On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 12:09:29 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Not true. The final version of "LET" is nothing but an interpretation of special relativity, differing only semantically from the usual terminology. All of the same operationally meaningful relations apply, including the mass-energy-momentum relation. You can read about this in any good book on the foundations of relativity.

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 12:09:29 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Not true. The final version of "LET" is nothing but an interpretation of
> special relativity, differing only semantically from the usual
> terminology. All of the same operationally meaningful relations apply,
> including the mass-energy-momentum relation. You can read about this in
> any good book on the foundations of relativity.
>

Reference?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/1/21 2:42 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that
> clocks really do tick different on undergoing motion,

That WOULD be simplest, if it agreed with actual observations, but it
most definitely does NOT.

Literally zillions of experiments demonstrate that the laws of physics
are locally Lorentz invariant [#]. Since the mechanism that makes a
clock tick must obey those laws, your "simplest explanation" cannot
possibly be correct.

[#] This includes many experiments measuring clocks' tick
rates and comparing them to other physical phenomena
(including other clocks' ticking).

The most direct demonstration of this is to realize that atomic
spectroscopy measures "clocks" implemented by atomic transitions. Note
that the earth's velocity varies by ~ 0.0002 c relative to the "fixed
stars" or the CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the ICRF used by astronomers. But
spectroscopy shows no variation correlated with that variation in
velocity, with fractional resolution better than a million times smaller
than 0.0001.

> The fact that clocks read different on different motions is direct
> and immediate evidence that the POR is false.

No, it is NOT. To show that the PoR is false, you must actually use the
PoR.

If you actually THINK about the sort of measurements you have in mind,
you'll realize that you are NOT comparing two clocks' tick rates, you
are actually comparing the rates of SIGNALS from those clocks. So you
must understand how the different motions affect those signals -- do
that and you find the entire effect is accounted for by the effect on
the signals, and the clocks actually tick at their standard rate,
independent of how they are moving (relative to anything), and
independent of where they are located (relative to anything, including
earth, sun, and other massive objects with gravitational fields).

> [... further nonsense]

Do you seriously think that thousands and thousands of physicists are
all so stupid that they never thought of your "simplest explanation"????
And that you are the only person who is smart enough to think of it????
Such hubris is totally unwarranted. If you had any sense at all you
would look for errors in your own thinking (hint: there are many).

Tom Roberts

On 7/1/21 2:42 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that
> clocks really do tick different on undergoing motion...

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 3:53:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> That WOULD be simplest, if it agreed with actual observations, but it
> most definitely does NOT.

To be clear, in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates x,t the time tau of a standard clock moving at speed v=dx/dt advances at the rate dtau/dt = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). This implies that for every clock we have dtau/dt = 1 for the inertia based coordinates in which the clock is at rest.. It also implies that, for two relatively moving clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. Naturally the time dilation rate equation can also be written in the form dtau = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)dt = sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2], which we can integrate to give the elapsed clock time along any path.

> The earth's velocity varies by ~ 0.0002 c relative to the "fixed stars" or the
> CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the ICRF used by astronomers. But spectroscopy
> shows no variation [in rate of proper time] correlated with that variation in velocity.....

What do you mean by that? Letting x,t denote the local intertial coordinates in which the CMBR is isotropic, and letting tau denote the time of a standard clock on earth (neglecting gravitational effects), we have dtau/dt = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), so the rate does indeed vary with speed as predicted by special relativity. Are you just saying that in terms of local inertial coordinates X,T in which the clock is at rest we have dtau/dT = 1?

> If you actually THINK about the sort of measurements you have in mind,
> you'll realize that you are NOT comparing two clocks' tick rates, you
> are actually comparing the rates of SIGNALS from those clocks.

Putting the word "signals" in caps doesn't help to make your statement meaningful. The facts of relativistic time dilation don't depend on the behavior or even the presence of "signals". In terms of any system of coordinates x,t the time tau of a standard clock is dtau/dt = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dt where t =x^0. Note that the word "signals" (with our without caps) does not appear in that sentence.

