|
|
| User: "proton" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 04:21:08 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames?
Bill, it is not that simple. If it was, it wouldn't have taken an
Einstein to come up with the theory of relativity. The first obstacle
was to decide between absolute or relative space. Newton, who was much
more genious than you and me, pondered about this issue and finally
adopted an absolute space. None of the physicists who followed him
could come up with anything different, until Einstein. In fact, the
postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
is not strictly Einstein's: it can be traced back to Galileo. However,
when we put this together with the postulate that the speed of light
is the same in all inertial frames, is when we run into relativistic
physics, which is not at all intuitive. It was an experimental
discovery that this is in fact the case, but as you see, it was not an
obvious thing, and indeed many thinkers distrusted (and still
distrust) some of the conclusions.
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't be so
dismissive about other people's ideas, because they might have a
point, even though they might be wrong.
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
About the Lorentz factor, it can be easily derived from retarded
potentials, without any of the relativity postulates. For example,
Gerber in 1840 (I can't remember the exact date) gave a gravitational
formula with the Lorentz transformation, which also accurately
predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, based only on a
finite speed of propagation of gravitation.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms? Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
Bill
Updated May 27, 2007
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 10:45:11 PM |
|
|
"proton" <leosarasua@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180257668.527363.303090@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames?
Bill, it is not that simple. If it was, it wouldn't have taken an
Einstein to come up with the theory of relativity.
I am sorry but it is that simple. Basically all SR requires in the
principle of relativity and the idea of locality - technically a few more
actual axioms are required such as clocks and rulers have no memory - but
basically that is all there is to it. Geniuses like Einstein can see simple
things other didn't. Poincare, for example, had all the machinery, and even
came up many of its equations, to do it, but couldn't see it because he was
locked into the old way thinking. He never accepted Einstein's derivation,
insisting other axioms were required. And technically he is correct - but
Einstein saw those other axioms were not the crux of the matter - something
Poincare never understood.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
'In a sense, the failure of Poincare to found the modern theory of
relativity was not due to a lack of discernment on his part (he clearly
recognized the Lorentz group of space and time transformations), but rather
to an excess of discernment and philosophical sophistication, preventing him
from subscribing to the young patent examiner's inspired but perhaps
slightly naive enthusiasm for the symmetrical interpretation, which is,
after all, only one of infinitely many possibilities. Poincare recognized
too well the extent to which our physical models are both conventional and
provisional. In retrospect, Poincare's scruples have the appearance of
someone arguing that we could just as well regard the Earth rather than the
Sun as the center of the solar system, i.e., his reservations were (and are)
technically valid, but in some sense misguided. Also, as Max Born remarked,
to the end of Poincare's life his expositions of relativity "definitely give
you the impression that he is recording Lorentz's work", and yet "Lorentz
never claimed to be the author of the principle of relativity", but
invariably attributed it to Einstein. Indeed Lorentz himself often expressed
reservations about the relativistic interpretation.'
Einstein was the first to see through the haze and understand the POR (along
with the light postulate that later investigations showed is not really
required) was the essence. That is his accomplishment and why he is
considered the founder of SR.
The first obstacle
was to decide between absolute or relative space. Newton, who was much
more genious than you and me, pondered about this issue and finally
adopted an absolute space. None of the physicists who followed him
could come up with anything different, until Einstein. In fact, the
postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
is not strictly Einstein's: it can be traced back to Galileo. However,
when we put this together with the postulate that the speed of light
is the same in all inertial frames, is when we run into relativistic
physics, which is not at all intuitive.
It is now known that that postulate is not required - all one needs to
assume is that time and space are on equal footing or that locality applies
(which we now know is basically the same thing) - ie things take a finite
time to propagate. The fact that the speed of light is constant is not a
consequence of SR - it is a consequence of local charge conservation.
However, Einstein did not know this, and took the speed of light being
constant as his second axiom. That does not change the fact it is not
required, and in fact clouds what SR is really about by making people think
it is a theory about light - it isn't.
It was an experimental
discovery that this is in fact the case, but as you see, it was not an
obvious thing, and indeed many thinkers distrusted (and still
distrust) some of the conclusions.
