🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shubee" <e.Shubee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24370475-902c-408b-8f1f-c809d90f6ec5@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 2:43 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 9:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > f...@mc.neweb.ne.jp wrote:
> > > It seems to me that principle of constancy of light velovity should be
> > > integrated to principle of relativity in special theory of relativity.
> > > [...]
>
> > Yes. This is basically a simplified version of the group theory
> > derivation of the Lorentz transform. You assumed a sign for C^2 which is
> > a hidden assumption of your derivation. Had you been more careful, you
> > would have replaced your C^2 with a constant 1/K, and found you had
> > three choices:
> >         K = 0: Galilean relativity
> >         K < 0: Euclidean geometry (4-d, time is just like space)
> >         K > 0: Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity
>
> > So while you don't need to explicitly assume the constancy of the speed
> > of light [#], you do need some assumption to make this choice. This is a
> > good place for an experimental fact to be used, such as the fact that
> > pion beams exist -- that uniquely selects the Lorentz transform. Another
> > good choice would be to assume there is a finite upper bound on speeds.
>
> >         [#] Or equivalent (e.g. Einstein's original postulate that
> >         light's speed is independent of the speed of its source).
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> But Honest Roberts you contradict yourself so flagrantly! Three years
> ago you were still teaching Einstein zombie world that special
> relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not
> travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform":

That is not a contradiction. It's a valid statement.
===================================

Yes it is a contradiction.



> Honest 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)."

And that's true.
=================

No it isn't.

> And if you had been the author of that teaching Honest Roberts people
> would excuse you but in fact that was the teaching of your superior
> brothers Jean-Marc L�vy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu:
>
> http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
> Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
> to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
> foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
> these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
> of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
> as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
> arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
> the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
> the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all
> its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
> velocity."

So what.
==========
So you are an idiot that can't answer a simple question, that's what.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Imbecile Shubert: Why does Androcles want to know? Read my obsession with 7
varieties.

Cretin Van lintel: "Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.