On Sunday, 4 July 2021 at 00:53:23 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> Since the mechanism that makes a
> clock tick must obey those laws,

In your dreams, trash; not in GPS.
BTW, I always knew you believe nothing
from these wise things you write sometimes
about models.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
> >>>>>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> >>>>>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
> >>>>>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
> >>>>>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
> >>>>>>>> that place?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> >>>>>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> >>>>>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
> >>>>>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and they are not universal as implied by physicists. IOW your laws of physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for the simple reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
> >>>>>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
> >>>>>> It is in
> >>>>>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
> >>>>>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
> >>>>>> postulate means.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> >>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
> >>>
> >>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
> >>>
> >> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
> >>
> >> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
> >> telescope.
> >>
> >> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
> >> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
> >>
> >> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
> >> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
> >> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
> >> signal.
> >>
> >> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
> >> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
> >
> > IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
> >
> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
> new.

You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..
>
> Sylvia.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 6:53:23 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/1/21 2:42 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that
> > clocks really do tick different on undergoing motion,
> That WOULD be simplest, if it agreed with actual observations, but it
> most definitely does NOT.

You are wrong. It does agrees with actual observation.
>
> Literally zillions of experiments demonstrate that the laws of physics
> are locally Lorentz invariant [#]. Since the mechanism that makes a
> clock tick must obey those laws, your "simplest explanation" cannot
> possibly be correct.

The so called the laws of physics is assumed that the speed of light is a universal constant. It is not.... the speed of light is observer dependent......like all moving objects speed of anything is observer dependent.
>
> [#] This includes many experiments measuring clocks' tick
> rates and comparing them to other physical phenomena
> (including other clocks' ticking).

A tick in A’s frame does not corespond to a tick in B’s frameotion . That’s why clocks in relative motion accumulates clock seconds at different rates,
>
> The most direct demonstration of this is to realize that atomic
> spectroscopy measures "clocks" implemented by atomic transitions. Note
> that the earth's velocity varies by ~ 0.0002 c relative to the "fixed
> stars" or the CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the ICRF used by astronomers. But
> spectroscopy shows no variation correlated with that variation in
> velocity, with fractional resolution better than a million times smaller
> than 0.0001.
> > The fact that clocks read different on different motions is direct
> > and immediate evidence that the POR is false.
> No, it is NOT. To show that the PoR is false, you must actually use the
> PoR.
>
> If you actually THINK about the sort of measurements you have in mind,
> you'll realize that you are NOT comparing two clocks' tick rates, you
> are actually comparing the rates of SIGNALS from those clocks. So you
> must understand how the different motions affect those signals -- do
> that and you find the entire effect is accounted for by the effect on
> the signals, and the clocks actually tick at their standard rate,
> independent of how they are moving (relative to anything), and
> independent of where they are located (relative to anything, including
> earth, sun, and other massive objects with gravitational fields).
>
> > [... further nonsense]
>
> Do you seriously think that thousands and thousands of physicists are
> all so stupid that they never thought of your "simplest explanation"????
> And that you are the only person who is smart enough to think of it????
> Such hubris is totally unwarranted. If you had any sense at all you
> would look for errors in your own thinking (hint: there are many).

The problem:
Physicists ignored the existence of absolute time. They assumed wrongly that a clock second is a universal interval of absolute time......it is not.
>
> Tom Roberts

On 7/4/2021 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
>>>
>> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
>> new.
>
> You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..

If IRT uses SR and GR math, then it is a subset of SR and GR, and has
nothing new to offer.

On the other hand, if it uses a "modified" LT, then it doesn't include
SR or GR. Make up your mind.

Since you can't even mention what math from SR/GR that IRT uses, and
since IRT cannot use nonexistent math to make any predictions, it isn't
even a theory.

Just more reasons why IRT is a complete, utter disaster.

On 7/4/2021 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 6:53:23 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/1/21 2:42 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that
>>> clocks really do tick different on undergoing motion,
>> That WOULD be simplest, if it agreed with actual observations, but it
>> most definitely does NOT.
>
> You are wrong. It does agrees with actual observation.

So provide us with these "actual observations". No assertions, Stupid
Ken, actual observations.
>>
>> Literally zillions of experiments demonstrate that the laws of physics
>> are locally Lorentz invariant [#]. Since the mechanism that makes a
>> clock tick must obey those laws, your "simplest explanation" cannot
>> possibly be correct.
>
> The so called the laws of physics is assumed that the speed of light is a universal constant.

