On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;

Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
developed.

SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
dustbin of history.

Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
or useful.

Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
experiments and measurements.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>
> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> developed.
>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).

Right. And this last thing is what makes SR not at all equivalent to LET,
even if they share an equation or two. It’s the stuff that SR is able to do
that LET is completely unequipped to answer that makes all the difference.

> But they are VERY
> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.
>
> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> experiments and measurements.
>
> Tom Roberts
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 12:18:39 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> >
> > Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> > is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> > theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> > NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> > developed.
> >
> > SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> > common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).
> Right. And this last thing is what makes SR not at all equivalent to LET,
> even if they share an equation or two. It’s the stuff that SR is able to do
> that LET is completely unequipped to answer that makes all the difference..
> > But they are VERY
> > different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> > foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> > dustbin of history.
> >
> > Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> > or useful.
> >
> > Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> > own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> > invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> > is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> > experiments and measurements.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Light has its own motion in space.
The atom can have its own motion behind
light in space...

Mitchell Raemsch

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>
> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> developed.
>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.
>
> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> experiments and measurements.
>
> Tom Roberts

You've just made Maciej Wozniak to have a very dirty wet orgasm in
his sheets. His only goals in his miserable life is to see scientists
answer to him. An answer from you, in Fermilab, he will almost die
of perverse pleasure.

On 6/16/2021 5:28 PM, Python wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
[]

>> Tom Roberts
>
> You've just made Maciej Wozniak to have a very dirty wet orgasm in
> his sheets. His only goals in his miserable life is to see scientists
> answer to him. An answer from you, in Fermilab, he will almost die
> of perverse pleasure.

The poor nurses! First all the poop in the sheets and now semen, and
having to listen to his shrieks of pleasure as well!
>
>

On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> developed.
>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.

Besides, we all are FORCED!! FORCED to THE BEST WAY!!!
THE BEST WAY which is the way of Giant Guru and his priests,
like you.
Aren't we, poor halfbrain?

>
> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET.

As anyone can check in GPS, however, people doing REAL models of
REAL world and dealing with REAL measurements - have a different
opinion.

On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 23:28:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> >
> > Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> > is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> > theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> > NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> > developed.
> >
> > SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> > common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> > different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> > foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> > dustbin of history.
> >
> > Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> > or useful.
> >
> > Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> > own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> > invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> > is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> > experiments and measurements.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> You've just made Maciej Wozniak to have a very dirty wet orgasm in

Not knowing even what sqrt function is - poor idiot
Python can't discuss, of course. He can only bark,
spit and slander. And he does.

Il giorno mercoledì 16 giugno 2021 alle 18:29:34 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> developed.
>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.
>
> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> experiments and measurements.
>
> Tom Roberts
beda
imvariance is possible also ipotizing the ether

Il giorno mercoledì 16 giugno 2021 alle 18:29:34 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> developed.
>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.
>
> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> experiments and measurements.
>
> Tom Roberts
beda
invariance, symmetry and reciprocity are possible with or without the ether:
they are implied by the math model used,
that math model can ignore or rend the presence of the ether superflous.

though the ether and the absolute come into play, when physically
the (E)synchro) is set: the ether, the local absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the SR frame
make the (E)synchro: the exact value of the speed of the SR frame is stamped in the span of the """asynchrony"" of the "(E)synchro" of the SR frame clocks.

you know this very well, bad pretender

cheer
beda

beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 16 giugno 2021 alle 18:29:34 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
>> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
>> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
>> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
>> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
>> developed.
>>
>> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
>> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
>> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
>> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
>> dustbin of history.
>>
>> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
>> or useful.
>>
>> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
>> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
>> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
>> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
>> experiments and measurements.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> beda
> invariance, symmetry and reciprocity are possible with or without the ether:
> they are implied by the math model used,
> that math model can ignore or rend the presence of the ether superflous.
>
> though the ether and the absolute come into play, when physically
> the (E)synchro) is set: the ether, the local absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the SR frame
> make the (E)synchro: the exact value of the speed of the SR frame is stamped in the span of the """asynchrony"" of the "(E)synchro" of the SR frame clocks.
>
> you know this very well, bad pretender

Beda, you are an asshole.

