On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green wrote:
> > Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > > relativistic dynamics? > > In modern physics the essence of SR is summarized thus: all theories of physics > must be locally Lorentz invariant.
Ahahaha... Yours truly was recently bitched at by one of these Einstein Dingleberries for using the phrase "essence of SR" or "essence of the Lorentz transform". I am confident that Professor Roberts reads my posts. That is why unconsciously he is picking up my phrases. Ahahaha...
> Relativity itself has no dynamics, and it kinematic content is contained in the > above aphorism.
Gee! I have learnt a new word "aphorism".
> The use of any special or unique inertial frame that is > referenced in the dynamic equations of a theory is inconsistent with local > Lorentz invariance.
The above aphorism is called barking up the wrong tree. The Lorentz transform only represents a more general Larmor' transform. Larmor's transform explains the null results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. An absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy Larmor's transform. The Lorentz transform , satisfying the principle of relativity, being a special case to Larmor's transform cannot possibly represent the mathematical model to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
> So, for instance, LET violates the above requirement, as does the theory derived > from the preferred-frame postulates Daryl gave.
LET can be confusing. It can be based on Larmor's transform which calls out for an absolute frame of reference, or it can be based on the faulty Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of relativity. So, trying to play a chess game with LET is cheating. <shrug>
> This is so even though both of > those theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and both of them > have an unobservable preferred frame.