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't be so
dismissive about other people's ideas, because they might have a
point, even though they might be wrong.
Shubee has been posting the same stuff for some time now. Enough analysis
of it has been done to prove it is rubbish beyond a shadow of doubt.
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
About the Lorentz factor, it can be easily derived from retarded
potentials, without any of the relativity postulates.
To derive relativity you need the POR - no way around it. You might get
some of the formulas the same but it is not relativity.
Thanks
Bill
For example,
Gerber in 1840 (I can't remember the exact date) gave a gravitational
formula with the Lorentz transformation, which also accurately
predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, based only on a
finite speed of propagation of gravitation.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms? Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
Bill
Updated May 27, 2007
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 02:15:14 PM |
|
|
On 2007-05-27, proton <leosarasua@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames?
Bill, it is not that simple.
I'm sorry, but it is that simple. Special relativity is no more
complicated than the pythagorean theorem. The only difference from
the theorem developed by pythagoreas is that pythagoreas did not
allow for the possibility of `-' signs. Once you allow for the
possibility s^2 = +/-(x_0)^2 +/- ... +/- (x^n)^2, all that remains is
to choose `n' and the signs to agree with experimental data. That
fixes the transformations between coordinate systems.
If it was, it wouldn't have taken an Einstein to come up with the
theory of relativity.
The reason that it took ``an Einstein'' to come up with the theory
is that physics prior to that was based on an _implicit_ assumption
that galilean transforms were correct. Physicists before einstein
had all attempted to force E&M to fit that implicit assumption. Einstein
was the first to recognize that the implicit assumption of galilean
invariance, was an _assumption_, not a universal truth.
If you were to apply your same argument to the development of newtonian
mechanics, you would have to conclude that it shouldn't have taken a newton
to do so, since galileo stated everything necessary to derive all of
classical mechanics (even the conservation laws of energy and momentum,
which were not understood until the early 20th century). Unfortunately,
newton (like einstein) had to develop their ideas at a time when the
mathematical framework available was insufficient to make anything obvious.
Today, the only excuse for not being able to connect the dots, is never
having the connection explained.
The first obstacle was to decide between absolute or relative space.
Newton, who was much more genious than you and me, pondered about
this issue and finally adopted an absolute space.
The only meaning of the ``absolute space (or time)'' for which the
word ``absolute'' makes any sense is a space (time) in which an origin
can be fixed. Newton clearly did this for the time coordinte (but
lacked the insight to consider time a coordinte and left the meaning
of time to philosophy). He clearly meant time to be absolute in the
sense that all observers agree on a single position in time (see his
definition 2 in the principia). His use of absolute to describe space
differs:
``Positions properly have no quantity, nor are they so much the
places themselves, as the properties of places.''
That is what we mean by ``relative.'' If you really want to argue
that newton assumed absolute space as the basis of his theory, then
you have to conclude that his theory doesn't follow from his assumptions.
Basically, newton made observations which led to his three laws and
then attempted to define space and time to fit the theory. His definitions
are rather vague because he lacked the framework to make the rigorous
connection between his theory and galilean invariance.
None of the physicists who followed him
could come up with anything different, until Einstein. In fact, the
postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
is not strictly Einstein's: it can be traced back to Galileo.
Precisely. I will enumerate the likenesses and differences in the
two versions of this principle.
Both theories assume invariance under spatial translations, so that
both concepts of relativity to refer to an affine space. Both also
assume invariance under time translations. Hence, both theories are
based on an affine _spacetime_. (That is essentially the definition
of affine). The origin is not fixed, so there is nothing remotely
``absolute'' in the choice of time or spatial coordinates. Translations
are generated by d/dx^a, where x^a are the space and time _coordinates_
in both theories.
Both theories assumed that the spatial distance does not depend upon
any preferred spatial orientation. This is carried over unchanged from
galilean relativity to special relativity and accounts for 3 of the 6
proper lorentz transforms. The rotations are generated by
x^i d/dx^j - x^j d/dx^i.
