Message from discussion Tom Roberts Does not Appear to Understand Relativity at All.
Received: by 10.66.72.134 with SMTP id d6mr3840537pav.20.1349765173717;
Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Tom Roberts Does not Appear to Understand Relativity at All.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:46:04 +1100
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: news.albasani.net bWZFAZxc+PsO/m7VusBvBc7WXS/keghOx0T6tGlDbZx3GqGoRywiZn4j/+TnAFHMs+8U1sCx2cOIXkVL3qfp6A==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="FEDW294K3Aiq6L4i4CCkjQUknvqJrazwV+EPWtFqCKF2xxqiVDZqBoKMRkkK/gLVmaiqbmDdso4LGrVyxIeZ8x/Gve9TUuae+g2MTmUEmWByJJN7QTWy4CjcL4rgCqKZ"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@albasani.net"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy
> experimental verifications of SR.
That is very correct. <shrug>
> They don't.
Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
> They satisfy the MMX
> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
You, peter webb, have no fvcking idea what you are babbling about as
> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
That is no lie. You, peter webb, just have to study more. <shrug>
> If you believe they do, you need to
> either find a reputable source which states this (impossible, as its not
> true), or (for example) calculate the extent of the time dilation in the
> Hafele Keating experiment using the Voigt and Larmor transforms and show
> they produce the same (correct) answer as Relativity. Of course, you won't
> do this. Firstly, you don't know how - you have seen these terms on a
> website, but have no idea how to actually use them. Secondly, if you could
> do this exercise, you would see that you are wrong.
Just replace whatever the Lorentz transform with either the Voigt or
Another stupid comment from you. The Voigt and Larmor transformations would
only produce the same answers as Lorentz if they were the same as Lorentz.
They aren't, and so produce different answers. If you claim they produce the
same answers, then you are claiming they are mathematically identical to
Lorentz. They aren't. If they were the same as Lorentz, you have no basis to
claim they are different.
Also, in practical applications, any transform
would degenerate into the Galilean transform. Thus, even if a
transform says the Aether must exist, it will satisfy the principle of
relativity at low speeds. <shrug>
No, you are supposed to be supporting your claim that the Larmor and Voigt
transformations are consistent with all experimental tests of Relativity.
This is simply not true, and you have not produced a single reference or
reason to think they do satisfy all tests of Relativity. I have provided
several tests of Relativity which both fail, for example the Hafele Keating
experiment. If you really believe that the Larmor and Voight transformations
correctly predict the outcome of Hafele Keating, provide your calculations.
(Of course you can't; you have heard of these things but as you know zero
physics you have no idea how to use them or what they mean).
Tell us. Did you raise these stupid questions yourself, or some
professor asked you to relay the questions? <shrug>
So, go for it. Provide some reason to think that the Larmor and Voigt
transforms correctly predict the outcome of Hafele Keating, as you