Science > Physics > Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Perfectly Innocent" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2003 01:52:23 PM |
| Object: |
Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
Confession Number 1
I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.
I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:
Thus moving clocks tick at the same rate as stationary clocks and the
mapping: (x,T)-->(x',T') defined by the relations x'=x-uT and T'=T is
a change of coordinate map from events in L to events in L'.
I thought that sentence was a relevant milestone in my proof.
Rindler's jaw literally dropped and I felt terribly embarrassed by his
very visible show of obvious misunderstanding. (How could any graduate
student who, only a few years before, seemed competent and rational in
his relativity classes, now be an anti-relativity crackpot?) With a
deep sense of heartfelt humility and apology, I then hastily explained
that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of
reference but not for three simultaneously. That had a calming effect
but it didn't come close to repairing the rift that I had created. My
purpose in using "shock and awe" was to vividly impress the professor
with a very charming and delightful derivation. Instead, I alienated
professor Rindler from his usual kind and friendly regards, as if I
had purposely fooled him with unethical trickery and deception.
Sensing his discomfort that I continue, we exchanged a few irrelevant,
uncomfortable and clumsy words and we ended our conversation with
surprising abruptness. That situation felt so awkward (the worse I've
every experienced) that I haven't had the temerity to speak to
professor Rindler since.
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
| User: "Sean Kenwrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 11:28:01 AM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com...
Confession Number 1
I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
<snip>
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
Eugene,
I looked through your derivation with interest, but I believe that there may
be a small flaw in it. The first part of your derivation states:
"Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin, rigid
material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals like a ruler.
If you can imagine one such line, imagine a tight bundle of such lines, ,
where all the lines are perfectly identical, parallel and where the distance
between any two lines is exactly zero."
Unfortunately statements like 'the distance between any two lines is exactly
zero' are not really allowed in mathematics. I believe the correct
statement should be 'the distance between any two lines being some distance
(delta) s where we take lim delta(s) -> 0.
I wonder if this might effect your notion of Galilean sychronization? Even
if it makes no difference I suggest you need to modify your derivation to
take this into account..
Sean
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 08:30:08 PM |
|
|
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<blevag$c28$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com...
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene,
Statements like 'the distance between any two lines is exactly
zero' are not really allowed in mathematics.
Sean,
Look up the group of rigid motions on E^3. With it you can move an
infinite number of lines to one line. There's no mathematical
contradiction preventing this. When you hear physicists protesting,
citing physical theories, saying that the lines couldn't possibly
merge and would bounce off each other, tell them that the cardinality
of the bundle will be the same as the line.
Here's another objection: How can we keep track of all the distinct
lines? That's easy. Just index them all with some real parameter
theta.
Do you have another objection?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean Kenwrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
05 Oct 2003 03:39:05 PM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310011730.3ba5b300@posting.google.com...
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<blevag$c28$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com...
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene,
Statements like 'the distance between any two lines is exactly
zero' are not really allowed in mathematics.
Sean,
Look up the group of rigid motions on E^3. With it you can move an
infinite number of lines to one line. There's no mathematical
contradiction preventing this. When you hear physicists protesting,
citing physical theories, saying that the lines couldn't possibly
merge and would bounce off each other, tell them that the cardinality
of the bundle will be the same as the line.
I have searched high and low for any refence to rigid motions on E^3 without
success. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction for this because I
am still not conviced. In your statement above you talk about 'moving
an infinite number of lines to one line', which sounds to me exactly like
taking the limit of the distance between the lines to zero. But this is
NOT the same as saying the distance between the lines is exactly zero.
Taking the limit is a 'process' and infinitessimals (and infinities) can not
be used as actual numbers and an infinititessimal is NOT the same as Zero.
This is an important distinction and has been the cause of great problems
for mathematicians until the 19th century, when it was resolved by the likes
of Cauchy and Weierstrass.
Anyway, this is kind of beside the point. If your derivation is correct
then you should be able to extend it to the general case where the lines are
any distance apart, not just zero. Can you show that your derviation
holds in such a case?
BTW I'm not just being closed minded or deliberately difficult, I am
genuinly interested to see whether your derivation holds up under scrutiny
so try not to simply flame me if you can....
Sean
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
06 Oct 2003 10:14:57 AM |
|
|
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<blpvh8$k16$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310011730.3ba5b300@posting.google.com...
