Stephan
I will try to be brief here, as I have sent 14 physics points, many with multiple sub-points. Thanks for your reply as it unintentionally confirms my two major points, namely:
1) Your erroneous claim that Lorentz's original LTs (LLTs) assert that the SoL is c in all frames is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of Lorentz Theory, LET & the LLTs.
2) Your replies to my emails do not address the physics points raised in my many emails.
For example, you wrote, "This is about the Lorentz LTs and not the STs but I will respond."
Yes, I explicitly noted that I was addressing your above erroneous claim about the LLTs. However, also note that to understand key aspects of the STs, one must understand the physics history and context in this area including Lorentz theory.
You wrote, "(Incidentally, just as you are prepared to disagree with Einstein, I am prepared to disagree with Lorentz and therefore I am ignoring your appeal to his authority to support your claims.)" Again, you are trying deception. I made it clear that my points were NOT arguing that LET/LLTs were "right" per se, but rather that it is a matter of historical record that Lorentz made it 100% clear that the LET/LLTs physics was based on the SoL being physically c (in vacuo) in all directions only for the aether rest frame. Hence, I was NOT asking, as you well know, that you bow to Lorentz authority, but rather that you be accurate about what Lorentz wrote in black and white.
You wrote, "You once again use many words to argue that my claim that the Lorentz LTs predict constant light speed in all inertial frames is wrong." Yes, "once again", you dismiss my 14 points with sub points describing the relevant physics as just "many words", and conclude they are "wrong".
You continued, "I am however unable to simply accept your claim and explanations; I need analysis that supports your claim and explanations. Unfortunately, you have offered none." In other words, you say that my 14 points with sub-points that describe the physics of LET & LLTs, etc. don't exist.
Another empty reply of yours is, "I have read some of Harry’s analysis on the Lorentz transformations and profoundly disagree with his conclusions."
You write, "I am asking you to use the Lorentz LTs and derive light speed in moving frame S’." This explicitly gives a most telling rebuttal to your LLT and ST claims. First, your request explicitly admits that you are unaware of the physics basics of LET & LLTs, otherwise you would know that that physics leads to the explicit answer on SoL in S' that Lorentz theory gives (more on that below). Second, I have laid out 14 points with subpoints, that describe the physics model for LET and the physics meaning of the LLTs, hence, I have given a detailed description of where the physics leads and I have even translated it into the simple math expression which takes just one step.
This is a telling problem throughout your theorizing about the LLTs and STs. You took the LLT equations, and without any knowledge of their physics meaning/context, you did some math manipulations and came to an erroneous physics conclusion that you have devoutly espoused for many years. Even worse when this error was pointed out with all the physics details, you made no effort to find out if you had erred, but merely dismissed the physics as just "many words", as you preferred your erroneous physics and math manipulations. This focus on math manipulations without regard for their physics context is a recurrent problem in your ST writings.
And finally, you wrote, "I am asking you to use the Lorentz LTs and derive light speed in moving frame S’. Your result must support the claims that you have made about light speed in S’ in this model. I await your derivation, not another explanation." Yes, again this reinforces what I wrote above. I did "derive light speed in moving frame S’" by describing the physics of the LET model and physics meaning of the LLTs and gave the result, for the simple, well known case where all relevant motion is along the x-axis. Namely, for S', the physical SoL relative to an observer at rest in S' along the X-axis is the well known c+v or c-v and NOT c. To all who know how the SoL was treated prior to Einstein and SR, this should have been obvious. Even today, except for SoL in the context of relativity, this is how the speed of waves (e.g., sound) traveling through their medium relative to an observer is treated. Hence, my seven years of repeating the relevant physics model (classical physics) was a clear explanation/derivation, for all who understand physics, and for why it was inappropriate for you to use math with the LLTs while assuming the SR physics model applied to derive your erroneous conclusion about what the LLTs predict about the SoL.
Being a fast learner, after 7 years of your ignoring my physics points about about the LLTs, I'm requesting that you write no more on that topic until you have studied LET/LLTs and understood their physics meaning and you explicitly drop your erroneous claim about the LLTs being inherently wrong because they support physical SoL constancy. And no more false claims about a lack of derivations.
Regarding the STs, you have been marketing the STs. However, the LLTs and SR's LTs were derived AFTER their respective physics models were defined. Further, the STs were initially created by Selleri using the SR physics model (i.e., Selleri's Weak Relativity) and simply adjusting how simultaneity was (arbitrarily) defined. Hence, what is needed is a clear definition of the physical model upon which the STs are based.
Admittedly initially, it was through ignorance of physics on your part, that you began marketing the STs and making false statements about the LLTs, as opposed to deliberate deception. However, since you claim the STs are a solution to the SR problem, many who are unaware of the historical context of the STs and are anti-SR might naively be impressed by your sales pitch. And, as I have pointed out, to date your writings on the STs are based on a fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance of the SR-Lorentz context and as a result have been a huge waste of time and most destructive to the dissident move to unseat SR. So again before any more is discussed by anyone on the STs, please make sure you thoroughly understand the historical/physics context including most importantly the real physics of LET/LLTs and their relationship to SR.
On the other hand, Stephan, clearly you can write about errors in SR. Also, once the void in your physics understanding has been rectified, you can write about any actual errors in the LET preferred frame approach and/or any improvements to LET or the LLTs, but that will take several months of serious effort on your part. And definitely avoid the quicksand of your STs. Also, please show some restraint regarding your well established pattern of physics empty replies on this topic (LLTs & STs) in hopes of convincing the naive-on-this-topic that you've made an actual response. Also, it's taking way too much time and effort from several CNPSers to do Stephan-Gift-damage-control, whereas it takes you no time to make empty replies without rigorous physics analysis. Regarding this topic, you are welcome to take your pitch to other physics groups.
Thanks,
Nick
