🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 Nov, 17:22, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> nessun...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I took a look athttp://www.levynewphysics.com/3-someimportantquestions1.htm
>
> Its opening paragraph is downright wrong, in that it claims the
> transforms of Lorentz's theory do not form a group of transforms. They
> do. It is even called the Lorentz group (!). Lorentz himself never
> displayed the general transform between arbitrary frames, but today the
> structure and details of the Lorentz group are well known.
>
> > from what i see the LET (Lorentz ether theory) is incompatible with
> > relativity principle as it is in einstein SR:
> > "all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
> > of reference"
>
> Well, that is a rather loose paraphrase of Einstein's PoR. Yes, LET is
> incompatile with the PoR, and does not possess what we now call "Lorentz
> symmetry". Given the way these names have evolved, that is rather ironic.
>
> Note, however, that LET predicts that MEASUREMENTS performed with REAL
> clocks and rulers will obey Einstein's PoR and be related by Lorentz
> transforms, so LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
>
> > in LET case it seems the relativity principle would be formulated:
> > "all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
> > of reference if their coordinate systems are skewed by gamma factor
> > which is calculated relative to ether"
>
> That's no relativity principle, it is some sort of "absolutivity principle".
>
> Even though LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, the
> historical development of these two theories has been VERY different
> precisely because SR is based on symmetries and LET is not. To date, the
> Lorentz symmetry of SR has proven to be essential in all of modern
> theoretical physics. Note, however, there are tantalizing indications
> that this may not be so in the search for quantum gravity (I am
> particularly intrigued by "doubly special relativity")....
>
> Tom Roberts

Looking for a refuge Roberts Roberts? First read this:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf
"THE CONSTANCY, OR OTHERWISE, OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT" Daniel J.
Farrell, J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull,
Hull HU6 7RX, England.
"Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it
has seemed almost Tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the
speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911
[1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational
potential. Interestingly,  this suggestion  that  gravity might
affect  the motion  of  light  also  surfaced  in Michell's  paper  of
1784 [2], where he first derived the expression for the ratio of the
mass to the radius of a star whose  escape  speed  equalled  the
speed  of  light......In  the  'VSL  epoch',  so  called  'Lorentz
invariance  is spontaneously broken';  meaning  that  the  Lorentz
transformatins,  or  more  specifically Einstein's  second postulate:
'The speed of light c is the same constant with respect to all
observers irrespective of their motion and the motion of the source'
no longer applies.... Moreover, photons of low energy travel at 'c'
while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values,
faster  than  'c', which are proportional  to  their energy.....Doubly
Special Relativity also provides a 'natural' mechanism for the speed
of light to be faster in the very early universe, as the average
energy per particle would have been well over the threshold value."

As you can see Roberts Roberts, your refuge called Doubly Special
Relativity often goes together with the idea that EINSTEIN'S LIGHT
POSTULATE IS FALSE. Are you ready to consider this new and dangerous
idea Roberts Roberts?

Pentcho Valev