On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 00:23:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno mercoledì 16 giugno 2021 alle 18:29:34 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> >> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> >> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> >> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> >> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> >> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> >> developed.
> >>
> >> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> >> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> >> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> >> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> >> dustbin of history.
> >>
> >> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> >> or useful.
> >>
> >> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> >> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> >> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> >> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> >> experiments and measurements.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > beda
> > invariance, symmetry and reciprocity are possible with or without the ether:
> > they are implied by the math model used,
> > that math model can ignore or rend the presence of the ether superflous..
> >
> > though the ether and the absolute come into play, when physically
> > the (E)synchro) is set: the ether, the local absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the SR frame
> > make the (E)synchro: the exact value of the speed of the SR frame is stamped in the span of the """asynchrony"" of the "(E)synchro" of the SR frame clocks.
> >
> > you know this very well, bad pretender
> Beda, you are an asshole.

Not knowing even what sqrt function is - poor idiot
Python can't discuss, of course. He can only bark,
spit and slander. And he does. For the glory of
The Shit of our beloved Giant Guru!!!

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 10:44:54 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 00:23:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> > beda pietanza wrote:
> > > Il giorno mercoledì 16 giugno 2021 alle 18:29:34 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> > >> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> > >> Not true. The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks. It
> > >> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
> > >> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
> > >> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
> > >> developed.
> > >>
> > >> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> > >> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET). But they are VERY
> > >> different theoretically, and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> > >> foundation of modern physics, while LET has been relegated to the
> > >> dustbin of history.
> > >>
> > >> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> > >> or useful.
> > >>
> > >> Note that Lorentz himself said Einstein's approach was superior to his
> > >> own. IOW: symmetries are a MUCH better foundation than hypothesizing an
> > >> invisible, undetectable, unmoved mover, such as the ether of LET. This
> > >> is especially true when those symmetries are observed in myriad
> > >> experiments and measurements.
> > >>
> > >> Tom Roberts
> > > beda
> > > invariance, symmetry and reciprocity are possible with or without the ether:
> > > they are implied by the math model used,
> > > that math model can ignore or rend the presence of the ether superflous.
> > >
> > > though the ether and the absolute come into play, when physically
> > > the (E)synchro) is set: the ether, the local absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the SR frame
> > > make the (E)synchro: the exact value of the speed of the SR frame is stamped in the span of the """asynchrony"" of the "(E)synchro" of the SR frame clocks.
> > >
> > > you know this very well, bad pretender
> > Beda, you are an asshole.
> Not knowing even what sqrt function is - poor idiot
> Python can't discuss, of course. He can only bark,
> spit and slander. And he does. For the glory of
> The Shit of our beloved Giant Guru!!!

Out in space is not by no observation of another frame
a steady motion. It is subject to the effect of gravity
on motion speed up GR or its slow fall side...

"Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
news:247b295b-6dc5-4599-a38a-e6f6cb5910ben@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>> Not true.

Of course its true.

>The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks.

Nope.

The mathematics of LET and SR are *identical*. LET is Lorentz invariant.
Period.

>> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
>> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
>> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
>> developed.

Sure.

>
> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).

Nope. They are mathematically *identical*. LET and SR predict exactly the
same results.

Within the domain of validity of SR, LET predicts exactly the same results.
However, SR is fundamentally in contradiction with Quantum Mechanics. Its
the elephant in the room.

The SR space-time model inherently has a block universe. It states that
everything all exists "at once". That is any mover can experience any
future, before another observer . It inherently requires strict determinism
to be true. Its fundamental to the SR model. Without determinism, the SR
model fails. Its possible why Einstein was so against the probabilistic
nature of QM. "God does not play dice"

QM states that the future is strictly random, and cannot be determined from
the present state. Thus SR & QM cannot both be correct.

LET does not have this problem. Rather than having SR's "time travel into
the future" model, it posits that clocks really do slow down, thus does not
require a deterministic future.

Additionally, the strict historical LET model is not the only model,
essentially equivalent to LET, that results in Lorentz invariance and the
Lorentz equations.

>But they are VERY
> different theoretically,

Sure,

>and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
> foundation of modern physics,

Nope. Lorentz invariance is a foundation, and this was known *prior* to the
SR *reinterpretation* of the Lorentz equations

> while LET has been relegated to the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
> or useful.

