## Monday, November 22, 2010

### 1.6 A More Practical Arrangement

1.6 A More Practical Arrangement

.for every frame of reference except the one at rest with the origin, these coordinates [based on a single absolute measure of time] would not constitute an inertial coordinate system, because inertia would not be isotropic in terms of these coordinates, so Newton's laws of motion would not even be quasi-statically valid.

-Why the concern over avoiding anisotropy, when experiments show that light and matter are both in this category? Inertia effects can be eliminated by compensating for the aether effects. Likewise, Newton’s laws can – and are – correctable by aether compensation. Action-reaction can involve aether and matter, not just matter.

Furthermore, the selection of the origin is operationally arbitrary,

-Not if the objects are particles or solids. Fluids need to be reduced to individual particles.

..even if the origin were agreed upon, there would be significant logistical difficulties in actually carrying out a coordination based on such a network of signals.

- There’s only one frame to use – the absolute lab frame. With a knowledge of aether motion timing will not be problematic.

Einstein says "We arrive at a much more practical arrangement by means of the following considerations".

- What is the criterion in science…. Practicality or reality?

....inertia is homogeneous and isotropic (the latter being necessary for Newton's laws of motion to hold at least quasi-statically).

- Unnecessary if Newton’s laws include aether effects.

He [Einstein] noted "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium"

-We note that only one interpretation was successful…. The earth and its surrounding aether were at rest – or close to same.

...all the experimental results that are consolidated into Maxwell's equations imply that the propagation speed of light (with respect to any inertial coordinate system) is independent of the state of motion of the emitting source.

- But not of the aethereal state of motion.

...isotropy with respect to inertial coordinates is what we would expect if light was a stream of inertial corpuscles (as suggested by Newton)

- Anisotropy is what we would expect if light was a stream of corpuscles either boosted or resisted by the medium of the corpuscles.

...light propagates isotropically with respect to every system of inertial coordinates (which is essentially just an extension of Galileo's principle of relativity)

- light propagates isotropically with respect to the lab frame ; else SoL = c +/- Vae,lab

...the speed of propagation of light with respect to any system of inertial coordinates is independent of the motion of the emitting source, it follows that

...the speed of light in invariant with respect to every system of inertial coordinates.

- the speed of light in invariant in the lab frame when the aether is at rest.

Einstein notes that if a pulse of light is emitted from location x0 along the x axis at time t0 toward a distant location x1, where it arrives and is reflected at time t1, and if this reflected pulse is received back at location x2 (the same as x0) at time t2 then t1 = (t0 + t2)/2. ..the light pulse takes the same amount of time, (t2 + t1)/2, to travel each way when expressed in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.

- The Two Way Light Speed(TWLS) test proposed here fails to detect anisotropy.

If light is aided by an aether speed v one way and opposed by v on the return, then the TWLS speed will be [(c+v) + (c-v)]/2 = c.

Inertial coordinates are not arbitrary, and they are definable without explicit reference to the phenomenon of light.

- But they represent a specific situation rarely found in nature - no ethereal effects on matter or light. They are virtually non-existent in the real world. .. an esoteric class of coordinates to focus on.

The stationary ether posited by Lorentz did not interact mechanically with ordinary matter at all, and yet we know that light conveys momentum to material objects.

- The ALFA model emphasizes the interaction of dynamic aether and matter

..in Einstein's second paper on relativity in 1905, he explicitly concluded that "radiation carries inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies".

- Surely he meant energy, not inertia.

...light conveys not only momentum, but inertia. For example, after a body has absorbed an elementary pulse of light, it has not only received a 'kick' from the momentum of the light, but the internal inertia (i.e., the inertial mass) of the body has actually increased.

- We postulate that photon absorption transfers EM energy to the conversion of aether surrounding the absorber into the absorber’s mass.

Galileo's principle of relativity automatically implies that light propagates isotropically from the source, regardless of the source's state of uniform motion.

- ALFA replaces Galilean relativity with SoL = c +/- Vae,lab

.if we elect to use space and time coordinates in terms of which light speed is not isotropic (which we are certainly free to do), we will necessarily find that no inertial processes are isotropic. For example, we will find that two identical marbles expelled from a tube in opposite directions by an explosive charge located between them will not fly away at equal speeds, i.e., momentum will not be conserved.

