Re: Basis of SR?

"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:QzE%l.298$Dx2.224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:005aed40$0$9754$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:t5E%l.293$Dx2.142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:024e1c01$0$20639$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:%IZ_l.192$Dx2.27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Added missing text:

"Poincaré's work at the Bureau des Longitudes on establishing
international time zones led him to consider how clocks at
rest on the Earth, which would be moving at different speeds
relative to absolute space (or the "luminiferous aether"), could
be synchronised. At the same time Dutch theorist
Hendrik Lorentz was developing Maxwell's theory into
a theory of the motion of charged particles ("electrons" or "ions"),
and their interaction with radiation. He had introduced in 1895
an auxiliary quantity (without physical interpretation) called
"local time" t1 = t-vx1/cc where x1 = x -vt
and introduced the hypothesis of length contraction to explain the
failure of optical and electrical experiments to detect motion
relative to the aether (see Michelson-Morley experiment).[8]"


If this is where it comes from then you SR'ians all have been wasting
everyones time, since MMX was a wrongly thought out experiment
whose results would (and did) simply have shown Galilean
relativity or nothing more than Newtonian ballistic theory
as appliplicable.

If MMX were the only experiment we had to support SR, and if SR was based entirely from the results of MMX, then you might have a point. Yes, MMX also supports ballistic theory with Galilean transforms .. what it did do was rule out simple ether theory with Galilean transforms.

Not getting that one. what do you mean?

Read it again. Its perfectly clear. I don't think it needs to be explained any more simply.

What do you mean by this is what I am asking::

"what it did do was rule out simple ether theory with Galilean
transforms"

Exactly that .. it mean no simepl ether theory that used Galilean transforms ... ie what was expected to be seen with the commonly 'accepted' ether theory that was around at the time :)

Other experiments rules out ballistic theory.
Certainly not at that time,
Doesn't matter
and I will examine them in order. Right now MMX
was incorrect.
You still haven't said why MMX was incorrect. It was
an experiment .. it got a result .. was was incorrect?
The interpretation.

The interpretation was there was no simple ether

In fact the entire thing they were trying to prove
would not be proven by it because of regular relativity.

What is "regular relativity"?

Lorentz + MMX was not correct,
Lorentz transforms explain MMX perfectly well. Some other theories also explain it. Perhaps you don't understand how LT work?
The math is consistant, just does not refer to this universe.

It does .. every time its tested. Galilean transforms don't (in cases where you can observe a difference)

and in 1905 Einstein
incorrectly determined from them SR,
No .. he didn't get SR from Lorentz + MMX .. He got it from two postulates. SR's postulate of a constant speed of light in all inertial frames explains the null MMX results nicely. That does not mean that the postulate somehow depends on the constant speed of light being the only possible explanation of MMX. You're very confused.

What are you talking about?

Try reading and understanding. Its very simply stated.

You appear to be repeating the incorrect things
you've already incorrectly stated.

No .. that's you. You're very confused and have a lot of trouble understanding the most simple of ideas. Do you have a learning disorder?

and used Lorentz math to justify it..
No .. he didn't. Lorentz transforms was a result of the theory which in turn was a result of the postulates.
Do you deny this?
Yes .. I just did. You really need to understand physics a little better.
Stop going round in circles.

I'm not .. but you seem to be. Unless you have something new to say, I think I'll get off next teim your merry-go-ruond comes around again.

[snip meaningless nonsense]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basis of SR?
    ... If MMX were the only experiment we had to support SR, and if SR was based entirely from the results of MMX, then you might have a point. ... MMX also supports ballistic theory with Galilean transforms .. ... You still haven't said why MMX was incorrect. ... That does not mean that the postulate somehow depends on the constant speed of light being the only possible explanation of MMX. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Basis of SR?
    ... MMX also supports ballistic theory with Galilean transforms .. ... what it did do was rule out simple ether theory with Galilean transforms. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
    ... which had light moving c with respect to *it*. ... the MMX certainly did not disprove the existence of an aether. ... The MMX did refute some the prevailing ether theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Definition of A Field
    ... > The lengthwise contraction of bodies in the direction of motion. ... Lorentz ether theory was designed to explain the MMX using things ... Ether theory before the MMX has nothing to do with LET. ... be able to detect motion wrt the preferred frame can't do so. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Definition of A Field
    ... > The lengthwise contraction of bodies in the direction of motion. ... Lorentz ether theory was designed to explain the MMX using things ... Ether theory before the MMX has nothing to do with LET. ... be able to detect motion wrt the preferred frame can't do so. ...
    (sci.physics)