The concepts behind LET are actually incorporated in QFT in denial, for
example:

Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
blocks of nature...?"

19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire
universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid
get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the
electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
universe..."

On the assumption that Prof Tong, really means what he says, even without
the use of the word "aether", it is clear that this is an aether in any
rational sense.

Dr. Tong, is claiming here that, at the fundamental level, everything, all
instruments, including us, are disturbances in a real, physical field. Thus
, it is not surprising that the MMX failed. One can argue that the
instruments were always moving in sync with the "Ether"

The fundamental problem with the SR axioms, is that they are not
independent. The POR & SOL cannot be defined independently .

"A clock always reads the correct time, and time is what a clock reads".
Both the SOL and clocks can change in a manner to make such a change
unobservable due to the circularity of the definitions. That's why SR and
LET can both be constructed, along with an infinite number of alternatives.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

Kevin Aylward <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
> news:247b295b-6dc5-4599-a38a-e6f6cb5910ben@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>>> Not true.
>
> Of course its true.
>
>> The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks.
>
> Nope.
>
> The mathematics of LET and SR are *identical*. LET is Lorentz invariant.
> Period.
>
>>> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
>>> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
>>> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
>>> developed.
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
>> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).
>
> Nope. They are mathematically *identical*. LET and SR predict exactly the
> same results.
>
> Within the domain of validity of SR,

Nope. Within the domain of LET….

> LET predicts exactly the same results.
> However, SR is fundamentally in contradiction with Quantum Mechanics.

Nonsense. See Dirac equation.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re willing to talk about
it for hours.

> Its
> the elephant in the room.
>
> The SR space-time model inherently has a block universe. It states that
> everything all exists "at once". That is any mover can experience any
> future, before another observer . It inherently requires strict determinism
> to be true. Its fundamental to the SR model. Without determinism, the SR
> model fails. Its possible why Einstein was so against the probabilistic
> nature of QM. "God does not play dice"
>
> QM states that the future is strictly random, and cannot be determined from
> the present state. Thus SR & QM cannot both be correct.
>
> LET does not have this problem. Rather than having SR's "time travel into
> the future" model, it posits that clocks really do slow down, thus does not
> require a deterministic future.
>
> Additionally, the strict historical LET model is not the only model,
> essentially equivalent to LET, that results in Lorentz invariance and the
> Lorentz equations.
>
>> But they are VERY
>> different theoretically,
>
> Sure,
>
>> and that makes all the difference -- SR is a
>> foundation of modern physics,
>
> Nope. Lorentz invariance is a foundation, and this was known *prior* to the
> SR *reinterpretation* of the Lorentz equations
>
>> while LET has been relegated to the
>> dustbin of history.
>>
>> Only people who do not understand modern physics think LET is important
>> or useful.
>
> The concepts behind LET are actually incorporated in QFT in denial, for
> example:
>
> Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
> prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
>
>
> 0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
> blocks of nature...?"
>
> 19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
> we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire
> universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid
> get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
> mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the
> electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
> universe..."
>
> On the assumption that Prof Tong, really means what he says, even without
> the use of the word "aether", it is clear that this is an aether in any
> rational sense.
>
> Dr. Tong, is claiming here that, at the fundamental level, everything, all
> instruments, including us, are disturbances in a real, physical field. Thus
> , it is not surprising that the MMX failed. One can argue that the
> instruments were always moving in sync with the "Ether"
>
> The fundamental problem with the SR axioms, is that they are not
> independent. The POR & SOL cannot be defined independently .
>
> "A clock always reads the correct time, and time is what a clock reads".
> Both the SOL and clocks can change in a manner to make such a change
> unobservable due to the circularity of the definitions. That's why SR and
> LET can both be constructed, along with an infinite number of alternatives.
>
> -- Kevin Aylward
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why?
> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames then there is no need for the transformation equations.
>
> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.

You clearly don't know what you don't know...

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:16:13 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > snip cretinisms<
>
> Ken Shito,
>
> Your pampers are full.

Perhaps they are Depends, rather than Pampers...

On 6/25/21 2:36 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Maciej Wozniak"  wrote in message
> news:247b295b-6dc5-4599-a38a-e6f6cb5910ben@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>>> Not true.
>
> Of course its true.