- A constant wind will cause this effect, the same as an aether flow does for photons. Momentum will be conserved, if the wind/aether influence is addressed.

Einstein's "more practical arrangement" is based on (and ensures) isotropy not just for light propagation, but for all inertial phenomena.

- Isotropy is assured for all inertial phenomena if the aether flow is known.

If a uniformly moving observer uses pairs of identical material objects thrown with equal force in opposite directions to establish spaces of simultaneity, he will find that his synchronization agrees with that produced by Einstein's assumed isotropic light rays. The special attribute of light in this regard is due to the fact that, although light is inertial, it has no mass of its own, and therefore no rest frame.

- 1) Light does have mass, since it has energy, and E= mc^2.

2) Light is not inertial, but interacts with the cause of inertia – aether.

3) Why does relativity consider motion requires mass?

4) Why isn’t the emitter’s frame the rest frame?

It can be regarded entirely as nothing but an interaction along a null interval between two massive bodies, the emitter and absorber. From this follows the indefinite metric of spacetime, and light's seemingly paradoxical combination of wavelike and inertial properties.

- Not paradoxical - contradictory and inconsistent.

...a set of definitions based on the propagation of light is tenable, in contrast with a similar set of definitions based on non-inertial signals, such as acoustical waves or postal messages. A set of definitions based on any non-inertial signal can't possibly preserve inertial isotropy.

- Then this holds for light in moving aether, and leads to contradictions in synchronization, if ignored. Isotropy can only be addressed by including aether.

.. a signal requiring an ordinary material medium for its propagation would obviously not be suitable for a universal definition of time, because it would be inapplicable across regions devoid of that substance.

- What is the objection to using light from cosmic periodic motion as a universal time… that is, astronomical time?

Moreover, even if we posited an omni-present substance, a signal consisting of (or carried by) any material substance would be unsuitable because such objects do not exhibit any particular fixed characteristic of motion, as shown by the fact that they can be brought to rest with respect to some inertial system of reference.

- Inertial frames of reference are irrelevant, according to the Sagnac results. The lab frame must be used as the absolute reference frame; the stars cannot be brought to rest in this preferred frame.

.. if there exist any signals faster than those on which we base our definitions of temporal synchronization, those definitions will be easily falsified.

-The speed of GI aether (gravitational changes) is at least 2 million times faster than c.

Where is the easy falsification?

The fact that Einstein's principles are empirically viable at all, far from being vacuous or tautological, is actually somewhat miraculous.

- Sagnac results demo the inconsistency of the 2 SR principles with reality. Believing SR to be true is actually somewhat miraculous.

...if we were to describe the kind of physical phenomenon that would be required in order for us to have a consistent capability of defining a coherent basis of temporal synchronization for spatially separate events, clearly it could be neither a material object, nor a disturbance in a material medium, and yet it must exhibit some fixed characteristic quality of motion that exceeds the motion of any other object or signal.

- The heavens are full of material objects that are all embedded in aether, and their periodic motions were the basis for a universal clock until the enlightenment 50 years decided to use atomic clocks, having dependence on aether’s motion.

The celestial objects cannot be associated with any IFR; they are all in rotational motion around the Earth!

...light propagates at a finite speed, and therefore the spacetime manifold is only partially ordered.

- With knowledge of the necessary parameters, including aether velocity and absolute time, well-ordered by definition, space is well-ordered.

1. The laws by which the conditions of physical systems change are independent of which of two coordinate systems in homogeneous translational movement relative to each other these changes in status are referred.

- The laws by which the conditions of physical systems describing motion change depend on the lab/ECEF reference frame. Refer to the Sagnac X.

2. Each ray of light moves in "the resting" coordinate system with the definite speed c, independently of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Here speed = (optical path) / (length of time), where "length of time" is to be understood in the sense of the definition in § l.

- Each ray of light moves through the aether with the definite speed c, independently of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Here speed is defined kinematically as (optical path) / (length of time).

In the first of these propositions we are to understand that the 'coordinate systems' are all such that Newton’s laws of motion hold good .. This is crucial, because without this stipulation, the proposition is false.

- Even with the stipulation the proposition is false. Physical laws require use of the lab frame.

...coordinate systems related by Galilean transformations are in homogeneous translational movement relative to each other, and yet the laws by which physical systems change (e.g., Maxwell’s equations) are manifestly not independent of the choice of such coordinate systems.