Not an assumption, that is what was measured. Remember, Einstein didn't
come up with the second postulate out of nothing. He took existing
observations and made it into a postulate.

> It is not.... the speed of light is observer dependent.....like all moving objects speed of anything is observer dependent.

Assertions are worthless in science.
>>
>> [#] This includes many experiments measuring clocks' tick
>> rates and comparing them to other physical phenomena
>> (including other clocks' ticking).
>
> A tick in A’s frame does not corespond to a tick in B’s frameotion

English, Stupid Ken, not babbling gibberish.

> That’s why clocks in relative motion accumulates clock seconds at different rates,

That's not what time dilation concerns itself with. Time dilation is
observed tick rate. "Accumulation of clock seconds" requires some form
of the traveling twin problem, not straight time dilation.

>> Do you seriously think that thousands and thousands of physicists are
>> all so stupid that they never thought of your "simplest explanation"????
>> And that you are the only person who is smart enough to think of it????
>> Such hubris is totally unwarranted. If you had any sense at all you
>> would look for errors in your own thinking (hint: there are many).
>
> The problem:
> Physicists ignored the existence of absolute time.

Physicists always ignore things which don't have any evidence of
existing. Physicists also ignore invisible pink fairies pushing the
planets around in their orbits, too.

> They assumed wrongly that a clock second is a universal interval of absolute time......it is not.

I don't think you even know what you mean by this statement.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>>>>>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>>>>>>>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>>>>>>>>>> that place?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
>>>>>>>>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of
>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your
>>>>>>>>> clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>>>>>>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
>>>>>>>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and
>>>>>>> they are not universal as implied by physicists. IOW your laws of
>>>>>>> physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for the simple
>>>>>>> reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
>>>>>>>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>>>>>>>> It is in
>>>>>>>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
>>>>>>>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
>>>>>>>> postulate means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s
>>>>>>> what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
>>>>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
>>>>>
>>>>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
>>>>>
>>>> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
>>>>
>>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
>>>> telescope.
>>>>
>>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
>>>> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
>>>>
>>>> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
>>>> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
>>>> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
>>>> signal.
>>>>
>>>> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
>>>> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
>>>
>>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math
>>> to make predictions. So what is your point?.
>>>
>> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
>> new.
>
> You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..

That’s a lie. You can’t even cite ONE mathematical relation from GR.

>>
>> Sylvia.
>

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

On Sunday, 4 July 2021 at 22:50:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > The so called the laws of physics is assumed that the speed of light is a universal constant.
> Not an assumption, that is what was measured. Remember, Einstein didn't
> come up with the second postulate out of nothing. He took existing
> observations and made it into a postulate.

Sorry, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such
an impudent lie. And, BTW, even your idiot guru was
unable to insist on it for long and his GR shit had to
withdraw.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 2:52:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
> >>>
> >> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
> >> new.
> >
> > You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..
> If IRT uses SR and GR math, then it is a subset of SR and GR, and has
> nothing new to offer.

The math of IRT gives the correct predictions for the SR and GR situations.....no need for the complicated curved spacetime.
>
> On the other hand, if it uses a "modified" LT, then it doesn't include
> SR or GR. Make up your mind.

IRT math gives the same predictions as SR/GR.
>
> Since you can't even mention what math from SR/GR that IRT uses, and
> since IRT cannot use nonexistent math to make any predictions, it isn't
> even a theory.

IRT has its own math.
>
> Just more reasons why IRT is a complete, utter disaster.
IRT has its

On 7/5/2021 9:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 2:52:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
>>>>>
>>>> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
>>>> new.
>>>
>>> You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..
>> If IRT uses SR and GR math, then it is a subset of SR and GR, and has
>> nothing new to offer.
>
> The math of IRT gives the correct predictions for the SR and GR situations.....no need for the complicated curved spacetime.

There is no "math of IRT"!!! You can't do math, period.
>>
>> On the other hand, if it uses a "modified" LT, then it doesn't include
>> SR or GR. Make up your mind.
>
> IRT math gives the same predictions as SR/GR.

There is no "IRT math"!
>>
>> Since you can't even mention what math from SR/GR that IRT uses, and
>> since IRT cannot use nonexistent math to make any predictions, it isn't
>> even a theory.
>
> IRT has its own math.

There is no IRT math!
>>
>> Just more reasons why IRT is a complete, utter disaster.
> IRT has its
>
Has its what? Not math, certainly!

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 9:44:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames..
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
> >>>>>>>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
> >>>>>>>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
> >>>>>>>>>> that place?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
> >>>>>>>>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of
> >>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your
> >>>>>>>>> clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> >>>>>>>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
> >>>>>>>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and
> >>>>>>> they are not universal as implied by physicists. IOW your laws of
> >>>>>>> physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for the simple
> >>>>>>> reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second...
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
> >>>>>>>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
> >>>>>>>> It is in
> >>>>>>>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
> >>>>>>>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
> >>>>>>>> postulate means.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s
> >>>>>>> what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> >>>>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
> >>>>
> >>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
> >>>> telescope.
> >>>>
> >>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
> >>>> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
> >>>> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
> >>>> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
> >>>> signal.
> >>>>
> >>>> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
> >>>> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
> >>>
> >>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math e GR
> >>> to make predictions. So what is your point?.
> >>>
> >> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
> >> new.
> >
> > You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..
> That’s a lie. You can’t even cite ONE mathematical relation from GR.

That’s not a lie. IRT math gives the same solutions as the GR math. Why do I have to pull any math relation from GR?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 9:44:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:11:56 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>>>>>>>>>>>> that place?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
>>>>>>>>>>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of
>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your
>>>>>>>>>>> clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
>>>>>>>>>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and
>>>>>>>>> they are not universal as implied by physicists. IOW your laws of
>>>>>>>>> physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for the simple
>>>>>>>>> reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
>>>>>>>>>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>> It is in
>>>>>>>>>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
>>>>>>>>>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
>>>>>>>>>> postulate means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s
>>>>>>>>> what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
>>>>>>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
>>>>>> telescope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
>>>>>> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
>>>>>> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
>>>>>> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
>>>>>> signal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
>>>>>> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math e GR
>>>>> to make predictions. So what is your point?.
>>>>>
>>>> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
>>>> new.
>>>
>>> You are wrong. IRT includes both SR and GR mathematically..
>> That’s a lie. You can’t even cite ONE mathematical relation from GR.
>
> That’s not a lie. IRT math gives the same solutions as the GR math.

That’s a lie too. You can’t derive the Schwarzchild or Kerr solutions from
IRT math.

You don’t know the first thing about GR math. You just lie about it.

> Why do I have to pull any math relation from GR?
>
>
>
>

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

On 7/3/21 8:07 PM, Arthur Adler wrote:
> tjrob137 wrote:
>> The earth's velocity varies by ~ 0.0002 c relative to the "fixed
>> stars" or the CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the ICRF used by astronomers.
>> But spectroscopy shows no variation [in rate of proper time]
>> correlated with that variation in velocity.....
>
> What do you mean by that?

I mean precisely what I said: frequencies measured in atomic
spectroscopy show no variations that correlate with earth's varying
velocity relative to any of those frames mentioned above.

> Letting x,t denote the local intertial
> coordinates in which the CMBR is isotropic, and letting tau denote
> the time of a standard clock on earth (neglecting gravitational
> effects), we have dtau/dt = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), so the rate does
> indeed vary with speed as predicted by special relativity. Are you
> just saying that in terms of local inertial coordinates X,T in which
> the clock is at rest we have dtau/dT = 1?

Apparently you are so hung up on spelling everything out in gory detail
that you did not bother to THINK about what I described. Do you really
think that atomic spectroscopy is performed in the CMBR dipole=0 frame?
Or any of the other frames I mentioned?

Hint: most scientists use laboratories on earth.

The fact that spectroscopic frequency measurements don't vary as the
earth varies its velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame is just an
instance of Lorentz invariance. Look back: that is what I used this
example to demonstrate.

>> If you actually THINK about the sort of measurements you have in
>> mind, you'll realize that you are NOT comparing two clocks' tick
>> rates, you are actually comparing the rates of SIGNALS from those
>> clocks.
>
> Putting the word "signals" in caps doesn't help to make your
> statement meaningful.

Please explain how one can compare the tick rates of relatively-moving
clocks without signals. I put "signals" in caps to emphasize the part of
the actual situation that was being ignored.

> The facts of relativistic time dilation don't
> depend on the behavior or even the presence of "signals".

Sure. But comparisons of clock tick rates are more complicated than just
"time dilation". Until you provide the explanation requested in my
previous paragraph, one must use signals to compare clock tick rates;
that of course implies that one must correct for any effects on how
those signals are propagated, measured, and compared -- much more
complicated than just "time dilation".

> In terms
> of any system of coordinates x,t the time tau of a standard clock is
> dtau/dt = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dt where t =x^0. Note that the word
> "signals" (with our without caps) does not appear in that sentence.

Sure, for that you don't need signals. But you are not comparing the
tick rates of two relatively-moving clocks. When you change the subject,
it's no wonder that other things change, too.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> The facts of relativistic time dilation don't depend on the behavior or
>> even the presence of "signals".
>
> Sure. But comparisons of clock tick rates are more complicated than just
> "time dilation". Until you provide the explanation requested in my
> previous paragraph, one must use signals to compare clock tick rates;
> that of course implies that one must correct for any effects on how
> those signals are propagated, measured, and compared -- much more
> complicated than just "time dilation".

Absolutely. It looks like people have severe difficulties understanding
it. They rather think those SIGNALS, in relativity, are sort of
instantaneous, revealing a certain instantaneous state. Which is of
course false.

"Maciej Wozniak" wrote in message
news:a2487bfd-9cbb-4f88-8b62-47e73c195ffcn@googlegroups.com...

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.

Ho hum.... you have no idea what you are prattling on about.

Sure, when one measure clocks they are differences associated with motion.
That is *not* in dispute. Dah.... We know, clocks read different, it *why*
is what is in debate.

SR states that these differences are *not* because clocks *physically* tick
less, but that they cover more "space-time", that is travel into the future
say at a rate of 100sec/sec

LET type approaches state that the clock really do tick less as the POR
states that clocks *must *tick the independent of inertial motion.

LET approaches state that clocks *do* actually slow down and achieves this
by rejecting the POR. The POR is taken to be a measurement artefact.

You appear to be confused on how SR describes clock readings. You appear to
believe that SR states that clocks really physically tick at a slower rate
when in relative motion. They don't. I suggest you take a lessen from Tom
Roberts.

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

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:SZ-dnTaXjpXBd339nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...

>On 7/1/21 2:42 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> The *simplest* explanation as to why clocks read different is that clocks
>> really do tick different on undergoing motion,

>That WOULD be simplest, if it agreed with actual observations, but it
>most definitely does NOT.

>Literally zillions of experiments demonstrate that the laws of physics
>are locally Lorentz invariant [#].

Sure and a Strawman.

It has been stated quite clearly that LET *type* approaches are er...
Lorentz Invariant. Dah... Lorentz Invariance is not in dispute.

What is in dispute are the *axioms* that get to that point.

> Since the mechanism that makes a
>clock tick must obey those laws, your "simplest explanation" cannot
>possibly be correct.

Twaddle. The equations of LET and SR are identical. There is simply no way
to experimentally confirm the POR without using clocks, that must be
*assumed* to tick independent of inertial motion. Clocks and the SOL are all
entangled up in circular definitions. Thus if the POR is wrong and the SOL
postulate is wrong, the same LT can still be achieved.

We know that when we measure clocks the do read different. The simplest
explanation is that their ticks changed due to motion, thus the POR is
false.

Construct an experiment that absolutely proves that the difference in
readings on re-united clocks clocks are not due to clocks simply slowing
down rather than taking "a longer path in space-time", i.e. time travel.

You seem to have lost the plot as well.. You have made many statements in
the past that they are an infinite set of assumptions that lead to the LT.

I don't have any explanation. I am simply stating that the axioms of SR are
not required to explain LI and that SR inherently relies on the notion that
the present state of the system absolutely determines the next state of the
system, that is, the block universe. The block universe is clearly not
compatible with QM. The fact that the Dirac equation is valid, has no
baring on the matter.

Its the elephant in the room. SR is not compatible with QM, irrespective of
the fact that QM *is* compatible with Lorentz Invariance.

Its a subtlety many, clearly don't get.

I can't explain it any clearer. I agree that the LT is correct. I agree that
the Dirac equation is correct. I don't agree that these statement *require*
the *axioms* of SR. The LET axioms are simply one set of axioms, for
convenience, that do generate the LT, and subsequently the Dirac equation,
yet do not contradict QM, because they do not depend on the sci-fi fantasy
of Dr. Who time travel that SR requires.

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

"Arthur Adler" wrote in message
news:5f6dafbc-dbe1-4280-b022-50cb5c13cbd0n@googlegroups.com...

>>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.

Twaddle. That's Covariance. All equations can be put in General Covariance
form. Its a principle of mathematics not physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Kretschmann

"Kretschmann is most famous for his 1917 claim that Einstein's use of the
principle of covariance in General Relativity is vacuous. Kretschmann
claimed that the demand that a theory be put in generally covariant form
does not limit or restrict the range of acceptable theories, but is simply a
challenge to the mathematician's ingenuity. According to Kretschmann, any
theory can be put in generally covariant form"

You are out of your depth on this. You *clearly* don't understand what the
POR actually means:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/postulate1/postulate1.html

I suggest you also read J.D. Norton on this.

"General covariance and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades
of dispute"

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf

>This does not imply that the laws of physics are (or are not)
>deterministic.

Lost the plot entirely. Sure, the Schrodinger Equation is a deterministic
Equation. Dah...That's not the point. The SE describes physics
statistically. It states that the future is inherently non deterministic.
The universe is non deterministic. Dah......

{snip rest of complete misunderstanding of the issues and misunderstanding
of what SR actually is}

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

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> The earth's velocity varies by ~ 0.0002 c relative to the "fixed
> >> stars" or the CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the ICRF used by astronomers.
> >> But spectroscopy shows no variation [in rate of proper time]
> >> correlated with that variation in velocity.....
> >
> > What do you mean by that?
>
> I mean precisely what I said: frequencies measured in atomic
> spectroscopy show no variations that correlate with earth's varying
> velocity relative to any of those frames mentioned above.

Your statement still makes no sense. Letting x,t denote the local intertial coordinates in which the CMBR is isotropic, and letting tau denote the time of a standard clock on earth (neglecting gravitational effects), we have dtau/dt = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), so the rate does indeed vary with speed as predicted by special relativity. Are you just saying that in terms of local inertial coordinates X,T in which the clock is at rest we have dtau/dT = 1?

> Do you really think that atomic spectroscopy is performed in the CMBR dipole=0 frame?

You are the one who raised the "CMBR dipole=0 frame", but you can use any other frame you like, and the point is still the same: What you are saying is either self-evidently wrong or it is an empty tautology of no physical significance.

> The fact that spectroscopic frequency measurements don't vary as the
> earth varies its velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame is just an
> instance of Lorentz invariance.

Huh? Are you claiming that the frequencies of the light received from distant stars and galaxies don't vary as the earth's orbital velocity varies? We observe both Doppler and aberration effects due to the variations in the earth's orbital motion. So what you are saying is flatly false.

> Please explain how one can compare the tick rates of relatively-moving
> clocks without signals.

In the usual way: Clock rates dtau/dt are defined in terms of coordinate systems x,t. Inertial coordinate systems (in particular) are defined by the requirement that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in terms of those coordinates, and it follows that such coordinates agree with a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame.. Using such a grid we can note the positions and times of any clock in any location and state of motion. We can use any mapping we like between the events of the worldlines of separate clocks. The relations between these entities are objective facts, regardless of what "signaling" may or may not be occurring.

> Sure. But comparisons of clock tick rates are more complicated than just
> "time dilation".

All aspects of the spatio-temporal relations are entailed by the descriptions of events in terms of whatever system of coordinates we have chosen to use. Without a system of coordinates, we can't characterize the spatio-temporal relations between events at all, and with a system of coordinates the events have objective characteristics and relations, independent of "signaling".

Again, in terms of any system of coordinates x,t the time tau of a standard clock is dtau/dt = sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]/dt where t =x^0. Note that the word "signals" (with our without caps) does not appear in that sentence. These are objective verifiable facts, and they apply to any number of clocks and other objects, and they entail any physically meaningful comparisons.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 12:47:24 PM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >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.
>
> That's Covariance. All equations can be put in General Covariance
> form. Its a principle of mathematics not physics.

