Dat dare reenouned fizizizt, Tommy Phippz, be at it agin, eh, Erik?:

"...as Einstein showed, the two flashes are detected non-simultaneously (because of the train’s forward motion). Hence the “relativity of simultaneity”was established. Let us analyze this in some detail, continuing to restrict our attention to the first order…But suppose the physical propagation of the flashes was governed instead by the Galilean invariant (Hertzian) theory. In that case the light propagation velocity is not u = c , as we are accustomed to think, but instead is [aint fomattin rite], as shown above…

Thus we derive from Einstein’s train example exactly the opposite conclusion from the one he reached. Namely, we have shown that according to the Galilean invariant version of electromagnetic theory S deduces from his own observations that [aint fomattin rite]; so that R receives the flash signals from front and rear of the train simultaneously (and of course at the same train location along the track). S also perceived the same flashes as simultaneous. So, as this instance illustrates, simultaneity is absolute, if you make the right assumptions about light propagation. Because of the symmetry of relative motion, what R deduces from his observations will agree with what S deduces from his. In a Galilean invariant formulation of electromagnetism simultaneity is therefore a physical fact not altered by changes of inertial system viewpoint. Note that this conclusion rests primarily upon description of inertial transformations via (Galilean) invariant, instead of (Lorentz) covariant, mathematics. Our analysis here is valid only at first order, but the same conclusion is reached via a higher-order analysis, as has been shown elsewhere[6].

Are the assumptions we have made plausible? We have replaced covariance with invariance. Which is physics? Both involve form preservation under rival candidates to represent physical inertial transformations; thus both fit with a relativity principle. This circumstance brings out in starkly graphic relief the amazing fact that during a century nobody has felt dissatisfied enough with Einstein’s assumptions to look seriously into available alternatives. That is not the way real physics progresses. Historically, it is the way unreal physics progressed, for instance, during the period of the “dark ages” millennium in which scientists backed Ptolemaic assumptions by unanimous consensus. (The science was settled.) Are we entering a new dark age in physics?

Crucial Experiment: Maxwell’s non-invariant equations have here been identified as the underlying point of contention. Instead of being taken for granted, those equations deserve to be searchingly tested. Elsewhere I have shown[6] that a simple test of covariant Maxwell theory against invariant Hertzian theory can be accomplished by using the existing Very Long-Based Interferometry (VLBI) system (given validity of its claims to astrometric precision) to measure to second-order accuracy the figure of stellar aberration. Maxwell-Einstein covariant theory predicts one thing, Hertzian invariant theory (in its higher-order form[6]) predicts another. The experiment is crucial. It should have been done long ago…”

Not alla da simboz be kummin throo jizt rite, but ya kin seez dem fo yo own dam sef heea:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 9N1PHI.pdf

I don wanna deebatez nuthin witcha no mo on diz heea topic, kuz it alla wazte a time. Jizt pointin diz heea artiko out ta ya, kaze yo intrizted.

Phippz makez sum pointz werth konsidrin heea, but he aint rilly gittin down ta da fundamento sheeit in diz artiko likez he haz dun befo in udda artikoz. Da mo fundamento thang be diz heea: Da hole konsep a “rellativy a simotanaity” aint nuthin but a bogiz epiziko wich don’t korrespondz ta nuthin real. It jizt tryz, a la Berkly, Mach, an uddaz, ta ellavatez strikly subjektive feenomena ta da statiz a objektive reality.

Homey don’t playz dat.

Tommy say: "In a Galilean invariant formulation of electromagnetism simultaneity is therefore a physical fact not altered by changes of inertial system viewpoint. Note that this conclusion rests primarily upon description of inertial transformations via (Galilean) invariant, instead of (Lorentz) covariant, mathematics."

Az I reedz it, all he rilly sayin heea be sumthin likez diz:

Sum perv hoo be 2 milez way frum a litnin strike aint gunna heeaz da thunda at da same time a perv rite unna it will.