No, it is not. You have a warped notion of what a physical theory is,
and how that applies to SR and LET.

Physical theories are more than mathematics, because they also include
definitions of the symbols that appear in the math, and how they relate
to real-world quantities.

>> The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks.
>
> Nope.
> The mathematics of LET and SR are *identical*. LET is Lorentz invariant.
> Period.

Not true. LET includes a UNIQUE ether frame, which violates Lorentz
invariance. The entire derivation of LET is based on that ether, and it
comes as a complete surprise that the ether is an unobservable unmoved
mover; SR has no such fantasies....

>> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
>> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).
>
> Nope. They are mathematically *identical*. LET and  SR predict exactly
> the same results.

Hmmmm. SR has a much wider domain that LET -- LET applies ONLY to
classical electrodynamics (CE), while SR applies to CE, GR [#], QED,
QCD, Electro-weak, and the standard model. Indeed SR ostensibly applies
to any future theories as well.

[#] In the local limit.

> Within the domain of validity of SR, LET predicts exactly the same
> results. However, SR is fundamentally in contradiction with Quantum
> Mechanics.

You are confused.

First, you got it backwards: within the domain of LET, SR predicts the
same results FOR EXPERIMENTS IN THE REAL WORLD. (SR has a much wider
domain than LET.)

Second, SR is fully compatible with QM, and the result is QED and other
QFTs.

(It is GR that is in some sense incompatible with QM, but that's a whole
different discussion.)

> The SR space-time model inherently has a block universe. It states that
> everything all exists "at once".

Nope. You are VERY confused.

To an analyst examining a MODEL universe (i.e. an imaginary one), all
possible times are available for analysis. This is not anything like
"all at once", because time to the analyst is not at all the same as
time in the model.

An analyst analyzing the real world using SR is limited to their past
lightcone, like everything in SR.

> [... considerable nonsense in which Aylward just makes stuff up]

As I have said before, people who think LET has anything to offer simply
don't understand modern physics. Your writing merely confirms that.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 05:30:00 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/25/21 2:36 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > "Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
> > news:247b295b-6dc5-4599...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> > SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
> >>> Not true.
> >
> > Of course its true.
> No, it is not. You have a warped notion of what a physical theory is,
> and how that applies to SR and LET.
>
> Physical theories are more than mathematics, because they also include
> definitions of the symbols that appear in the math, and how they relate
> to real-world quantities.

No, they usually don't.

> First, you got it backwards: within the domain of LET, SR predicts the
> same results FOR EXPERIMENTS IN THE REAL WORLD. (SR has a much wider
> domain than LET.)

Bullshit again. Anyone can checj GPS, real cloks of real
measurements system are applying LET approach
instead your Shit. Your moronic screams of being
FORCED to your idiocies didn't work at all.

> As I have said before, people who think LET has anything to offer simply
> don't understand modern physics. Your writing merely confirms that.

Oppositely, people who think SR is THE BEST WAY have
no clue what a model is and what it is for.

"Paul Alsing" wrote in message
news:db643c0b-3c3e-494e-9831-7b2beb578e41n@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why?
> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because
> the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal
> interval of time. Also if the >laws of physics are the same in all frames
> then there is no need for the transformation equations.
>
>> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the
>> speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because
>> the clock second use to >>define the light speed is not a universal
>> interval of time.

>You clearly don't know what you don't know...

That is, if the ticks of clocks really do change with motion, then the SOL
can indeed be measured to be independent of motion because, now get this,
velocity is measured with clocks. One can only claim that the SOL is not one
one would expect, if one *independently * knows that clocks cannot change
their tick rates independent of the assumption of the POR. This cannot be
done. The POR requires clocks to verify it. Its circular.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

"Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
news:a57db058-5475-4798-9ede-934880852fe4n@googlegroups.com...

>> First, you got it backwards: within the domain of LET, SR predicts the
>> same results FOR EXPERIMENTS IN THE REAL WORLD. (SR has a much wider
>> domain than LET.)

>Bullshit again. Anyone can checj GPS, real cloks of real
>measurements system are applying LET approach
>instead your Shit. Your moronic screams of being
>FORCED to your idiocies didn't work at all.

