the moving
satellite clock is one reason. But another is the difference between
the rates of emission an reception because the satellite is lower in
the gravitational potential of the Earth than the distant observer. Two
corrections must therefore be applied to rate of satellite time to get
the time in the inertial frame.
These corrections are tiny by everyday standards, but a nanosecond is a
significant time in GPS operation. A signal from a satellite travels 30
cm in a nanosecond. To meet the announced 2-m accuracy for military
applications of the GPS, times and time differences must be known to
accuracies of approximately 6 ns. Keeping time to that accuracy is not
a problem for contemporary atomic clocks, but at these accuracies, both
time dilation and the gravitational redshift become important for GPS
operation.
The actual GPS does not employ an inertial frame whose time is defined
by clocks at infinity; rather it uses a frame rotating with the Earth
whose time is defined by clocks on its surface. The rates of the
satellite clocks must be corrected downward to keep the time of that
frame. Further corrections are needed for the relativistic Doppler
effect, the relativity of simultaneity, the Earth's rotation, the
asphericity of the Earth's gravitational potential, the time delays
from the index of refration of the Earth's ionosphere, satellite clock
errors, etc.
More:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
23 Jul 2003 10:51:41 AM |
|
|
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the property of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves* it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
24 Jul 2003 02:35:02 PM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the property of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves* it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
24 Jul 2003 04:20:22 PM |
|
|
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves* it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
25 Jul 2003 04:54:30 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves* it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
25 Jul 2003 03:26:34 PM |
|
|
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307250154.1d9ec683@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the
property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement
with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak
of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method
works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated
to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life
is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the
invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute
property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points
out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those
who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves*
it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
What is that?
Another excuse!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
26 Jul 2003 04:33:08 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bfs3lo$cri$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307250154.1d9ec683@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the
property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement
with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak
of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method
works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated
to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life
is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the
invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute
property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points
out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those
who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves*
it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
What is that?
Another excuse!
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
26 Jul 2003 05:02:37 AM |
|
|
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307260133.339818d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfs3lo$cri$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307250154.1d9ec683@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the
property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the
20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in
agreement
with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To
speak
of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method
works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to
the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance
particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of
these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to
the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one
accelerated
to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon
half-life
is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the
invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute
property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that
points
out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for
those
who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that
*disproves*
it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER
PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters
which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every
experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that
there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going
to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all
myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
What is that?
Another excuse!
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
The answer is none, and 100 years later there is still "none",
in fact it was, and is, a ridiculous idea eh!
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
26 Jul 2003 02:31:41 PM |
|
|
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XdvUa.69722$Df6.41639@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307260133.339818d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfs3lo$cri$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307250154.1d9ec683@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the
property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the
20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames
of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in
agreement
with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To
speak
of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove*
the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method
works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to
the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance
particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of
these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative
to
the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one
accelerated
to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon
half-life
is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and
observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the
invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute
property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that
points
out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant
c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for
those
who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that
*disproves*
it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of
space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER
PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters
which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you
don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every
experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that
there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't
going
to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all
myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
What is that?
Another excuse!
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
The answer is none, and 100 years later there is still "none",
in fact it was, and is, a ridiculous idea eh!
keith stein
Keith,
thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
27 Jul 2003 05:24:33 AM |
|
|
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6.41639@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307260133.339818d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfs3lo$cri$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307250154.1d9ec683@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfpien$7p2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307240336.1fc284d3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfmaqe$2oi$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307230652.407b5fc3@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bfk7on$kb2$1@news.onet.pl>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307221228.c420d20@posting.google.com...
[trim]
Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the
property
of
space
that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the
20th
century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of
reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in
agreement
with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To
speak
of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the
postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method
works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to
the
behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance
particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of
these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured
differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time
dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to
the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one
accelerated
to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon
half-life
is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable
phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the
invariant
speed
of light.
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute
property of
space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that
points
out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for
those
who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that
*disproves*
it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER
PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters
which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every
experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that
there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going
to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all
myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Take your pick.
What is that?