Sean,
Look up the group of rigid motions on E^3. With it you can move an
infinite number of lines to one line. There's no mathematical
contradiction preventing this. When you hear physicists protesting,
citing physical theories, saying that the lines couldn't possibly
merge and would bounce off each other, tell them that the cardinality
of the bundle will be the same as the line.
I have searched high and low for any refence to rigid motions on E^3 without
success. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction for this because I
am still not conviced.
Try:
http://www.joma.org/vol1-2/framecss/rintel/Math/Rigid_Motion.html
http://www.math.ups.edu/~bryans/Current/Journal_Spring_2001/434_AOkamoto_2001.html
In your statement above you talk about 'moving
an infinite number of lines to one line',
I'm only asking you to be able to conceive of Euclidean geometry.
"Euclid allows superposition of figures. Superposition is achieved by
transforming one triangle onto another. Euclid implicitly assumed that
geometric figures do not change by rigid motions. Rigid motions (e.g.,
translation, rotation, reflection) form an algebraic structure known
as a group."
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/Geometries.shtml
http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/symmetries.htm
Anyway, this is kind of beside the point. If your derivation is correct
then you should be able to extend it to the general case where the lines are
any distance apart, not just zero. Can you show that your derviation
holds in such a case?
Yes. Just replace the word "touches" or "passes" with the phrase "when
the point is directly overhead." It's defensible.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean Kenwrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
08 Oct 2003 05:42:01 AM |
|
|
[Sean Wrote]
Anyway, this is kind of beside the point. If your derivation is
correct
then you should be able to extend it to the general case where the lines
are
any distance apart, not just zero. Can you show that your
derviation
holds in such a case?
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310060714.160277f7@posting.google.com...
Yes. Just replace the word "touches" or "passes" with the phrase "when
the point is directly overhead." It's defensible.
But then how do you synchronise the clocks between the two lines? You
would need to pass a signal between them (at the the speed of light).
Would Galileian synchronisation still hold then?
It seems to me that you have relied on pure (and correct) mathematics to
derive something, but that something is not a model of the universe that we
live in. In our universe, no two objects can occupy the same space at the
same time, but in the universe you have modelled this is allowed because you
allow two objects to occupy the same space and therefore to send
instantaneous communications between them.
Special relativity is an exercise in applied maths (in that it is meant to
model the real world) and sometimes the real world prevents something from
happening that would be perfectly correct in the pure form of the equations
(in this case that no two particles can occupy the same space at the same
time).
There are lots of examples where simple and beautiful mathematical
constructs cannot fully be applied to the real world because of various
special cases, additional variables that need to be added etc etc. And I
think your derivation might be such a case: If two things could be in the
same place at the same time then there would be a universal Galilean clock.
But they can't and therefore there isn't.
Sean
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
08 Oct 2003 01:40:30 PM |
|
|
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bm0plo$ilv$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
But then how do you synchronize the clocks between the two lines?
There's no point in discussing generalizations if your not persuaded
by the primary case.
It seems to me that you have relied on pure (and correct) mathematics to
derive something, but that something is not a model of the universe that we
live in. In our universe, no two objects can occupy the same space at the
same time, but in the universe you have modeled this is allowed.
...If two things could be in the same place at the same time then there
would be a universal Galilean clock. But they can't and therefore there isn't.
Sean,
I bet that many adults believe in ghosts. Do you really believe that
I've refuted the popular movie effect where ghosts retain their
ghostly integrity while passing through material objects? I don't
think that I've refuted anything like that. I believe that most
children are able to conceive of ghostly number lines being able to
pass through ghostly number lines.
Because you've made such a noble effort in trying to find an error in
my derivation, permit me to get you back on track. Please believe this
helpful hint. A Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames
of reference but not for three simultaneously.
You may now continue with my darling derivation of SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean Kenwrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
09 Oct 2003 04:50:03 AM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310081040.681a64c0@posting.google.com...
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bm0plo$ilv$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
But then how do you synchronize the clocks between the two lines?
There's no point in discussing generalizations if your not persuaded
by the primary case.
But where you say 'primary case' what I see is 'special case' (where the
distance between two lines (inertial frames) are exactly zero). As
soon as you invoke the general case (where the two lines are a non-zero
distance apart) then you immediately have problems with the notion of
synchronisation of clocks because you need to invoke Einsteins first
postulate and start talking about the speed of light again (which is what
you are trying to avoid).