Dat sedz, da litnin still happind ware it happind, win it happind. Jizt kuz sum diztint guy don heeaz da thunda immediately don meenz time an spaze haz gone plumb haywire. Wut dat guy heeaz iz strikly deependint on da lokazhun an senze oginz of hiz own azz, not on fizikolly diztoted spaze, time, er da litnin it sef.

Strictly speaking, I don't want to scribble on OB's paper and get him discouraged about discussing things with a hardhead like me who won't listen very good. . . . er. . . . agree with him. . . . but I've been thinking some about this.

According to some folks, Einstein was a convenient spectacle for the Great Bristish Puppet Show, the carnival hosted by Oxford and the Royal Academy of Science that's been bent over for for the service of Brit nobility for a few hundred years.

Probably nobody ever bothered to actually read his theory since the snobs took it and ran with it for their own mystic purposes. At least not in the public education sector.

Probably even fewer people actually ever understood it.

I just hate to see science---
(notice, no caps here, it's not a religion. . . . and it's not a God. . . . it's a process of reasoning and testing, moving from a question to a plausibe answer defined by the information. . . . and generating more questions about what might be over the horizon of our actual data. It's never "settled". It's no excuse for any dogma or hocus pocus that just isn't rooted in our limited information and isn't worthy of reconsideration in terms our limited minds and words and formulas haven't conceived yet. Most importantly, we have to remember it's like the humans who use it, and it's constructed of the fallible workings of our assumptions and logic.)
---- BEING PUT OUT BY FASCISTS LIKE PROPAGANDA FOR STATE PURPOSES.

When you see that happening you can be pretty sure it's a lie somehow.

When I was in college I spent a few weeks reading all the offerings in the University of Utah library about "Relativity", and was really just very disappointed. In the name of popularizing the theory, it was being framed in actually illogical, mystical terms.

The whole idea was that we don't need to believe our own observations because we have a wonderful mutable universe that declares what we should see.

Human beings define the terms, and apply our own measurements to everything. We throw away the question "What is it?" and replace it with "What do we see?"

What we "see" is always something inside our own skulls. What "is" is always something outside of our own skulls. . . . . well except for what we imagine I suppose, or what can be tested or "seen" by other human observers or by and through their tools for investigation.

I think the lie about the the popular propaganda of "relativity" can be seen in the very definiton of "time".

Yep, we can make and synchronize "clocks" and put them on trains and send them off at impressive, speeds in different directions. And we can imagine what folks will "see" riding on photons or whatever. But question is not what we "see" but what "is".

A ray of light does not create energy once it's emitted, and "time" if it's going to mean anything, is simultaneously the same everywhere. It cannot be "path dependent" and come out different depending on the path or speed you've sent those clocks on.

Every observer has his own "speed", and when encountering something else, you don't see what it "is" you only see the difference. Nothing "relative" about what is, only maybe between two things encountering each other somehow.

The consequence of this rough theory is that there is no such thing as "time travel" where you can go to the future or back to something in the past.

If anyone says you can, you just have to realize it's not so. It violates the definition of "time", the only useful definition we can propose.

"time" is the same thing, the same "now" no matter where you look, or go, or however you are being in any sense. . . . how you are moving about or your speed.

Confounding the definition of "time" and making it dependent on a function of time, like speed, is circular logic at its root.

One Brow is teaching mysticism in his science classroom.

Just can't trust a government with the power of compulsory education, or religion.

Babe, I aincho I agreez wit da way ya frazez evrythang, an wut dat frazin mite seemz ta implyz in sum kazez, but I sho nuff greez wit da ovva-all tone an da genro konkloozhunz a yo pozt heea.

Spezho Rellativity (SR) makez sertin azzumpchunz wich aint in no way "nezzezzary" ta explanez wut we seez. Dem azzumpchunz den reekwiaz ya ta makez udda azzerzhunz wich be abzurd on day faze. It kin all werkz out math-wize, but itz premized on thangz dat no senzibo perzun kud beeleevez iz "objektively troo."