Galileo further assumed that translations along the velocity were of
the form, x' = x -vT, T' = T and implicitly assumed that t could be
chosen arbitrarily and consistently to represent the ``same'' instant
in time for all observers (which newton stated explicitly in the principia).
Einstein did not make these two assumptions, and using a physical
argument based on his belief that maxwell's equations were correct,
came up with the the 3 lorentz boosts, td/dx^i - x^i d/dx^j.
Einstein's theory differs from lorentz' theory and other attempts to
reconcile maxwell's equations with newtonian mechanics) )in that lorentz
and others attempted to force two incompatible concepts to be compatible
through an ether, to retain the concept of an absolute time. Einstein
disregarded the concept of an absolute time, which eliminated the
inconsistencies of other the attempts.
However,
when we put this together with the postulate that the speed of light
is the same in all inertial frames, is when we run into relativistic
physics, which is not at all intuitive.
Nothing is intuitive until it is understood, after which it is
called ``obvious.'' It took another 150 years after newton to develop
the concept of energy and another 100 years to demonstrate that
conservation of energy is implicit in the assumption of invariance
under time translations. At this juncture in history, physicists
realize that special relativity has no conncection to light other
than maxwell's equations, which are one possible relativistic
theory of E&M.
[...]
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't be so
dismissive about other people's ideas, because they might have a
point, even though they might be wrong.
The ideas of others is not the issue. The issue is the ideas of
others which the others are attempting to justify with assumptions
that are known to be incorrect and/or naive. If anyone happens to
post an idea which doesn't fail at the assumption stage, then
the idea would be worth considering. All you have to do is read
the physics journals to see that such ideas are abundant.
[...]
About the Lorentz factor, it can be easily derived from retarded
potentials, without any of the relativity postulates.
Not really, since you can't define the non-retarded potentials without
first assuming something about the geometry in which the potentials are
defined. It is fortuitous that the range of the E&M force is infinite,
otherwise gauss' law would not hold. If you think otherwise, try deriving
the retarded potentials for the nuclear force, where the range is finite so
that you don't have the luxury of using infinity which is infinity no matter
how you define distance.
For example,
Gerber in 1840 (I can't remember the exact date) gave a gravitational
formula with the Lorentz transformation, which also accurately
predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, based only on a
finite speed of propagation of gravitation.
That is called ``fitting to a function.'' The technique is common
anytime you either have no fundamental theory or the fundamental
theory is so complex that it is (practically) impossible or isn't worth
the effort to calculate an exact result. For instance, optical potentials
are often used in nuclear physics to extrapolate the scattering at
one energy to energies which are not too different as a means of
looking for a departure from the potential that indicates interesting
physics. The phenomenologically derived potential is not considered
to be an alternative to a more fundmental theory.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TruthCheck" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 07:30:17 PM |
|
|
On May 27, 5:21 am, proton <leosara...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
Bill, it is not that simple. If it was, it wouldn't have taken an
Einstein to come up with the theory of relativity. The first obstacle
was to decide between absolute or relative space. Newton, who was much
more genious than you and me, pondered about this issue and finally
adopted an absolute space. None of the physicists who followed him
could come up with anything different, until Einstein.
That's because everyone was still thinking 3 dimensionally. No one
could picture a Space Ship rotating across the open 4 dimensions of
Space-Time.
In fact, the
postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
is not strictly Einstein's: it can be traced back to Galileo. However,
when we put this together with the postulate that the speed of light
is the same in all inertial frames, is when we run into relativistic
physics, which is not at all intuitive.
Relativity is a leap one takes if you can't find the step to step on
that takes you to the proper destination of understanding. If you
take that a leap yet when looking back-over you still can't find that
step that connects everything together, then obviously the theory has
a flaw within it. A flaw / incompleteness will then trigger endless
arguments.
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't be so
dismissive about other people's ideas, because they might have a
point, even though they might be wrong.
Right On !
About the Lorentz factor, it can be easily derived from retarded
potentials, without any of the relativity postulates.
Analyse Constant Motion present within an open constantly existing
Space-Time environment, and no Special Relativity ever pops up even
though the analysis produces the same equations known today as the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation,
the
Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.
See http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 04:02:46 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames?
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms? Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
I mean, damn.