But going back to the special case, you show that any two events that occur
at exactly the same space-time co-ordinates can be sychronised by the same
universal clock. But how can two events happen at the same space-time
co-ordinates? Surely what you are saying is that an event shares a
sychronised global clock with itself (which appears to be a circular
argument).
In my opinion it is not valid to state that the distance between two
inertial frames is exactly zero, since this is not a valid model of reality
(since a single space-time co-ordinate represents a single event (not
multiple events). The only way round this is to assume that there is a
global background frame of reference upon which all other frames are moving
relative to. If this were true then I think it would be valid to treat
the global frame and the intertial frame as having a zero distance between
them and then your derivation would become valid. So it seems to me that
what you are infact showing is that if there was a global frame of refence
then all other frames of reference would share a global clock with it
(though not with each other). Perhaps you are uncovering theoretical
evidence for the Aether?
Sean
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
08 Oct 2003 11:44:25 AM |
|
|
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bm0plo$ilv$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
[Sean Wrote]
Anyway, this is kind of beside the point. If your derivation is
correct
then you should be able to extend it to the general case where the lines
are
any distance apart, not just zero. Can you show that your
derviation
holds in such a case?
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310060714.160277f7@posting.google.com...
Yes. Just replace the word "touches" or "passes" with the phrase "when
the point is directly overhead." It's defensible.
But then how do you synchronise the clocks between the two lines? You
would need to pass a signal between them (at the the speed of light).
Would Galileian synchronisation still hold then?
It seems to me that you have relied on pure (and correct) mathematics to
derive something, but that something is not a model of the universe that we
live in. In our universe, no two objects can occupy the same space at the
same time, but in the universe you have modelled this is allowed because you
allow two objects to occupy the same space and therefore to send
instantaneous communications between them.
Special relativity is an exercise in applied maths (in that it is meant to
model the real world) and sometimes the real world prevents something from
happening that would be perfectly correct in the pure form of the equations
(in this case that no two particles can occupy the same space at the same
time).
Special relativity is an exercise in applied mathematics in which it
attempts to model the real world, not as a collection of things, but
as a collection of relationships on events.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean Kenwrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
09 Oct 2003 03:41:06 AM |
|
|
"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0310080844.e0a389@posting.google.com...
"Sean Kenwrick" <skenwrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bm0plo$ilv$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
[Sean Wrote]
Anyway, this is kind of beside the point. If your derivation is
correct
then you should be able to extend it to the general case where the
lines
are
any distance apart, not just zero. Can you show that your
derviation
holds in such a case?
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310060714.160277f7@posting.google.com...
Yes. Just replace the word "touches" or "passes" with the phrase "when
the point is directly overhead." It's defensible.
But then how do you synchronise the clocks between the two lines? You
would need to pass a signal between them (at the the speed of light).
Would Galileian synchronisation still hold then?
It seems to me that you have relied on pure (and correct) mathematics to
derive something, but that something is not a model of the universe that
we
live in. In our universe, no two objects can occupy the same space at
the
same time, but in the universe you have modelled this is allowed because
you
allow two objects to occupy the same space and therefore to send
instantaneous communications between them.
Special relativity is an exercise in applied maths (in that it is meant
to
model the real world) and sometimes the real world prevents something
from
happening that would be perfectly correct in the pure form of the
equations
(in this case that no two particles can occupy the same space at the
same
time).
Special relativity is an exercise in applied mathematics in which it
attempts to model the real world, not as a collection of things, but
as a collection of relationships on events.
Patrick
I agree my language is clumsy here; what I should have said is that 'no two
events can occur at the same space-time co-ordinates'...
Sean
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser(Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 11:42:20 AM |
|
|
Sean Kenwrick wrote:
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com...
Confession Number 1
I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
<snip>
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
Eugene,
I looked through your derivation with interest, but I believe that there may
be a small flaw in it. The first part of your derivation states:
"Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin, rigid
material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals like a ruler.
If you can imagine one such line, imagine a tight bundle of such lines, ,
where all the lines are perfectly identical, parallel and where the distance
between any two lines is exactly zero."
Unfortunately statements like 'the distance between any two lines is exactly
zero' are not really allowed in mathematics. I believe the correct
statement should be 'the distance between any two lines being some distance
(delta) s where we take lim delta(s) -> 0.
I wonder if this might effect your notion of Galilean sychronization? Even
if it makes no difference I suggest you need to modify your derivation to
take this into account..