- Maxwell’s EM field equations (and Newton’s laws of mechanics) are valid in the lab frame, and in any frame of reference related to the lab frame by a Galilean transform using the aether speed as v.

the other laws of physics (e.g., the laws of electrodynamics) hold good in precisely the same set of coordinate systems in terms of which the laws of mechanics hold good. (This is also the empirical content of the failure of the attempts to detect the Earth’s absolute motion through the electromagnetic ether.)

- The Sagnac result successfully shows the aether is mobile and the lab/Earth is not moving. This is consistent with the failure of the attempts to detect the Earth’s absolute motion through the electromagnetic ether

Thus Einstein’s first principle simply re-asserts Galileo’s claim that all effects of uniform rectilinear motion can be transformed away by a suitable choice coordinate systems.

- And compensation for any aether flow.

Einstein also realized that a purely electromagnetic theory of matter based on Maxwell's equations was impossible, because those equations by themselves could never explain the equilibrium of electric charge that constitutes a charged particle.

- The presence of aether allows the EM fields to form matter via dynamic equilibrium.

See the photon model of Kanarev. www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/4-1/Kanarev-photon-final.pdf

...the stability of matter may not even have a description in the form of a continuous field theory at all,

- Ref: Bergman’s CSS electron/proton/neutron model.

- www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/electron_models.pdf

Einstein based it [special relativity] on the particular characteristic exhibited by those [Maxwell's] equations, namely Lorentz invariance, that he intuited was the more fundamental principle, one that could serve as an organizing principle analogous to the conservation of energy in thermodynamics, and one that could encompass all physical laws, even if they turned out to be completely dissimilar to Maxwell's equations.

- Lorentz invariance must be replaced with absolutism, the preference of nature, demonstrated by testing, for the Earth as reference system.

Relativity is a key aspect of the modern theory of quantum electrodynamics, which replaced Maxwell’s equations.

- Are the virtual particles of QED the manifestation of aether?

The second principle states that light always propagates at the speed c, assuming we define the time intervals in accord with §1, which defines time intervals as whatever they must be in order for the speed of light to be c.

- Time dilation as interpreted here can never be disproven(= unfalsifiable). Time intervals are chosen to maintain c constant!

Einstein’s presentation somewhat obscures the real physical content of the theory, which is that mechanical inertia and the propagation speed of light are isotropic and invariant with respect to precisely the same set of coordinate systems. This is a non-trivial fact.

- This is rather a trivial conjecture. Inertia and light are empirically shown to be anisotropic and consistently measured only in the lab frame.

...his [Einstein’s] derivation of the Lorentz transformation also invoked “the properties of homogeneity that we attribute to space and time” to establish the linearity of the transformations.

- This invocation is contrary to Sagnac X results.

...he [Einstein] tacitly assumed spatial isotropy, i.e., that there is no preferred direction in space, so the intrinsic properties of ideal rods and clocks do not depend on their spatial orientations.

- Counter to the CMB dipole discovery.

...all experimental evidence (such as all "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium'") indicates that the speed of light is isotropic.

- Refuted by the Michelson-Gale results , which shows that the Earth is wrapped in an aetherosphere rotating once each sidereal day.

....experience has shown that light propagates with the speed c in all directions when expressed in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.

- Not the experience of Fizeau, Fresnel, Sagnac, Dufour & Prunier or Ruyong Wang. One cannot ignore results that are contrary to current thinking - and the scientific method.

As Einstein says, this shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible, i.e., it is possible for light to propagate isotropically with respect to two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, provided we allow the possibility that the transformation from one inertial coordinate system to another is not exactly as Galileo and Newton surmised.

- Unfortunately the two SR fundamental principles are contrary to testing; continuing to use this model is unphysical and unrealistic, just a mathematical exercise.

The assumption that light propagates at the same speed in both frames of reference implies that a simultaneous spherical shell of light in one frame is also a simultaneous spherical shell of light in the other frame,

- An assumption that is strictly false on or near the Earth’s surface .

Consequently we have the Lorentz transformation..

- A mathematical derivation of interest to science history , but without any practical use.

Naturally with this [Lorentz] transformation we can easily verify that the squared "absolute distance" from the origin to the point with K coordinates and the corresponding k coordinates are equal, which confirms that the absolute spacetime interval between two points is the same in both frames.