Another excuse!
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
to the contrary. The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
nothing I can say will convince you of the facts. In contrast, I
realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
discredit the theory - it has still made many accurate predictions.
I have nothing more to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
27 Jul 2003 04:39:42 PM |
|
|
() wrote in message news:<d93e0055.0307270224.5aeb6ad3@posting.google.com>...
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6.41639@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
< > wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307260133.339818d3@posting.google.com...
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
the case of the MMX.
The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
extraordinary prediction eh!
You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
to the contrary.
But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
nothing I can say will convince you of the facts.
You have presented no facts which remotely suggest that any velocity
is or could be frame independent. All velocities must be relative to
something,
not relative to everything eh!
In contrast, I
realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
discredit the theory
But if clocks on the ISS don't loose 26 us/day that would indeed
completely discredit the theory. Let me remind you what was said when
you first jumped in on this thread Robert.
Keith Stein wrote:
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
And you Robert explained away this simple demonstration that the
velocity
of light must be given by 'c+v' as follows:
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
So if the clocks on the ISS keep the same time as clocks on the Earth
then indeed my assumption is correct, and the fundamental assumption
of relativity that the velocity of light is frame independent is
wrong,
and therefore such a result would indeed completely discredit the
theory.
- it has still made many accurate predictions.
And yet it's fundamental assumption is ***** eh!
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity |
28 Jul 2003 03:37:52 AM |
|
|
I know I said I had nothing more to say, but some clarifications are
in order.
ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk (keith stein) wrote in message news:<daab62a4.0307271339.6fbf26be@posting.google.com>...
rsm109@york.ac.uk (rsm109@york.ac.uk) wrote in message news:<d93e0055.0307270224.5aeb6ad3@posting.google.com>...
"keith stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6.41639@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
<rsm109@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307260133.339818d3@posting.google.com...
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
the case of the MMX.
I was referring to de Sitter's measurements of double stars, because I
knew you had that excuse to explain the MMX. It was found that the
light from the receding star was travelling at the same speed as the
light from the advancing star, which strongly suggest that the speed
of light is invariant. It's this which led Einstein to postulate an
invariant speed of light.
Light doesn't travel through matter, by the way. It travels through
space, which may or may not contain matter.
The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
extraordinary prediction eh!
Where are the results which disprove this prediction? The experiment
hasn't yet been performed. Not even you can claim a contradiction is
presented by an experiment which hasn't even been *done*. Wait for the
results before you start using an as yet unperformed experiment as
evidence for your argument.
You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
to the contrary.
But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
Yes there is. The double star measurements provide direct evidence,
and the fact that many predictions derived from the postulate hold
provides indirect evidence.
The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
nothing I can say will convince you of the facts.
You have presented no facts which remotely suggest that any velocity
is or could be frame independent. All velocities must be relative to
something,
not relative to everything eh!
In contrast, I
realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
discredit the theory
But if clocks on the ISS don't loose 26 us/day that would indeed
completely discredit the theory. Let me remind you what was said when
you first jumped in on this thread Robert.
No it wouldn't. One contradiction would not take away the fact that
the theory has made many accurate predictions. Otherwise the fact that
a high-energy electron is experimentally shown to move much more
slowly than the predicted speed v=sqrt(2E/m) would completely
discredit classical mechanics.
Keith Stein wrote:
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
And you Robert explained away this simple demonstration that the
velocity
of light must be given by 'c+v' as follows:
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
So if the clocks on the ISS keep the same time as clocks on the Earth
then indeed my assumption is correct, and the fundamental assumption
of relativity that the velocity of light is frame independent is
wrong,
and therefore such a result would indeed completely discredit the
theory.
- it has still made many accurate predictions.
And yet it's fundamental assumption is ***** eh!
Its fundamental assumption has not been shown to be ***** - quite
the contrary. If a theory makes accurate predictions, then that's good
enough for those who use it. Your fundamental assumption, on the other
hand, is based on the kind of preconceived notions one would expect
from someone who hadn't even studied physics (whether or not you
actually have). You have no experimental evidence on your side.
No theory is perfect, nor should we assume that it should be.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