Sean
He should also derive the value of k, which he doesn't do, thus
rendering the derivation a non derivation and just a waste of time.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 05:50:14 PM |
|
|
Richard <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3F7B03EC.238BC5C2@yahoo.com>...
He should also derive the value of k, which he doesn't do, thus
rendering the derivation a non derivation and just a waste of time.
Richard Perry
Regarding:
x'=Y(v)(x-vt)
t'=Y(v)(t-kvx)
Y(v)=1/sqrt(1-kv^2)
You're just quibbling. If I label 1/k as b^2, then b becomes the
greatest possible velocity. The measured value of k or b may be
determined from the mass increase formula, m=(m_0)Y(v) or the
consequent mass energy equation E=mb^2. Recognizing b to be
immeasurably close to c is completely irrelevant. Some
theorists have even proposed that b does not equal to c.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser(Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 09:26:59 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
Richard <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3F7B03EC.238BC5C2@yahoo.com>...
He should also derive the value of k, which he doesn't do, thus
rendering the derivation a non derivation and just a waste of time.
Richard Perry
Regarding:
x'=Y(v)(x-vt)
t'=Y(v)(t-kvx)
Y(v)=1/sqrt(1-kv^2)
You're just quibbling. If I label 1/k as b^2, then b becomes the
greatest possible velocity. The measured value of k or b may be
determined from the mass increase formula, m=(m_0)Y(v) or the
consequent mass energy equation E=mb^2. Recognizing b to be
immeasurably close to c is completely irrelevant. Some
theorists have even proposed that b does not equal to c.
Ok, but you haven't derived the lorentz transform, you've derived a
redundant version of the the Galilean transform, because the greatest
possible 'mathematical' speed is infinity.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
02 Oct 2003 11:37:08 PM |
|
|
Richard wrote:
Ok, but you haven't derived the lorentz transform, you've derived a
redundant version of the the Galilean transform, because the greatest
possible 'mathematical' speed is infinity.
As he has been told time and time again. Do you think he actually listens?
Eugene is utterly exasperating
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
30 Sep 2003 07:57:34 AM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com...
Confession Number 1
I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.
I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:
Thus moving clocks tick at the same rate as stationary clocks
This assertion is proven to be wrong by the GPS. The SR effect between the
GPS clock and the ground clock is 7 us/day running slow by the GPS clock.
You are assuming the existence of an absolute time and that there exists a
universal clock. In that case the rate of passage of absolute time between
two universal clocks would be the same.
Unfortunately, ordinary clocks are not universal clocks.
Ken Seto
and the
mapping: (x,T)-->(x',T') defined by the relations x'=x-uT and T'=T is
a change of coordinate map from events in L to events in L'.
I thought that sentence was a relevant milestone in my proof.
Rindler's jaw literally dropped and I felt terribly embarrassed by his
very visible show of obvious misunderstanding. (How could any graduate
student who, only a few years before, seemed competent and rational in
his relativity classes, now be an anti-relativity crackpot?) With a
deep sense of heartfelt humility and apology, I then hastily explained
that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of
reference but not for three simultaneously. That had a calming effect
but it didn't come close to repairing the rift that I had created. My
purpose in using "shock and awe" was to vividly impress the professor
with a very charming and delightful derivation. Instead, I alienated
professor Rindler from his usual kind and friendly regards, as if I
had purposely fooled him with unethical trickery and deception.
Sensing his discomfort that I continue, we exchanged a few irrelevant,
uncomfortable and clumsy words and we ended our conversation with
surprising abruptness. That situation felt so awkward (the worse I've
every experienced) that I haven't had the temerity to speak to
professor Rindler since.
Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
28 Sep 2003 06:30:43 PM |
|
|
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0309281052.37725519@posting.google.com>...
Confession Number 1
I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.
I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:
That's the second most insightful way to derive the Lorentz Transformation.
The most insightful way is to do it just like Lorentz did.
Assume that there is an Aether, assume that Einstone is an idiot,
and also assume that Rindler is a German infiltrator, and an Einstein
wannabee, who wouldn't know the difference bewteen a Turing machine
or a rotating black hole or his Newtonian *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
01 Oct 2003 12:43:35 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote
I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.
etc.
Eugene Shubert
I think that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between
a curriculum, leading to a qualification, and learning, purely
devoted to seeking the objective truth.