- The basic errors in these statements will be explored and exposed in the section on Minkowski space.

.for every frame of reference except the one at rest with the origin, these coordinates [based on a single absolute measure of time] would not constitute an inertial coordinate system, because inertia would not be isotropic in terms of these coordinates, so Newton's laws of motion would not even be quasi-statically valid.

-Why the concern over avoiding anisotropy, when experiments show that light and matter are both in this category? Inertia effects can be eliminated by compensating for the aether effects. Likewise, Newton’s laws can – and are – correctable by aether compensation. Action-reaction can involve aether and matter, not just matter.

Furthermore, the selection of the origin is operationally arbitrary,

-Not if the objects are particles or solids. Fluids need to be reduced to individual particles.

..even if the origin were agreed upon, there would be significant logistical difficulties in actually carrying out a coordination based on such a network of signals.

- There’s only one frame to use – the absolute lab frame. With a knowledge of aether motion timing will not be problematic.

Einstein says "We arrive at a much more practical arrangement by means of the following considerations".

- What is the criterion in science…. Practicality or reality?

....inertia is homogeneous and isotropic (the latter being necessary for Newton's laws of motion to hold at least quasi-statically).

- Unnecessary if Newton’s laws include aether effects.

He [Einstein] noted "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium"

-We note that only one interpretation was successful…. The earth and its surrounding aether were at rest – or close to same.

...all the experimental results that are consolidated into Maxwell's equations imply that the propagation speed of light (with respect to any inertial coordinate system) is independent of the state of motion of the emitting source.

- But not of the aethereal state of motion.

...isotropy with respect to inertial coordinates is what we would expect if light was a stream of inertial corpuscles (as suggested by Newton)

- Anisotropy is what we would expect if light was a stream of corpuscles either boosted or resisted by the medium of the corpuscles.

...light propagates isotropically with respect to every system of inertial coordinates (which is essentially just an extension of Galileo's principle of relativity)

- light propagates isotropically with respect to the lab frame ; else SoL = c +/- Vae,lab

...the speed of propagation of light with respect to any system of inertial coordinates is independent of the motion of the emitting source, it follows that

...the speed of light in invariant with respect to every system of inertial coordinates.

- the speed of light in invariant in the lab frame when the aether is at rest.

Einstein notes that if a pulse of light is emitted from location x0 along the x axis at time t0 toward a distant location x1, where it arrives and is reflected at time t1, and if this reflected pulse is received back at location x2 (the same as x0) at time t2 then t1 = (t0 + t2)/2. ..the light pulse takes the same amount of time, (t2 + t1)/2, to travel each way when expressed in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.

- The Two Way Light Speed(TWLS) test proposed here fails to detect anisotropy.

If light is aided by an aether speed v one way and opposed by v on the return, then the TWLS speed will be [(c+v) + (c-v)]/2 = c.

Inertial coordinates are not arbitrary, and they are definable without explicit reference to the phenomenon of light.

- But they represent a specific situation rarely found in nature - no ethereal effects on matter or light. They are virtually non-existent in the real world. .. an esoteric class of coordinates to focus on.

The stationary ether posited by Lorentz did not interact mechanically with ordinary matter at all, and yet we know that light conveys momentum to material objects.

- The ALFA model emphasizes the interaction of dynamic aether and matter

..in Einstein's second paper on relativity in 1905, he explicitly concluded that "radiation carries inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies".

- Surely he meant energy, not inertia.

...light conveys not only momentum, but inertia. For example, after a body has absorbed an elementary pulse of light, it has not only received a 'kick' from the momentum of the light, but the internal inertia (i.e., the inertial mass) of the body has actually increased.

- We postulate that photon absorption transfers EM energy to the conversion of aether surrounding the absorber into the absorber’s mass.

Galileo's principle of relativity automatically implies that light propagates isotropically from the source, regardless of the source's state of uniform motion.

- ALFA replaces Galilean relativity with SoL = c +/- Vae,lab

.if we elect to use space and time coordinates in terms of which light speed is not isotropic (which we are certainly free to do), we will necessarily find that no inertial processes are isotropic. For example, we will find that two identical marbles expelled from a tube in opposite directions by an explosive charge located between them will not fly away at equal speeds, i.e., momentum will not be conserved.

- A constant wind will cause this effect, the same as an aether flow does for photons. Momentum will be conserved, if the wind/aether influence is addressed.

