Re: Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson has asked for the math of LET

[Koobee Wublee]

First of all, it was Larmor who first came up with the Lorentz
transform. However, one of these two observers must be the absolute
frame of reference. That was 1897 or 1898 time frame. This version
should be called Larmor’s transform to avoid later confusions.
<shrug>

Writing down two Larmor’s transforms:

** #1 and #0 observe #2.
** #3 and #0 observe #2.

We get the following transform for #1 and #0 observing #2:

** dx12 = (dx02 - B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy12 = dy02
** dz12 = dz02
** dt1 = (dt0 – B01 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** B01 c = speed of #1 as observed by #0

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx12 + B01 c dt1) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)
** dy02 = dy12
** dz02 = dz12
** dt0 = (dt1 + B01 dx12 / c) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

And the following transform for #3 and #0 observing #2:

** dx32 = (dx02 - B03 c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy32 = dy02
** dz32 = dz02
** dt3 = (dt0 – B03 dx02 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

Or its reciprocal of the same transform:

** dx02 = (dx32 + B03 c dt3) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)
** dy02 = dy32
** dz02 = dz32
** dt0 = (dt3 + B03 dx32 / c) / sqrt(1 – B03^2)

In 1905 a few months before the monumental publications of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, it was Poincare who first
combined the above transforms into a single one where any reference to
#0 can be eliminated by introducing B13 for example. The result is
what he would call the Lorentz transform. He’ll leave it as a
homework exercise for those interested to do so. <shrug>

So far so good, right? Larmor’s transform turns out to the Lorentz
transform all along. Relativity rules, and there is no way to detect
the absolute frame of reference, right? Wrong! <shrug>

Notice with the above analysis, both #1 and #3 are moving in
parallel. What if they are not? To answer this question, you need to
write Larmor’s transform where #1 is moving in any arbitrary
direction:


** d[s12] = d[s02] + [B01] ([B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1 – B01^2))
- c dt0) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

** dt1 = (dt - [B01] * d[s02]) / sqrt(1 – B01^2)

Where

** d[s] = Displacement vector
** [B] c = Velocity
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
to the absolute frame vanish. If it does, the Lorentz transform is
valid. If not, the Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. It is a fantasy that does not represent anything real
life. It is a manifestation of mathematical mistake, and 100 years of
physics have developed based on that mathematical mistake. <shrug>

You will be surprised as I was totally shocked a few years ago. The
demystification of special relativity must be done sooner or later.
<shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Koobee that's all very interesting but what we are actually debating is
whether or not SR is any different from LET.

PA claims their predictions are identical in every case...and so far he has
passed every test by pulling out the bogus RoS and applying circular logic
to support his case. I asked him to show the LET equations covering the
twins paradox. It seems he cannot do it.

However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims, then the
two theories must be the same...and Einstein is indeed revealed as the
hoaxer who plagiarized Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.

[rotchm]

> Then, write down the transform of #3 and #0 observing #2, combine the
> two transforms similar to what Poincare did, and see if any references
> to the absolute frame vanish.

W/O looking in to your approach, LET in any direction gives the
Lor.Trans (in that direction or equiv 3-dim version). In all cases,
the references to the absolute frame always vanish. This has been
shown many times throughout history in many works.

> If it does, the Lorentz transform is valid.

Yup... It is mathematically consistent even in 3+1 Dims.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

hogwash with quaternions; thank you.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <p7okp7dnjbfig1e7c...@4ax.com>, on 04/27/2012

at 07:11 PM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

>However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims,
>then the two theories must be the same

FSVO same.

>and Einstein is indeed revealed as the hoaxer who plagiarized
>Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.

ROTF,LMAO! The essence of Special Relativity is a new kinematics, not
the Lorentz Transform per se. Lorentz's theory was Galilean, and the
LT was grafted on in an ad hoc manner. Einstein provided a conceptual
simplification, similar to that of Copernicus.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:42:49 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <p7okp7dnjbfig1e7c...@4ax.com>, on 04/27/2012
> at 07:11 PM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:
>
>>However, if all SR predictions are identical to LET as Paul claims,
>>then the two theories must be the same
>
>FSVO same.
>
>>and Einstein is indeed revealed as the hoaxer who plagiarized
>>Lorentz's theory and made a quick buck in doing so.
>
>ROTF,LMAO! The essence of Special Relativity is a new kinematics, not
>the Lorentz Transform per se. Lorentz's theory was Galilean, and the
>LT was grafted on in an ad hoc manner. Einstein provided a conceptual
>simplification, similar to that of Copernicus.

Simplified bullshit is still bullshit.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the rise of the lightconeheads!

[Shmuel Metz]

In <sabmp7hg0lhbheh2h...@4ax.com>, on 04/28/2012

at 09:36 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

>Simplified bullshit is still bullshit.

So now you're trashing Lorentz's work as well?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:53:25 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <sabmp7hg0lhbheh2h...@4ax.com>, on 04/28/2012
> at 09:36 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:
>
>>Simplified bullshit is still bullshit.
>
>So now you're trashing Lorentz's work as well?

Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <o4hrp7hrh7aoeb0gm...@4ax.com>, on 04/30/2012

at 08:46 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

>Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.

There isn't any aether at all, tonto. There are cumbersome theories
that assume an aether, and adding more makes them even more
cumbersome. More important, you alleged plagiarism, without a shred of
evidence, and refuse to provide justification for it. You're a stupid
cross-posting liar with delusions of adequacy.

*PLONK*

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:19:29 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <o4hrp7hrh7aoeb0gm...@4ax.com>, on 04/30/2012
> at 08:46 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:
>
>>Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.
>
>There isn't any aether at all, tonto. There are cumbersome theories
>that assume an aether, and adding more makes them even more
>cumbersome. More important, you alleged plagiarism, without a shred of
>evidence, and refuse to provide justification for it. You're a stupid
>cross-posting liar with delusions of adequacy.

Einstein's SR is no different from LET....He clearly plagiarized Lorentz's
work

>*PLONK*

I don't cross post.
The OP did.

<plonk>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

there is no aether, but the refractive index
of the imperfect vacuum;
Pascal thought that it was perfect, but, then
he also discovered it, experimentally.

please recall that ordinary air has a RI
that is several decimal places close to One; like,
1.00000004, or so.

I'm pretey sure that he didn't plagiarize Lorentz,
although there is some indication that
his wife was better at teh math.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:sb4up7d25pn8m3a8b...@4ax.com...

>
> Einstein's SR is no different from LET....He clearly plagiarized Lorentz's
> work

True that both are magic. False in that SR divides where LET multiplies.
If you can't see that then you are as poor at maths as Einstein was.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

special relativity, implicitly if not explicity,
relies upon the relativistic effect of trying
to impose the "velocity" of light upon quanta
which are themselves relativisic internally,
viz angular momentum,
as developed by Dirac.

not that I comprehend his math;
it isn't really necessary to do that, since
the "twin paradox" and so on are merely quadratic exercises.

> True that both are magic.

thus:
there's an old paper in *Nature*,
"Rapid collapse of the Eemian interglacial, *sensu strictu*,"
G. Woillard's study of a peatbog in France;
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.

of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
Pleistocene, and forget about it.

thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void would conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000.... like, wow,
that space is really flat; and, guess, What?
air's is, like, 1.00000004, because of the "curvature
of spacetime," y'think?

Blaise Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.

there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.