A qualification proves only that you have learned what is taught
in the curriculum, and what is taught there may or may not
be true. Yesterday's theory can become defunct today, and
what gained you a qualification yesterday can result in
failure today. But, if you depart from anything in the
curriculum, you can expect to be burned at the stake, as it
were, because current theory is the only standard that
can be used.
I think, however, that there can be too much burning at the
stake of people who launch themselves into some innovation,
whether or not it turns out to be correct. Without freedom of
thought, and the freedom to risk being wrong, even the truth
does not benefit people, because nothing can benefit a person,
or become part of the understanding, without the exercise
of the free will.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
29 Sep 2003 05:53:21 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:
A few questions:
1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your methods
is located at?
2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at the
same time. No appeal to magic or whatever just a straight answer.
3. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different versions
of SR. The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others? What is wrong with the definition of say syncing two clocks close
together then slowly moving them apart or TWLS? While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
30 Sep 2003 08:21:33 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f78b6c6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
A few questions:
1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your methods
is located at?
Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091
2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at the
same time.
Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.
3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different versions
of SR.
Not necessarily.
3b. While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?
The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?
The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
3c. What is wrong with the definition of say syncing two clocks close
together then slowly moving them apart or TWLS?
That's a definition of what? If the answer is clock synchronization,
then I'd say you get into big trouble in a universe like S^3xR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Palenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
30 Sep 2003 11:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309300521.1e39f930@posting.google.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f78b6c6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
A few questions:
1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your
methods
is located at?
Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.
Ah, so, in other words, when you said you "stunned Rindler", you lied.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091
2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the
Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at
the
same time.
Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.
By saying that you derived lorentz transformations from Galilean
transformations - either you mean that, which is what you stated, or you
have misconstrued the meaning of your own words, in which case, a little
more clarification is in order.
3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different
versions
of SR.
Not necessarily.
Where have you been?
3b. While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and
entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?
The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?
The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
30 Sep 2003 07:25:22 PM |
|
|
Mark Palenik wrote:
Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.
Thanks Mark. I have been confronting this bozo for a while now. It was
taking its tool. Recently a number of people such as Bigle and David have
taken him to task. For this I am eternally grateful.
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: Confessions of an SR Prankster and Special Relativity Rabble-Rouser (Eugene Shubert) |
30 Sep 2003 06:50:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<2GWdnfcMc_XdKOSiXTWJjg@wideopenwest.com>...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0309300521.1e39f930@posting.google.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f78b6c6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
A few questions:
1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your
methods is located at?
Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.
Ah, so, in other words, when you said you "stunned Rindler", you lied.
I'm using the phrase "stunned Wolfgang Rindler" as a synonym for
"Rindler's jaw literally dropped." Is that a misrepresentation to you?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091
2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the
Galilean transformation results. How can a quantity be finite
and infinite at the same time.
Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.
By saying that you derived lorentz transformations from Galilean
transformations - either you mean that, which is what you stated, or you
have misconstrued the meaning of your own words, in which case, a little
more clarification is in order.
I don't know what I need to add to my already short paper
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity ) to assure you that I
haven't misconstrued a thing. I understand the Galilean transformation
in one spatial dimension to be the transformation: x'=x-uT , T'=T.
This transformation plays a central role in my derivation of the
Lorentz transformation. Consequently, technically and as amazingly as
it sounds, I believe that I can truthfully say that I have derived the
Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation. All my words
are true and correct. The problem is, my words don't mean what you
think they mean.
3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different
versions of SR.
Not necessarily.
Where have you been?
Perhaps I was teaching a mathematics class. Sameness and difference
doesn't mean much unless it's defined properly. You may have heard
that a topologist doesn't know the difference between a donut and a
coffee cup. That statement is literally true. But then again, you have
to take a course in topology to understand what topology is and a
course in mathematical logic to understand what "true" is.
3b. While the different versions of SR found from
these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your
definition that makes it better than others?
The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?
The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.
Isn't that what graduate school instruction in math is all about?
BTW, there are highly qualified persons who can testify to you that my
derivation of SR is enlightening and enjoyable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3e172937%40sys13.hou.wt.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22led+from+%22Galilean+synchronization%22+Lorentz+transformation%22+surprising+enlightening+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity+group:sci.physics.relativity&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.relativity&selm=x0feb.27627%24sp2
5958%40lakeread04&rnum=1
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