Is it really asking _that much_ to make your assumptions explicit? And
is it really asking _that much_ for him to actually make a connection
to physics, which what his "theory" is supposed to supplant?
One would think that several years of spamming USENET would actually
have some significant fruits...
Bill
Updated May 27, 2007
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 10:11:44 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180256566.635342.91540@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames?
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms? Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
I mean, damn.
Is it really asking _that much_ to make your assumptions explicit? And
is it really asking _that much_ for him to actually make a connection
to physics, which what his "theory" is supposed to supplant?
One would think that several years of spamming USENET would actually
have some significant fruits...
Actually it has born some fruit - of course not of the type Shubee wants.
One knowledgeable poster (the mathematical physicist David McAnally from the
University of Queensland, right here in good old Brisbane Australia where I
live, if I recall correctly - but don't hold me to it) - did an actual
analysis of his 'derivation'. It is an interesting mathematical quick based
on an ad-hoc definition of syncing that allows Newtonian space-time to mimic
SR - nothing more. It provided a rather interesting discussion between him
and Bilge on the issue. I learnt the specifics of what different clock
syncing schemes can do - not just the obvious - that they lead to different
transformations.
On the negative side Shubee's disgusting attitude has driven a rather
interesting regular poster away - Jay. I did not always agree with his
ideas but they were interesting and contained mathematics. Shubee made some
very derogatory remarks that must have annoyed him enough to stop posting -
pity. Jay should have understood Shubee is an idiot and their opinions
don't count.
Thanks
Bill
Bill
Updated May 27, 2007
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
01 Jun 2007 08:03:12 PM |
|
|
On May 27, 8:11 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
One would think that several years of spamming USENET would actually
have some significant fruits...
Actually it has born some fruit - of course not of the type Shubee wants.
One knowledgeable poster (the mathematical physicist David McAnally from the
University of Queensland, right here in good old Brisbane Australia where I
live, if I recall correctly - but don't hold me to it) - did an actual
analysis of his 'derivation'. It is an interesting mathematical quick based
on an ad-hoc definition of syncing that allows Newtonian space-time to mimic
SR - nothing more. It provided a rather interesting discussion between him
and Bilge on the issue. I learnt the specifics of what different clock
syncing schemes can do - not just the obvious - that they lead to different
transformations.
On the negative side Shubee's disgusting attitude has driven a rather
interesting regular poster away - Jay. I did not always agree with his
ideas but they were interesting and contained mathematics. Shubee made some
very derogatory remarks that must have annoyed him enough to stop posting -
pity. Jay should have understood Shubee is an idiot and their opinions
don't count.
Thanks
Bill
You are one of the most dishonest detractors I know. Why should anyone
believe you?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
01 Jun 2007 08:20:58 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 6:03 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
You are one of the most dishonest detractors I know. Why should anyone
believe you?
The reason is rather simple. He isn't an idiot.
Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 07:26:03 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames?
I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary and
that all the successes of relativity theory do not require that
assumption. Furthermore, I also argue that Einsteinian SR might not
even appear in the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable universes, i.e.,
it could simply be a mathematical fantasy.
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms?
You obviously don't understand my claim of devising the most
irreducible axioms possible.
Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
That only proves how demented you are, trying to believe a lie and
encouraging everyone else to be as deceived as you are. However, I
will acknowledge that my derivation is so natural and compelling that
it only seems that I'm not making any profound assumptions. That only
proves how good it is.
It should be emphasized that my creation of a seeming miracle, which
is beyond your ability to unravel, is no proof that a miracle hasn't
occurred.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 11:24:46 PM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180268763.558263.5860@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.423349.216730@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames?
I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary and
that all the successes of relativity theory do not require that
assumption.
No you haven't. All you have done is show how a certain adhoc definition of
simultaneity on Newtonian space-time leads to some equations of SR. It
contains no physics at all as many many experts have pointed out to you, yet
you refuse to accept eg
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/47c9c78acd1ad59c
That fact that post was done in 2003 shows for how long you have been
posting the same rubbish, and how long it has over and over been pointed out
is devoid of any physical content. But like flat earth nuts logic will not
stop you because you have abandoned it.