Sure.

The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that clocks
really do tick different on undergoing motion, rather than time traveling in
this thing named "time" that no one can define independently of the clocks
that one is claiming don't change with motion. Its truly twaddle.

The fact that clocks read different on different motions is direct and
immediate evidence that the POR is false. The fact that one can fart about
with the sums and pretend that the POR

> >As I have said before, people who think LET has anything to offer simply
>> don't understand modern physics. Your writing merely confirms that.

>Oppositely, people who think SR is THE BEST WAY have
>no clue what a model is and what it is for.

Pretty much. SR just mathematically transforms the universe from an absolute
rest frame velocity=0 to velocity=c

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/st&qm/SpaceTime&QuantumMechanics.htm

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

"Odd Bodkin" wrote in message news:sb5hfi$i77$1@gioia.aioe.org...

Kevin Aylward <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
> news:247b295b-6dc5-4599-a38a-e6f6cb5910ben@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>>> Not true.
>
> Of course its true.
>
>> The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks.
>
> Nope.
>
> The mathematics of LET and SR are *identical*. LET is Lorentz invariant.
> Period.
>
>>> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
>>> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
>>> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
>>> developed.
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
>> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).
>
> >Nope. They are mathematically *identical*. LET and SR predict exactly
> >the
>> same results.
>
>> Within the domain of validity of SR,

>Nope. Within the domain of LET….

The equations are the same. End of.

>> LET predicts exactly the same results.
>> However, SR is fundamentally in contradiction with Quantum Mechanics.

>Nonsense. See Dirac equation.

Twaddle... Simply irrelevant. Totally *different* issue. It has nothing to
do with the point that SR *inherently* assumes a deterministic universe.

The Dirac equation takes, essentially, the Schrodinger Equation, and
constructs a matrix variation that is consistent with SR. For example, out
pops the Spin matrices.

This, of course, shows that you have not understood the issue at all

Its not about constructing a notional QM equation that is Lorentz invariant,
its showing that SR satisfies the fundamentals of QM. It doesn't. This is
obvious. The Dirac Equation is Lorentz invariant. Lorentz invariance
*doesn't* require SR, that is the axioms of SR.

The block universe is well known and an understood feature of SR. Its
fundamental to SR. If SR is true, so must the block universe be true. SR
absolutely requires everything to exist all "at once". Its the only way any
observer, at any velocity can all *finally* agree on observing the same
results. Unfortunately, for SR, QM randomness says this is not possible.

>You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re willing to talk about
>it for hours.

Nope... you are way confused.

Its the elephant in the room. SR cannot be correct if QM is correct,
notwithstanding the notional Dirac Equation. That is, the *axioms* of SR
cannot be correct, the *equations* of SR, of course can be correct, and are.
It just replaces the axioms with *different* ones.

The Dirac Equation does not require SR. That's the point. This is the bit
most simply can't grasp. All that needs to be correct is the Lorentz
Equations. The Lorentz Equations can be constructed from an infinite number
of postulates. SR does not need to be correct for the LE to still be 100%
correct.

The reason for this, as I have noted many times, is because the SOL and POR
postulates cannot be defined independently of each other. They form a
*circular* set of postulates. "Time is what a clock reads". Its thus simply
impossible to verify that, according to the POR that "clocks always tick the
same". The POR cannot be verified without clocks, which it must *assume*
always tick the same independent of inertial motion.. Clocks and the SOL can
change in a manner that the the same LT results, which is what LET does. Its
really that simple. Hint:

A1) All that is red is a plant
A2) Grass is red
C0) Thus grass is a plant

Two false axioms getting a correct result. The reason that both SR LET
exist, is *because* the axioms are *circular*.

The difference is that, if clocks really do tick different (instead of
covering more time), as a direct, Occam's Razor, implications of the actual
measurements, then the conflict with QM goes away. That is, the axioms of
SR are in contradiction to QM, the LT isn't, hence why the Dirac Equation is
still correct with LET *type* interpretations.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 21:42:37 UTC+2, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Paul Alsing" wrote in message
> news:db643c0b-3c3e-494e...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why?
> > 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because
> > the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal
> > interval of time. Also if the >laws of physics are the same in all frames
> > then there is no need for the transformation equations.
> >
> >> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the
> >> speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because
> >> the clock second use to >>define the light speed is not a universal
> >> interval of time.
>
> >You clearly don't know what you don't know...
> That is, if the ticks of clocks really do change with motion

Anyone can check GPS, yes, they do.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:46:35 PM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> SR *inherently* assumes a deterministic universe.