Einstein's "more practical arrangement" is based on (and ensures) isotropy not just for light propagation, but for all inertial phenomena.

- Isotropy is assured for all inertial phenomena if the aether flow is known.

If a uniformly moving observer uses pairs of identical material objects thrown with equal force in opposite directions to establish spaces of simultaneity, he will find that his synchronization agrees with that produced by Einstein's assumed isotropic light rays. The special attribute of light in this regard is due to the fact that, although light is inertial, it has no mass of its own, and therefore no rest frame.

- 1) Light does have mass, since it has energy, and E= mc^2.

2) Light is not inertial, but interacts with the cause of inertia – aether.

3) Why does relativity consider motion requires mass?

4) Why isn’t the emitter’s frame the rest frame?

It can be regarded entirely as nothing but an interaction along a null interval between two massive bodies, the emitter and absorber. From this follows the indefinite metric of spacetime, and light's seemingly paradoxical combination of wavelike and inertial properties.

- Not paradoxical - contradictory and inconsistent.

...a set of definitions based on the propagation of light is tenable, in contrast with a similar set of definitions based on non-inertial signals, such as acoustical waves or postal messages. A set of definitions based on any non-inertial signal can't possibly preserve inertial isotropy.

- Then this holds for light in moving aether, and leads to contradictions in synchronization, if ignored. Isotropy can only be addressed by including aether.

.. a signal requiring an ordinary material medium for its propagation would obviously not be suitable for a universal definition of time, because it would be inapplicable across regions devoid of that substance.

- What is the objection to using light from cosmic periodic motion as a universal time… that is, astronomical time?

Moreover, even if we posited an omni-present substance, a signal consisting of (or carried by) any material substance would be unsuitable because such objects do not exhibit any particular fixed characteristic of motion, as shown by the fact that they can be brought to rest with respect to some inertial system of reference.

- Inertial frames of reference are irrelevant, according to the Sagnac results. The lab frame must be used as the absolute reference frame; the stars cannot be brought to rest in this preferred frame.

.. if there exist any signals faster than those on which we base our definitions of temporal synchronization, those definitions will be easily falsified.

-The speed of GI aether (gravitational changes) is at least 2 million times faster than c.

Where is the easy falsification?

The fact that Einstein's principles are empirically viable at all, far from being vacuous or tautological, is actually somewhat miraculous.

- Sagnac results demo the inconsistency of the 2 SR principles with reality. Believing SR to be true is actually somewhat miraculous.

...if we were to describe the kind of physical phenomenon that would be required in order for us to have a consistent capability of defining a coherent basis of temporal synchronization for spatially separate events, clearly it could be neither a material object, nor a disturbance in a material medium, and yet it must exhibit some fixed characteristic quality of motion that exceeds the motion of any other object or signal.

- The heavens are full of material objects that are all embedded in aether, and their periodic motions were the basis for a universal clock until the enlightenment 50 years decided to use atomic clocks, having dependence on aether’s motion.

The celestial objects cannot be associated with any IFR; they are all in rotational motion around the Earth!

...light propagates at a finite speed, and therefore the spacetime manifold is only partially ordered.

- With knowledge of the necessary parameters, including aether velocity and absolute time, well-ordered by definition, space is well-ordered.

1. The laws by which the conditions of physical systems change are independent of which of two coordinate systems in homogeneous translational movement relative to each other these changes in status are referred.

- The laws by which the conditions of physical systems describing motion change depend on the lab/ECEF reference frame. Refer to the Sagnac X.

2. Each ray of light moves in "the resting" coordinate system with the definite speed c, independently of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Here speed = (optical path) / (length of time), where "length of time" is to be understood in the sense of the definition in § l.

- Each ray of light moves through the aether with the definite speed c, independently of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Here speed is defined kinematically as (optical path) / (length of time).

In the first of these propositions we are to understand that the 'coordinate systems' are all such that Newton’s laws of motion hold good .. This is crucial, because without this stipulation, the proposition is false.

- Even with the stipulation the proposition is false. Physical laws require use of the lab frame.

...coordinate systems related by Galilean transformations are in homogeneous translational movement relative to each other, and yet the laws by which physical systems change (e.g., Maxwell’s equations) are manifestly not independent of the choice of such coordinate systems.