Bill
Furthermore, I also argue that Einsteinian SR might not
even appear in the Hilbert atlas of all conceivable universes, i.e.,
it could simply be a mathematical fantasy.
should be happy
to learn how to derive the Lorentz transformation by starting with the
most irreducible axioms possible and thus arrive at the essence of
relativity without a fuss.
You mean that you can derive with zero axioms?
You obviously don't understand my claim of devising the most
irreducible axioms possible.
Actually that is what you
believe - which only goes to show what a load of rubbish it is.
That only proves how demented you are, trying to believe a lie and
encouraging everyone else to be as deceived as you are. However, I
will acknowledge that my derivation is so natural and compelling that
it only seems that I'm not making any profound assumptions. That only
proves how good it is.
It should be emphasized that my creation of a seeming miracle, which
is beyond your ability to unravel, is no proof that a miracle hasn't
occurred.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 08:27:09 AM |
|
|
I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
I would like to comment that.
Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If so,
then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
restatement of the definition !?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 09:47:31 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 6:27 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
I would like to comment that.
Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If so,
then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
restatement of the definition !?
In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute yet
undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 10:37:18 AM |
|
|
Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If so,
then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
restatement of the definition !?
In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute yet
undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
That is not what I said.
I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 10:57:20 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If so,
then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
restatement of the definition !?
In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute yet
undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
That is not what I said.
I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
My response is called answering a question with a question. I suspect
yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
insist on a stupid definition of physics.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 11:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If
so,
: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >
: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute yet
: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >
: > That is not what I said.
: >
: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
:
: My response is called answering a question with a question. I suspect
: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 12:58:53 PM |
|
|
In sci.math, Androcles
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
<3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s), equations,
: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's? If
so,
: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >
: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute yet
: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >
: > That is not what I said.
: >
: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
:
: My response is called answering a question with a question. I suspect
: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 05:28:34 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.math, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
: <3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s),
equations,
: >: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's?
If
: > so,
: >: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: >: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >: >
: >: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute
yet
: >: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >: >
: >: > That is not what I said.
: >: >
: >: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: >: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
: >:
: >: My response is called answering a question with a question. I suspect
: >: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
: >: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: >: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: >: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
: >
: > Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
: >
:
: Nobody can.
Exactly. Mr. Nothing Important Shubert assumes his beloved cuckoo
malformations can be derived from his beloved cuckoo malformations.
The idiot is too dumb to recognise his own circularity. So was Einstein.
: SR can never be proven and has already been
: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
"Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more slowly, by a
very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial situated at one of the
poles under otherwise identical conditions."
When Einstein had that stupidity pointed out to him he rushed out to learn
matrix algebra and invented GR to keep the sundials in synch.
SR and GR rely on each other, a sundial at the equator runs faster than
a sundial at the pole without SR to slow it down.
All only-one-speeders are totally deranged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 08:27:08 AM |
|
|
In sci.math, Androcles
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 10:28:34 GMT
<m9y6i.72235$Ch.26836@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.math, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
: <3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s),
equations,
: >: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's?
If
: > so,
: >: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: >: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >: >
: >: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute
yet
: >: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >: >
: >: > That is not what I said.
: >: >
: >: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: >: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
: >:
: >: My response is called answering a question with a question. I suspect
: >: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
: >: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: >: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: >: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
: >
: > Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
: >
:
: Nobody can.
Exactly. Mr. Nothing Important Shubert assumes his beloved cuckoo
malformations can be derived from his beloved cuckoo malformations.
The idiot is too dumb to recognise his own circularity. So was Einstein.
An interesting claim. Is this circularity explained somewhere?
: SR can never be proven and has already been
: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
This has been explained to you more than once.
"Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more slowly, by a
very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial situated at one of the
poles under otherwise identical conditions."
When Einstein had that stupidity pointed out to him he rushed out to learn
matrix algebra and invented GR to keep the sundials in synch.
SR and GR rely on each other, a sundial at the equator runs faster than
a sundial at the pole without SR to slow it down.
All only-one-speeders are totally deranged.
