DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?
Pentcho Valev
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TTM7i.7126$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> > Jeckyl wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:48 -0500, Tom Roberts
> >>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>> The "Lorentzian form of relativity", reduced to its essentials, is:
> >>>> A) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest
> >>> Ok
> >>>> B) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to those of the
> >>>> ether frame by a Lorentz transform
> >>>> Similarly reduced to its essentials, SR is:
> >>>> C) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to any other inertial
> >>>> frame's coordinates by a Lorentz transform
> >>>> One can easily show mathematically that A+B imply C.
> >>
> >> Hang on .. let me see
> >>
> >> If we have three objects at rest in three inertial FoR A,B,C and we have
> >> (say) that A is at rest relative to the 'ether' FoR, B is moving at
> >> velocity v relative to A, and C is moving at 2v relative to A. So
> >> according to premise A) and B) above, an object A has no length
> >> contraction or time dilation (because it is stationary in the ether
> >> frame), object B has some, and object C has more. So an observer in FoR
> >> B would see objects in A as expanded and objects in C as contracted.
> >
> > This is not true, basically because "length contraction" and "time
> > dilation" are not the entire story, and there is also "relativity of
> > simultaneity", and all 3 interrelate with each other.
>
> I understand all that in terms of Lorentz transforms as part of SR ..
You don't. Consider carefully Master Tom Roberts' wisdom:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/07f2471a17131c4b?
Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform, special relativity would be unaffected, does not seem to be
very popular in Einstein criminal cult. Perhaps cleverer hypnotists
feel that Tom Roberts' theory is too silly to be used as camouflage.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
I do .. But I have serious doubt about your understanding, however.
Jeckyl
news:1180768898.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/07f2471a17131c4b?
>> Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
>> nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
>> speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
>> Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
>> of applicability would be reduced)."
>
> Curiously Tom Roberts' theory (plagiarized from Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
> and possibly other relativity hypnotists) according to which if light
> in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
> transform, special relativity would be unaffected
What is this so-called theory of his .. certainly its not described in the
quote above .. are you having more delusions (in addition to replying to you
own posts).
Pentcho Valev
Just ask Master Tom Roberts, e.g. in the following way:
"Oh Master Roberts, oh Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking has
NEVER been the Albert Einstein of our generation), do you really have
a theory according to which, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? If you do not have the theory, oh Divine Master, why do
you say so stupidly that, if light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be
unaffected? Even the most mutilated zombie would not say so, oh Master
Roberts!"
Master Tom Roberts will reply in a private message.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
So . .where is it Tom has said that?
Pentcho Valev
Assume Master Tom Roberts has never said that, if light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special
relativity would be unaffected, and accordingly I am the author of
this statement, not Master Tom Roberts. Then would you find my (not
Master Tom Roberts') extended statement:
"if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
(i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."
extremely stupid?
Pentcho Valev
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
Jeckyl
I find all your statements extremely stupid.
Pentcho Valev
and all statements of Master Tom Roberts extremely perspicacious. That
is good. Your problem is that you do not know who is the author of the
following statement:
"if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
(i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's
equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
applicability would be reduced)."
If I am the author, the statement is extremely stupid. However if
Master Tom Roberts is the author, the statement is extremely
perspicacious. I think I am the author and therefore the statement is
extremely stupid. What do YOU think?
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
> and all statements of Master Tom Roberts extremely perspicacious.
Is that your word for the day?
> That
> is good. Your problem is that you do not know who is the author of the
> following statement:
>
> "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
> (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
> Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's
> equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of
> applicability would be reduced)."
>
> If I am the author, the statement is extremely stupid. However if
> Master Tom Roberts is the author, the statement is extremely
> perspicacious. I think I am the author and therefore the statement is
> extremely stupid. What do YOU think?
That you're an obsessed fool.
Pentcho Valev
No I was just dishonest. I am not the author, Master Tom Roberts is
the author of the breathtaking statement:
Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
Now I think the statement is not extremely stupid; rather, it is
extremely clever. What do YOU think?
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
That you're a self-obsessed fool.