- Maxwell’s EM field equations (and Newton’s laws of mechanics) are valid in the lab frame, and in any frame of reference related to the lab frame by a Galilean transform using the aether speed as v.

the other laws of physics (e.g., the laws of electrodynamics) hold good in precisely the same set of coordinate systems in terms of which the laws of mechanics hold good. (This is also the empirical content of the failure of the attempts to detect the Earth’s absolute motion through the electromagnetic ether.)

- The Sagnac result successfully shows the aether is mobile and the lab/Earth is not moving. This is consistent with the failure of the attempts to detect the Earth’s absolute motion through the electromagnetic ether

Thus Einstein’s first principle simply re-asserts Galileo’s claim that all effects of uniform rectilinear motion can be transformed away by a suitable choice coordinate systems.

- And compensation for any aether flow.

Einstein also realized that a purely electromagnetic theory of matter based on Maxwell's equations was impossible, because those equations by themselves could never explain the equilibrium of electric charge that constitutes a charged particle.

- The presence of aether allows the EM fields to form matter via dynamic equilibrium.

See the photon model of Kanarev. www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/4-1/Kanarev-photon-final.pdf

...the stability of matter may not even have a description in the form of a continuous field theory at all,

- Ref: Bergman’s CSS electron/proton/neutron model.

- www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/electron_models.pdf

Einstein based it [special relativity] on the particular characteristic exhibited by those [Maxwell's] equations, namely Lorentz invariance, that he intuited was the more fundamental principle, one that could serve as an organizing principle analogous to the conservation of energy in thermodynamics, and one that could encompass all physical laws, even if they turned out to be completely dissimilar to Maxwell's equations.

- Lorentz invariance must be replaced with absolutism, the preference of nature, demonstrated by testing, for the Earth as reference system.

Relativity is a key aspect of the modern theory of quantum electrodynamics, which replaced Maxwell’s equations.

- Are the virtual particles of QED the manifestation of aether?

The second principle states that light always propagates at the speed c, assuming we define the time intervals in accord with §1, which defines time intervals as whatever they must be in order for the speed of light to be c.

- Time dilation as interpreted here can never be disproven(= unfalsifiable). Time intervals are chosen to maintain c constant!

Einstein’s presentation somewhat obscures the real physical content of the theory, which is that mechanical inertia and the propagation speed of light are isotropic and invariant with respect to precisely the same set of coordinate systems. This is a non-trivial fact.

- This is rather a trivial conjecture. Inertia and light are empirically shown to be anisotropic and consistently measured only in the lab frame.

...his [Einstein’s] derivation of the Lorentz transformation also invoked “the properties of homogeneity that we attribute to space and time” to establish the linearity of the transformations.

- This invocation is contrary to Sagnac X results.

...he [Einstein] tacitly assumed spatial isotropy, i.e., that there is no preferred direction in space, so the intrinsic properties of ideal rods and clocks do not depend on their spatial orientations.

- Counter to the CMB dipole discovery.

...all experimental evidence (such as all "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium'") indicates that the speed of light is isotropic.

- Refuted by the Michelson-Gale results , which shows that the Earth is wrapped in an aetherosphere rotating once each sidereal day.

....experience has shown that light propagates with the speed c in all directions when expressed in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.

- Not the experience of Fizeau, Fresnel, Sagnac, Dufour & Prunier or Ruyong Wang. One cannot ignore results that are contrary to current thinking - and the scientific method.

As Einstein says, this shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible, i.e., it is possible for light to propagate isotropically with respect to two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, provided we allow the possibility that the transformation from one inertial coordinate system to another is not exactly as Galileo and Newton surmised.

- Unfortunately the two SR fundamental principles are contrary to testing; continuing to use this model is unphysical and unrealistic, just a mathematical exercise.

The assumption that light propagates at the same speed in both frames of reference implies that a simultaneous spherical shell of light in one frame is also a simultaneous spherical shell of light in the other frame,

- An assumption that is strictly false on or near the Earth’s surface .

Consequently we have the Lorentz transformation..

- A mathematical derivation of interest to science history , but without any practical use.

Naturally with this [Lorentz] transformation we can easily verify that the squared "absolute distance" from the origin to the point with K coordinates and the corresponding k coordinates are equal, which confirms that the absolute spacetime interval between two points is the same in both frames.

- The basic errors in these statements will be explored and exposed in the section on Minkowski space.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## 0 comments:

## Post a Comment