<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Ilja,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Some comments on selected statements from your paper, which catched my attention:</div><div dir="auto"><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:medium;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">>>>Note that above solutions are clearly physically different. The source is, in the first solution, at rest, while it moves in the second solution. And if the first solution has spherical symmetry. The second solution does no longer have such a symmetry</span></p><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:medium;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#2196f3">Is the stare of rest associated with spherical symmetry, and is state of motion associated with deformation of spherical symmetry . May be still the equations remains under coordinate transformation, as possibly body in motion is still symmetric on a larger scale ( say universal scale) , though locally they have some assyemtry over the local sphere. I mean can you relate your derivation with ring electron model </font></span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">(</span><span style="text-decoration-line:underline;font-size:11pt;font-family:arial;color:rgb(17,85,204);vertical-align:baseline"><a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0185">http://vixra.org/abs/1702.<wbr>0185</a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:arial;vertical-align:baseline"> ) </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:arial;vertical-align:baseline">(</span><a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203" style="font-family:sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'arial';color:rgb(17,85,204);vertical-align:baseline">http://vixra.org/abs/1408.<wbr>0203</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:arial;vertical-align:baseline"> )<font color="#2196f3"> In other words, I am proposing that velocity of mass object is related with deformation of its internal structure. Please check.</font></span></p><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:medium;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">>>>For other wave equations, like sound waves or water waves, the name "Lorentz transformation" is not used, and the Lorentz transformations are seldom used. But, nonetheless, the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation works in the same way for these equations too................</span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-size:medium">If the train moves in your direction, you hear a different sound than if the train move away. </span></p><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><font size="3" color="#2196f3"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Mathematics may possibly work in the same manner but I don't know what physical meaning you are trying to derive out from this. Though the speed of sound is same wrt respect to medium, but if the receiver is moving at some velocity wrt source toward the source then the velocity of receiver gets added to velocity of sound and time taken by impulse to reach the receiver is reduced. This is not the case with light. Such is not the case with light as velocities does not add due to some strange reasons. I think that you would agree with that. </span></font></p><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:medium;line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">>>>>Despite these differences, some properties remain unchanged an symmetric - namely the speed of the wave.</span><br></span></p><p style="font-family:"times new roman";line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:medium;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(33,150,243)">Can you explain this a bit. I am not sure what do you mean by </span>unchanged an symmetric - namely the speed of the wave. If space has a direction then what is then what is the physical meaning of speed being symmetric.<br></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">Regards,</p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">Tufail </p></div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 12, 2017 11:29 AM, "Ilja Schmelzer" <<a href="mailto:ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com" target="_blank">ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_-1615339307870576985m_8257288817632518358quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have written some introduction to SR focussing on the Lorentz ether too, see<br>
<a href="http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/introduction.php" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether<wbr>/introduction.php</a> To say there<br>
something about "constancy of speed of light" is not even necessary.<br>
Try it out, comments welcome.<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>