That is not true. Special relativity is based on the premise that all the equations of physics (whether they be deterministic or not) take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertia-based coordinates. This does not imply that the laws of physics are (or are not) deterministic.

> Its not about constructing a notional QM equation that is Lorentz invariant...

Referring to quantum field theory and the Dirac equation as "notional" is rather absurd. Relativistic QFT is the most precisely confirmed quantitatively predictive theory ever devised... and it is inherently Lorentz invariant.

> Lorentz invariance *doesn't* require SR...

That's a very strange statement -- local Lorentz invariance *is* special relativity.

> The block universe is well known and an understood feature of SR.

That is not true, just as Bohm's pilot wave (or Everett's many worlds) is not a "feature" of quantum mechanics. You are confusing interpretational ideas with actual theories. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, and this does not entail any block universe, just as Newtonian theory did not entail a block universe, even though people like Laplace could speculate about such a thing, like Everett speculating about the many worlds interpretation. Don't confuse interpretations with theories. (To be fair, the people you rail against do the same thing, i.e., they confuse the geometrical interpretation -- or analogy -- with the theory.)

> It just replaces the axioms with *different* ones.

The modern Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is nothing but special relativity coupled with a metaphysical semantic assertion that one particular system of local inertial coordinates is divine one, but the word divine in this context has no physically meaningful definition. It's understood that the Lorentzian interpretation is both silly and hypocritical -- as Lorentz himself acknowledged in correspondence with Einstein.

> If one assumes that the kinetic energy of a moving body is determined by any arbitrary
> function of velocity, and simply allow the mass to vary with velocity we have, in very
> general terms: KE = k^2 m(v) + a where m(v), the mass, is an arbitrary function of
> velocity, k^2 and α are arbitrary constants.

That doesn't make sense, because in the low speed limit the kinetic energy of rest mass m(0) moving at speed v asymptotically approaches (1/2) m(0) v^2, so the velocity dependence of kinetic energy (as distinct from total energy) cannot be contained in the velocity dependence of the "mass". In special relativity the kinetic energy of rest mass m moving at speed v is mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1].

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:46:35 PM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> SR *inherently* assumes a deterministic universe.

That's not true. Special relativity is based on the premise that all the equations of physics (whether they be deterministic or not) take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertia-based coordinates. This does not imply that the laws of physics are (or are not) deterministic.

> Its not about constructing a notional QM equation that is Lorentz invariant...

Referring to quantum field theory and the Dirac equation as "notional" is absurd. Relativistic QFT is the most precisely confirmed quantitatively predictive theory ever devised... and it is inherently Lorentz invariant.

> Lorentz invariance *doesn't* require SR...

That is a very strange statement -- local Lorentz invariance *is* special relativity.

> The block universe is well known and an understood feature of SR.

That's not true, just as Bohm's pilot wave (or Everett's many worlds) is not a "feature" of quantum mechanics. You are confusing interpretational ideas with actual theories. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, and this does not entail any block universe, just as Newtonian theory did not entail a block universe, even though people like Laplace could speculate about such a thing, like Everett speculating about the many worlds interpretation. Don't confuse interpretations with theories. (To be fair, the people you rail against do the same thing, i.e., they confuse the geometrical interpretation -- or analogy -- with the theory.)

> It just replaces the axioms with *different* ones.

The Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is nothing but special relativity coupled with a metaphysical semantic assertion that one particular system of local inertial coordinates is divine one, but the word divine in this context has no physically meaningful definition. It's understood that the Lorentzian interpretation is both silly and hypocritical -- as Lorentz himself acknowledged in correspondence with Einstein.

