Re: What is LET?
Bilge
>
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrndukc2l....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> bsr...@my-deja.com:
>
>> Actually, all you've done is prove that you've accepted something
>> as fact without eing able to define it or say what it means, much
>> less prove.
>
>Sounds like what you've done with time.
Time is a coordinate which transforms with spatial coordinates under
SO(1,3). Proper time is an affine parameter given by the positive
values of the line element with a metric diag {1,-1,-1,-1}. If you
think it means something else, try discussing it on a philosophy
newsgroup.
bsr...@my-deja.com
Bilge wrote:
> bsr...@my-deja.com, posturing asshole:
Even your insults are becoming repetitious ;)
> >Bilge wrote:
> >> bsr...@my-deja.com, posturing asshole:
> >
> >Takes one to know one ;-)
> >
> >> >Bilge:
> >>
> >> >> Events aren't frames. I'll be perfectly happy to define the frames
> >> >> for you if you wish.
> >> >
> >> >Not sure what you are rambling on about. Simultaneity relates to the
> >> >timing of events in a frame, not frames to each other.
> >>
> >> Since I can define the origin of that frame to be anywhere at any time,
> >> there are an infinite number of such frames in which those two events
> >> are simultaneous. Moron.
> >
> >If you look back to where I provided the definition (which you
>
> I used your definition and you are now objecting that I used
> it incorrectly.
My definition was about absolute simultaneity in LET. Your problem is
figuring out what the aether frame is. They are not the same thing, as
I'm sure you are aware.
This is getting repetitious. I will not explain this to you again.
> >conveniently snipped), I followed it with, "Now all you have to do is
> >figure out which is the aether frame and when time began. Don't just
> >tell me the aether frame does not exist. The fact that you cannot
> >identify it does not prove it does not exist."
>
> >> >Read it again. I specified the aether frame.
> >>
> >> Then, is it your claim that the ether frame is an infinite number
> >> of frames?
> >
> >No, that's your strawman.
>
> No, that was your definition. There are an infinite numer of frames in
> which two events are simultaneous according to your definition of those
> two events. So, either your claim is that there are infinite number
> of ether frames or else you are simply refusing to define absolute
> simultaneity.
You are partly correct, there are an infinite numer of frames in which
the two events are simultaneous, but only one is the aether frame.
I'll bet you can figure out how that can be if you put your mind to it.
As for the rest of your claim, you can snip it as many times as you
like, my words are still there for anyone that wants to read them.
"Now all you have to do is figure out which is the aether frame and
when time began. Don't just tell me the aether frame does not exist.
The fact that you cannot identify it does not prove it does not exist."
I know English is not your native language so I will explain, "which
is" would only be used with a singular noun. If I had been writing
about multiple frames it would have been, "which are" and there would
have been an "s" at the end of "frame". Further on "it" is also
singular.
This is also getting repetitious. I will not explain it to you again.
> [...]
> >> I used your definition. Since you claimed that those two events defined
> >> absolute simultaneity, I took your word it that you meant exactly that.
> >
> >You are the one trying to claim that absolute simultaneity in the
> >aether frame defines galilean spacetime.
>
> Absolute simultaneity defines a galilean spacetime. Period.
I'm sure it does in your mind.
> >Don't blame your misconceptions on me.
>
> I'm blaming your misconceptions on you.
>
>
> >> Does that mean you can't answer my question? Either answer it or
> >> tell me that you don't know the answer. If you can't answer my
> >> question, I'll have to answer it in order to answer your question.
> >> All you are doing is posturing like the rest of the kooks so you
> >> can fish for a reply from which to invent a semantics objection.
> >
> >It means I have chosen not to answer your question until you provide an
> >example where the predictions of SR and LET differ.
>
> In other words, you don't know the answer. If you don't know the
> answer, then say so and I'll answer it for you so you can get
> your example.
No other words needed. My intent was made clear. It's time to put up
or shut up.
> >When I asked for
> >an example before you refused to give one until I provided a
> >mathematical definition of absolute simultaneity in LET.
>
> You haven't provided one. All you've done is define simultaneous
> in a way that doesn't even distinguish between galilean and relative
> simultaneity.
I defined absolute simultaneity, which involved only one frame. How
would you apply relative simultaneity to a single frame?
> >I provided
> >that definition, so it's your turn to provide what I ask for.
> >
> >
> >In a response to Martin Hogbin you wrote, "I've always dealt with with
> >crackpot posts as crackpot posts. Trying to change the focus away from
> >my point is just such a technique." Well it works both ways. You
> >thought you had a point to make about simultaneity. I answered your
> >question. Now it is your turn to respond to my point, and I will not
> >allow you to change the focus.
> >
> >As for providing your own answer to your question if I don't give you
> >one, are you saying you don't know how to do the math without my input?
> > You have been claiming that you know SR and LET have different math.
> >How could you make such a claim without knowing the math already?
> >
> >What is it about LET that brings out the crank in you? Someone that I
> >consider to be very bright recently wrote, "Unfortunately, you can't
> >seem to grasp the idea that arguing for rekativity is no better than
> >arguing against it if you don''t know what the argument is". Yes, I
> >consider you to be very bright. I have read some of your posts where
> >you have done an excellent job of explaining SR.
> >
> >But you have this hang-up about LET that is not based on facts. Right
> >now it is like you are claiming 6+2 cannot equal 8 because 4+4=8. The
> >only way you will accept 6+2=8 is if we can prove 6=4 and 2=4. That is
> >why I am asking you to provide an example where SR and LET make
> >different predictions. When you can't do it you may re-think your
> >position.
> >
> >Accepting that LET has the same math as SR is not the same as saying
> >LET is what is really happening. It just says they get the same
> >answer. As Tom would say (shrug) so what?
> >