Of course we are. That's why supernovae don't last 50 years.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 02:26:55 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cu1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.math, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Mon, 28 May 2007 10:28:34 GMT
: <m9y6i.72235$Ch.26836@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
: > news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: >: In sci.math, Androcles
: >: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: >: wrote
: >: on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
: >: <3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >: >
: >: > "Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >: > news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >: >: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s),
: > equations,
: >: >: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's?
: > If
: >: > so,
: >: >: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: >: >: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute
: > yet
: >: >: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > That is not what I said.
: >: >: >
: >: >: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: >: >: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
: >: >:
: >: >: My response is called answering a question with a question. I
suspect
: >: >: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe
that
: >: >: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: >: >: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: >: >: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
: >: >
: >: > Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Nobody can.
: >
: > Exactly. Mr. Nothing Important Shubert assumes his beloved cuckoo
: > malformations can be derived from his beloved cuckoo malformations.
: > The idiot is too dumb to recognise his own circularity. So was Einstein.
:
: An interesting claim. Is this circularity explained somewhere?
:
Einstein or Mr. Nothing Important Shubert?
Einstein's is easy to spot, Shubert's is unimportant.
: >: SR can never be proven and has already been
: >: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
: >
: > SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
:
: Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
: frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
: This has been explained to you more than once.
Show me where it says "inertial" anywhere in Einstein's paper.
This has been explained to you more than once, fuckhead, and has never
been explained to me.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img26.gif
: > "Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more slowly,
by a
: > very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial situated at one of
the
: > poles under otherwise identical conditions."
: >
: > When Einstein had that stupidity pointed out to him he rushed out to
learn
: > matrix algebra and invented GR to keep the sundials in synch.
: >
: > SR and GR rely on each other, a sundial at the equator runs faster than
: > a sundial at the pole without SR to slow it down.
: >
: > All only-one-speeders are totally deranged.
: >
:
: Of course we are.
Understood and agreed.
: That's why supernovae don't last 50 years.
Off topic, deranged fuckhead. The discussion is SR, not supernovae. See
thread title, and you wouldn't know the difference between recurrent novae
and supernovae anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 03:13:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.math, Androcles
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 19:26:55 GMT
<32G6i.74336$Ch.15487@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cu1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.math, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Mon, 28 May 2007 10:28:34 GMT
: <m9y6i.72235$Ch.26836@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
: > news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: >: In sci.math, Androcles
: >: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: >: wrote
: >: on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
: >: <3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >: >
: >: > "Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >: > news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >: >: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s),
: > equations,
: >: >: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all I.F's?
: > If
: >: > so,
: >: >: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per word
: >: >: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an absolute
: > yet
: >: >: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a tautology?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > That is not what I said.
: >: >: >
: >: >: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: >: >: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
: >: >:
: >: >: My response is called answering a question with a question. I
suspect
: >: >: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe
that
: >: >: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of reference
: >: >: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: >: >: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
: >: >
: >: > Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Nobody can.
: >
: > Exactly. Mr. Nothing Important Shubert assumes his beloved cuckoo
: > malformations can be derived from his beloved cuckoo malformations.
: > The idiot is too dumb to recognise his own circularity. So was Einstein.
:
: An interesting claim. Is this circularity explained somewhere?
:
Einstein or Mr. Nothing Important Shubert?
Einstein's is easy to spot, Shubert's is unimportant.
: >: SR can never be proven and has already been
: >: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
: >
: > SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
:
: Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
: frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
: This has been explained to you more than once.
Show me where it says "inertial" anywhere in Einstein's paper.
This has been explained to you more than once, fuckhead, and has never
been explained to me.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img26.gif
: > "Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more slowly,
by a
: > very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial situated at one of
the
: > poles under otherwise identical conditions."
: >
: > When Einstein had that stupidity pointed out to him he rushed out to
learn
: > matrix algebra and invented GR to keep the sundials in synch.
: >
: > SR and GR rely on each other, a sundial at the equator runs faster than
: > a sundial at the pole without SR to slow it down.
: >
: > All only-one-speeders are totally deranged.
: >
:
: Of course we are.
Understood and agreed.
: That's why supernovae don't last 50 years.
Off topic, deranged fuckhead. The discussion is SR, not supernovae. See
thread title, and you wouldn't know the difference between recurrent novae
and supernovae anyway.
Why, you're right! We're off topic if we discuss anything but SR!
OK...so what about AQL1493? Gotta be off-topic too.
How about Henri Wilson? His multispeed theory (BaTh) is perfectly
reasonable, as it agrees with all data (by his own statements).
--
#191,
Murphy was an optimist.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 08:21:25 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:jnpri4-4lb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.math, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Mon, 28 May 2007 19:26:55 GMT
: <32G6i.74336$Ch.15487@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
: > news:cu1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: >: In sci.math, Androcles
: >: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: >: wrote
: >: on Mon, 28 May 2007 10:28:34 GMT
: >: <m9y6i.72235$Ch.26836@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >: >
: >: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
: > message
: >: > news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: >: >: In sci.math, Androcles
: >: >: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: >: >: wrote
: >: >: on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
: >: >: <3ti6i.57919$Ug.44815@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >: >: >
: >: >: > "Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >: >: > news:1180281440.253858.312960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >: >: >: On May 27, 8:37 am, "rot...@gmail.com" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: >: > >> > Is not a "law of physics", by definition, a rule(s),
: >: > equations,
: >: >: >: > > > principle which is the same (have the same form) in all
I.F's?
: >: > If
: >: >: > so,
: >: >: >: > > > then Einstein's relativity postulate is just a word per
word
: >: >: >: > > > restatement of the definition !?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > > In other words, you believe that the nonexistence of an
absolute
: >: > yet
: >: >: >: > > undetectable frame of reference can be proven from a
tautology?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > That is not what I said.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > I am just asking, is not the principle of relativity just a
: >: >: >: > restatement of the definition of "law of physics" ? So is it?
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: My response is called answering a question with a question. I
: > suspect
: >: >: >: yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe
: > that
: >: >: >: the nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame of
reference
: >: >: >: can be proven from a tautology. But you're never going to see me
: >: >: >: insist on a stupid definition of physics.
: >: >: >
: >: >: > Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
: >: >: >
: >: >:
: >: >: Nobody can.
: >: >
: >: > Exactly. Mr. Nothing Important Shubert assumes his beloved cuckoo
: >: > malformations can be derived from his beloved cuckoo malformations.
: >: > The idiot is too dumb to recognise his own circularity. So was
Einstein.
: >:
: >: An interesting claim. Is this circularity explained somewhere?
: >:
: >
: > Einstein or Mr. Nothing Important Shubert?
: >
: > Einstein's is easy to spot, Shubert's is unimportant.
: >
: >
: >: >: SR can never be proven and has already been
: >: >: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
: >: >
: >: > SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
: >:
: >: Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
: >: frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
: >
: >: This has been explained to you more than once.
: >
: > Show me where it says "inertial" anywhere in Einstein's paper.
: > This has been explained to you more than once, fuckhead, and has never
: > been explained to me.
: >
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img26.gif
: >
: >
: >: > "Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more
slowly,
: > by a
: >: > very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial situated at one
of
: > the
: >: > poles under otherwise identical conditions."
: >: >
: >: > When Einstein had that stupidity pointed out to him he rushed out to
: > learn
: >: > matrix algebra and invented GR to keep the sundials in synch.
: >: >
: >: > SR and GR rely on each other, a sundial at the equator runs faster
than
: >: > a sundial at the pole without SR to slow it down.
: >: >
: >: > All only-one-speeders are totally deranged.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Of course we are.
: >
: > Understood and agreed.
: >
: >: That's why supernovae don't last 50 years.
: >
: > Off topic, deranged fuckhead. The discussion is SR, not supernovae. See
: > thread title, and you wouldn't know the difference between recurrent
novae
: > and supernovae anyway.
: >
:
: Why, you're right!
Of course I am. You should tell your pal Dork the local village dog tord
that.
Oh wait, you did, didn't you?
Something about percentages, I believe. It didn't sink in, he still wrote a
"fumble".
: We're off topic if we discuss anything but SR!
