🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:8ed0ead5-50b6-42de-8f77-673f47f36627@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 21:56, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>> >Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> The key property of all fundamental theories of modern physics is
>> >> Lorentz invariance. So that is what had better be compatible with some
>> >> alternative theory, or its proponents must re-create all of modern
>> >> physics.
>>
>> > If Ballistic theory is correct SR is based on an incorrect premise and
>> > all that the Lorentz transforms do is transform a theory based upon an
>> > incorrect premise in such a way to give the same answer as the correct
>> > theory. Rather like basing the maths on the assumption that the earth 
>> > is
>> > the centre of the solar system - you can make the maths work it is
>> > simply that they are more complicated than necessary and it is 
>> > difficult
>> > to ascribe physical interpretation to them - as with SR.
>>
>> > You are not talking about a minor tweak to theory but an entirely
>> > different way of looking at things. There is no requirement that it has
>> > to incorporate any of the mathematical baggage associated with
>> > relativity it only has to be consistent with experimental results.
>>
>> Right. You're saying just what I said above, using more words.
>>
>> > As Waldron says "It must be borne in mind that it is facts that a 
>> > theory
>> > must explain, not inferences from those facts on the basis of another
>> > theory".
>>
>> Right. There are literally ZILLIONS of facts that we explain using SR.
>> Some putative new ballistic theory must come up with a method to explain
>> them, too.
>
> The "putative new ballistic theory" will fail Roberts Roberts. Only
> special relativity is able to explain how Einsteinians can trap a long
> train inside a short tunnel
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> and also a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev@yahoo.com

This thread seems somewhat misguided since there are other theories that 
explain results with the exact same math. Notably Lorentz covered all this 
extensively prior to relativity (hmm everyone here [with exception of a few] 
is just as confused)

You are not talking about a minor tweak to theory but an entirely
>> > different way of looking at things. There is no requirement that it has
>> > to incorporate any of the mathematical baggage associated with
>> > relativity it only has to be consistent with experimental results.

This entirely different way of looking at things is exactly how Lorentz, 
Poincare, and others got lost. Genius is simplicity and there is absolutely 
no reason to waste good mathematical effort therefore special relativity 
uses the exact same math and changes the variables to make logically 
consistent predictions about real time events.

Its a good thing too otherwise one really could shut the pole in the barn 
because it would have really shrunk instead of appearing as though it shrunk 
(at least in the frame of reference the barn occupies).