Kevin Aylward <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Odd Bodkin" wrote in message news:sb5hfi$i77$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> Kevin Aylward <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
>> news:247b295b-6dc5-4599-a38a-e6f6cb5910ben@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 18:29:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> On 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had nothing new;
>>>> Not true.
>>
>> Of course its true.
>>
>>> The essence of SR is Lorentz invariance, which LET lacks.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The mathematics of LET and SR are *identical*. LET is Lorentz invariant.
>> Period.
>>
>>>> is (local) Lorentz invariance that has led to the major advances in
>>>> theoretical physics over the past century. Without Lorentz invariance,
>>>> NONE of the current fundamental theories of physics could have been
>>>> developed.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>> SR and LET do make the same predictions for all experiments within their
>>> common domain (SR has a much wider domain than LET).
>>
>>> Nope. They are mathematically *identical*. LET and SR predict exactly
>>> the
>>> same results.
>>
>>> Within the domain of validity of SR,
>
>> Nope. Within the domain of LET….
>
> The equations are the same. End of.

Some equations are the same.
As far as I recall, E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (natural units) is not an equation that
appears anywhere in LET, nor is it derivable from LET. You are welcome to
demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.

>
>>> LET predicts exactly the same results.
>>> However, SR is fundamentally in contradiction with Quantum Mechanics.
>
>> Nonsense. See Dirac equation.
>
> Twaddle... Simply irrelevant. Totally *different* issue. It has nothing to
> do with the point that SR *inherently* assumes a deterministic universe.

It does no such thing, though I’m sure you’re willing to bluster for hours
that it most certain does.

The Dirac equation is completely consistent with both relativity and the
Heisenberg uncertainty relations, as anyone who has learned the Dirac
equation knows. If you are content to splutter, “But…. But… that’s
impossible!” then I invite you to actually learn the Dirac equation, so
that you will come to see that what you think is impossible is in fact not
only possible but completely consistent with experiment.

>
> The Dirac equation takes, essentially, the Schrodinger Equation, and
> constructs a matrix variation that is consistent with SR. For example, out
> pops the Spin matrices.
>
> This, of course, shows that you have not understood the issue at all
>
> Its not about constructing a notional QM equation that is Lorentz invariant,

I think it’s adorable that you call quantum field theory (the Dirac
formulation being one of the first) a “notional” idea.

> its showing that SR satisfies the fundamentals of QM. It doesn't. This is
> obvious. The Dirac Equation is Lorentz invariant. Lorentz invariance
> *doesn't* require SR, that is the axioms of SR.
>
> The block universe is well known and an understood feature of SR. Its
> fundamental to SR. If SR is true, so must the block universe be true. SR
> absolutely requires everything to exist all "at once". Its the only way any
> observer, at any velocity can all *finally* agree on observing the same
> results. Unfortunately, for SR, QM randomness says this is not possible.
>
>> You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re willing to talk about
>> it for hours.
>
> Nope... you are way confused.
>
> Its the elephant in the room. SR cannot be correct if QM is correct,
> notwithstanding the notional Dirac Equation. That is, the *axioms* of SR
> cannot be correct, the *equations* of SR, of course can be correct, and are.
> It just replaces the axioms with *different* ones.
>
> The Dirac Equation does not require SR. That's the point. This is the bit
> most simply can't grasp. All that needs to be correct is the Lorentz
> Equations. The Lorentz Equations can be constructed from an infinite number
> of postulates. SR does not need to be correct for the LE to still be 100%
> correct.
>
> The reason for this, as I have noted many times, is because the SOL and POR
> postulates cannot be defined independently of each other. They form a
> *circular* set of postulates. "Time is what a clock reads". Its thus simply
> impossible to verify that, according to the POR that "clocks always tick the
> same". The POR cannot be verified without clocks, which it must *assume*
> always tick the same independent of inertial motion.. Clocks and the SOL can
> change in a manner that the the same LT results, which is what LET does. Its
> really that simple. Hint:
>
> A1) All that is red is a plant
> A2) Grass is red
> C0) Thus grass is a plant
>
> Two false axioms getting a correct result. The reason that both SR LET
> exist, is *because* the axioms are *circular*.
>
> The difference is that, if clocks really do tick different (instead of
> covering more time), as a direct, Occam's Razor, implications of the actual
> measurements, then the conflict with QM goes away. That is, the axioms of
> SR are in contradiction to QM, the LT isn't, hence why the Dirac Equation is
> still correct with LET *type* interpretations.
>
>
> -- Kevin Aylward
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables