Re: Proposal for an experiment to differentiate SRT from LET


"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ic3QPPFH1KjJFwH1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
harry wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 3, 9:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

It simply is not possible to devise an experiment to distinguish SR
from LET. This is so because both theories use the same mathematics
-- the Lorentz group. When comparing theory to experiment, one
applies the math of the theory to the physical situation of the
experiment. So two theories that share the same math will make
identical predictions for ANY experiment, and thus cannot be
distinguished.

Then, what is the use of calling SR and LET different theories? SR
and LET are merely interpretations to interpret the mathematics of
the Lorentz transform. Both interpretations manifest relative
simultaneity and thus the twin's paradox. SR and LET are of the
same theory but different interpretations to the faulty Lorentz
transform. Both SR and LET are just absurd. <shrug>

I wonder why you call the LT "faulty" or "absurd" - you appear to
assume that great mathematicians and millions of scientists have
made a thinking error. This despite the fact that textbooks prove
the corresponding symmetry of observation; moreover, I as well as
others showed you how it works with the Lorentz interpretation. Have
you at least considered the possibility that it could be you who is
mistaken?

The geocentric theory of the solar system was mathematically
impeccable also. What the Lorentz transforms do is to transform a
wrongly based theory so as to get the right answer. Essentially you
can transform a curved line to a straight line by viewing it in a
distorting mirror. What most relativists assume is that because
relativity gives the correct answer (while providing no physical
explanation as to how it comes about)

You conveniently omit here that physical explanations have been given from
the start by people like Lorentz...

a different theory won't give
the same answer.

It's not about one answer on one type of problem. I am still waiting to
see
how other theories predict the results of for example accelerated
electrons
(big energy increase without much speed increase).

How do you *measure* the energy?


If a simpler theory gives the same result and gives
the simple explanation lacking in SR then surely it needs
investigating. I will give you some examples:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'


Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.

Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?

Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component
v which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a
distance vt from T.

SR says that light emitted at point X in the T's FoR
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X.

We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just
as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at
it from the PoV of an observer on the train both theories predict the
same thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at
right angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving
target. If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you
aim in front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when
whatever travels (bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want
to hit T' you aim at T.
So how does relativity explain this from the PoV of an observer in the
FoR of T? SR has to distort things to get the right answer. SR says
that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed in
the FoR of the target to an angle such that it hits T' because in the
FoR
of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at right angles to
the train. This change of angle is not the result of any identified
physical process, there is no physical explanation. It simply *has* to
be so in order to get the right answer - in order to get the same
answer ballistic theory gives together with its simple explanation.

Of course there is a physical explanation, even if SRT doesn't give it -
just as the principle of conservation of energy doesn't give physical
explanations. Assuming wave theory based on a stationary ether (without
throwing it out of the window for "simplicity") it all follows logically
and
necessarily. This has been extensively explained in a number of papers by
for example Ives. What makes the two theories agree on this point is
conservation of momentum.
However, an alternative theory must be able to explain other effects, such
as Sagnac and electron acceleration and clock slowdown. A theory with less
predictive power is not going to convince.

---------------------------------------------------------

OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'

Sorry I'm not interested to study a few cases where ballistic theory
doesn't
fail.

[...]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"

As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a
circular orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 -
v^2/c^2) whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it
without exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity
triangle. It is simple Doppler shift due to the fact that the speed
at which light arrives is less than it was when it left.

That is erroneous: you cannot create cycles from nothing or loose them in
space. Without a change of distance between emitter and receiver there
cannot be a continuous Doppler shift. Note that when I use SRT I don't
forget about the ether model - in this case it helps to immediately see
the
error.

You have no faith in mathematics then?

He doesn't understand mathematics.
When asked why Einstein said
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, as shown here,

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Bean van lentil said:
"Easy: he did NOT say that. "

The dork is quite incapable ogf translating mathematics to English
and back again.





In ballistic theory light spreads out in a circle its centre being
stationary in the FoR in which it is emitted. If you view it from that
FoR. Light emitted from S (S in orbit around o) will reach o at o'. o' is
further away from S than o so the emitter and receiver are constantly
moving apart. What happens to the physical source after light has left it
cannot affect the light which has already left anymore than you can
control the flight of a bullet by waggling the gun about.

S








o' o

Ok, so what do you see when the source travels in an ellipse?
Here's the evidence:
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/images/binvar/deltacephlc1.gif



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposal for an experiment to differentiate SRT from LET
    ... the Lorentz transform. ... Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X. ... What will an observer at the target T see? ... We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proposal for an experiment to differentiate SRT from LET
    ... the Lorentz transform. ... the simple explanation lacking in SR then surely it needs ... Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X. ... We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
    ... You do not understand the Lorentz ... to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform. ... amount and duration of acceleration. ... Yes, only when you are not sucked into the faith of SR, you can think ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity for the non scientific
    ... :> A train moves from London to Birmingham and returns to London ... : wabniggering and Grabschändung is a priority for you: ... The difference between mathematics and physics is the ... ?Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... Since SR is merely an interpretation to the mathematics of Lorentz ... If you understand the mathematics of Lorentz Transfrom, ... resolved the so-called twin paradox. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)