Yet in da scientifik kommunity da hole theeory seemz ta be almozt yoonaverzally defended az bein "troo." Dat be da reezult a meny dekadez a indokrinazhun by teechaz inkulkatin stoodintz wit inkompreehensibo krap wich day gotta greez wit ta pazz da kozz.

Eny reelijuz fundy, wedda he Muzlim, Krizchun, er wutevva, kin pointz ta a multitood a relijuz "skollaz" hoo azzertz da doktrinz dat he, da fundy, adoptz an azzertz. Fo him, dazz proof pozative dat da doktrinz be troo.

Same wit deez "scientiztz" in mozt kazez. Day iz willin ta adoptz an swarez by da mozt abzurd premizez and konkloozhunz so long az day feelz da "powwaz dat be" will suppotz dem in day klaimz.

I rilly don seez much diffrinze betweenz relijun an scienze in dat petikulla azpek.

Fo sampo, lezz sez I ridin ma mottasikko down da rode. Wut duz SR konkloodz bout dat simpo sitchooazhun?

1 Step wun: Sinze thangz wud lookz da same ta me if I wuz perfekly mozhunlizz an alla treez, rokz, houzez, rode sinez, etc. wuz movin pazt me, den I iz "entitod" ta klaimz dat I aint movin at all, an dat evrythang I goin pazt iz movin, but not nevva me.

2. Next step: Sinze I iz "entitod" ta beeleevez dat krap, I iz "rite" ta beeleevez it.

3. Next step: Now day goez da hole dam hawg an sez I wud be rong ta beeleevez uddawize. If I klaimz dat me an ma mottosikko iz movin wit reespek ta da erth, wile thangz attached ta da erth aint movin wit reespek ta me, den I be rong. Why? Kuz da hole theeory fallz apart if I makez a reezinabo klaim likez dat (i.e. dat I movin wit reespek ta da erth, not vize verza). If I uzez day math, makin dat azzumpchun, an kalkulatez da konseekwenzez a ma klaim, da reezultz will be inkonziztint wit day unkwezchund azzumpchunz (speed a lite da same, reegadlizz of da mozhun a da soze er reezeeva, etc.) If yo onna movin trane, ya kaint ax da kondukta if dat trane stopz in Saint Looie. Inzted, ya gotta ax: "Duz Saint Looie stopz heea?"

4. Next step: Sum perv sittin in hiz livin room, lookin out da winda, hoo seez me goin pazt on ma mottosikko iz ALZO rite win he klaimz he aint movin but I iz, an rong if he klaimz uddawize. Day spozedly BOTH rite win day eech azzumez oppazit thangz.

Makez senze?

I don thankz so! Homey don playz dat.

Phipps sure has the whining down well. If he can present a meaningful, testable althernative, it will get looked at eventually.

To frame special relativity in precise, physical terms requires calculus. To frame general relativity in precise, physical terms requires the calculus of manifolds. No offerings in any library will change that.

You confusion of "had to believe this" with "easiest to calculate it this way" continues to amuse me.

Yo failya ta unnastanz da point er da theeory kontinyooz ta amuzez me, Erik.

Az soon az a guy onna mottasikko konzeedz dat he be movin, hiz time (not da udda guyz) time iz dilated, hiz lengthz shotta (not da udda guyz), an kalkulatez, uzin da Lorentz tranzfomz, time an diztinze akkodinly, he haz kompleetly rejekted SR, itz premizez, an itz konkloozhunz in favva of LR, ware simultanaiety be absoloot, etc.

Well, perhaps you should have brought that up, instead of something I understand quite well.



A difference that makes no difference is no difference, scientifically. Experiments and other observations come out the same using SR or LR. The only reason SR is preferred over LR is that SR leads quite naturally to GR, while there is no Lorentzian equivalent to GR.