No, you're just mindlessly rehearsing the well-known comments related to expressing the laws of physics in generally covariant form, e.g., as tensor equations, which is unrelated to the special principle of relativity. The principle of relativity (Galileo) is a meaningful physical principle resting on the distinguished class of coordinate systems, called the inertial coordinates, in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Special relativity asserts that these special coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. This is a crucial dynamical physical principle underlying special relativity (not to mention Newtonian mechanics), and you must not conflate this in your mind with the mathematical formalism of general covariance.

Again, the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws does not imply that the laws of physics are (or are not) deterministic. (Naturally the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation is, well, non-relativistic, but relativistic quantum mechanics, including the Dirac equation, quantum field theory, Klein Gordon equation, etc, is relativistic.)

Arthur Adler wrote:

>> Please explain how one can compare the tick rates of relatively-moving
>> clocks without signals.
>
> In the usual way: Clock rates dtau/dt are defined in terms of
> coordinate systems x,t. Inertial coordinate systems (in particular) are
> defined by the requirement that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in
> terms of those coordinates, and it follows that such coordinates agree
> with a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially
> synchronized in any given frame. Using such a grid we can note the
> positions and times of any clock in any location and state of motion.
> We can use any mapping we like between the events of the worldlines of
> separate clocks. The relations between these entities are objective
> facts, regardless of what "signaling"
> may or may not be occurring.

ohh my, the equations of SR are sort of instantaneous relationship among
the involved, here Observer - Target. When you involve practical
*signals* transmitting that information, either direction, you already
are off by many boat lengths. Is this so difficult for you to understand?

On 7/9/21 2:34 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> It has been stated quite clearly that LET *type* approaches are er...
> Lorentz Invariant. Dah... Lorentz Invariance is not in  dispute.
> What is in dispute are the *axioms* that get to that point.

LET postulates an essential and unique ether rest frame, which violates
Lorentz invariance. Its ether is an utterly unobservable "unmoved mover"
-- such postulates have fallen out of favor (to say the least). Even
Lorentz himself said that Einstein's approach was better.

> We know that when we measure clocks the do read different. The simplest
> explanation is that their ticks changed due to motion, thus the POR is
> false.

You overreach FAR too much, taking the desire for the deed. One cannot
conclude "the POR is false" because a theory in which the POR is valid
(SR) also agrees with all the experiments.

You seem to be on a quest to resurrect LET -- that's hopeless. History
and theoretical physics are against you; experimental physics is also
against you (because of experiments involving the strong, weak, and
gravitational interactions).

> Construct an experiment that absolutely proves that the difference in
> readings on re-united clocks clocks are not due to clocks simply slowing
> down rather than taking "a longer path in space-time", i.e. time travel.

Impossible. There is no possible experiment (within their common domain)
that can distinguish SR from LET.

> You have made many statements
> in the past that they are an infinite set of assumptions that lead to
> the LT.

No. Why make such stuff up and pretend it is true?

There are several different sets of postulates that can be used to
derive the LT, but not an infinite set.

> I am simply stating that the axioms of SR
> are not required to explain LI

Hmmm. Lorentz Invariance implies the POR and the invariance of c [#]. So
you cannot have LI without the axioms of SR.

[#] The symmetry speed of the Lorentz transform; this
happens to be equal to the local vacuum speed of light,
but that is not essential (and not implied by just LI).

> SR inherently relies on the
> notion that the present state of the system absolutely determines the
> next state of the system, that is, the block universe.

Hmmm. ALL classical theories of physics do this, including LET.

But nobody in their right mind would base any cosmology on SR or LET or
Newtonian mechanics.

Cosmologies based on GR are deterministic. But this does not bother
anybody because we KNOW that GR cannot be the ultimate theory. (Ditto
for the others I mentioned.)

> Its the elephant in the room. SR is not compatible with QM,

You keep repeating this. IT IS WRONG. SR is fully compatible with QM,
and their combination yields QED, QCD, electro-weak theory, and the
standard model.

It is GR that is not fully compatible with QM. That's quite a different
kettle of fish....

> Its a subtlety many, clearly don't get.

Including you. Especially you.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 05:03:27 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> You overreach FAR too much, taking the desire for the deed. One cannot
> conclude "the POR is false" because a theory in which the POR is valid
> (SR) also agrees with all the experiments.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Anyone can check
GPS, clocks keep indicating t'=t with the precision of an
acceptable error, just like they always did.