Correct. In this thread we are limited to
Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second
Postulate
: OK...so what about AQL1493?
What about it?
: Gotta be off-topic too.
Of course. I didn't mention it in this thread, you did. Start a new thread
if you want discuss astronomy.
: How about Henri Wilson? His multispeed theory (BaTh) is perfectly
: reasonable, as it agrees with all data (by his own statements).
Off topic. I didn't mention Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Worbits in this thread.
Start a new thread if you want discuss astronomy.
This is about:
"Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second
Postulate" (or even his third postulate, the time for light to go from A to
B is equal to the time it takes to go from B to A, which _HE_ (Einstein )
says is c+v one way and c-v the other and has to go both ways to be c =
2AB/t'A=tA).
I want to see Mr. Nothing Important Shubert do his deriving and then we'll
have Eugene Shubert's unimportant theory to shred. But then I've shredded it
before, he has a new one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's Firstor Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 06:28:45 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.math, Androcles wrote
: SR can never be proven and has already been
: disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
This is not true, and SR can be applied easily and directly to Sagnac's
experiment. SR predicts a fringe shift that is consistent with his
observations, and with the vastly more precise modern repetitions of his
experiment (e.g. fiber gyros). SR can be used to analyze rotating and
accelerating systems in flat spacetime. What SR cannot handle is
gravitation (a curved manifold or non-trivial topology) -- one needs GR
for that.
That being said, no scientific theory, SR included, can ever be proven
-- proof is inapplicable to science: what matters is experimental
confirmation and lack of experimental refutation.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 08:23:14 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NAJ6i.12433$RX.3631@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
: The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: > In sci.math, Androcles wrote
: >> : SR can never be proven and has already been
: >> : disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
: >>
: >> SR cannot be proven because it was disproven (by Sagnac in 1913).
: >
: > Sagnac is a bit outside SR's scope; SR requires inertial reference
: > frames. Sagnac is within a rotating frame.
:
: This is not true,
*****, Roberts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 12:27:00 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
No theory can really be proven.
How has SR been disproven?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 08:25:17 AM |
|
|
In sci.math, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:27:00 +1000
<f3drbk$99u$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
No theory can really be proven.
How has SR been disproven?
Well, the simplest method is by using NST-2 data; the data
do not match SR, but match GR perfectly. :-)
Like I said...it's a detail. :-) And it's a bit like Newton's
mechanics; they work for low v. Similarly, SR works for low
gravitational fields.
As for disproof -- that's reasonably easy; an example
would be a peer-reviewed experiment that shows that moving
electron-positron pairs do not shift their wavelengths
from the expected 0.511 MeV value.
(Since this is impossible -- a similar experiment did show a
shift -- I'm not too worried. I can't give a proper reference
but someone did fire off decaying pi mesons at about 0.2 c.)
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 05:55:21 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tq1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.math, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:27:00 +1000
<f3drbk$99u$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
No theory can really be proven.
How has SR been disproven?
Well, the simplest method is by using NST-2 data; the data
do not match SR, but match GR perfectly. :-)
That does not disprove SR .. you cannot use a theory outside of the area in
which it is applies.
Like I said...it's a detail. :-) And it's a bit like Newton's
mechanics; they work for low v. Similarly, SR works for low
gravitational fields.
Yes .. that's its scope. GR is the extension of SR to apply in graviational
fields.
As for disproof -- that's reasonably easy; an example
would be a peer-reviewed experiment that shows that moving
electron-positron pairs do not shift their wavelengths
from the expected 0.511 MeV value.
(Since this is impossible -- a similar experiment did show a
shift -- I'm not too worried. I can't give a proper reference
but someone did fire off decaying pi mesons at about 0.2 c.)
So really, there is nothing to disprove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 06:07:12 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Tue, 29 May 2007 08:55:21 +1000
<f3fopa$p2q$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tq1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.math, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:27:00 +1000
<f3drbk$99u$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
No theory can really be proven.
How has SR been disproven?
Well, the simplest method is by using NST-2 data; the data
do not match SR, but match GR perfectly. :-)
That does not disprove SR .. you cannot use a theory outside of the area in
which it is applies.
One can, though it wouldn't make much sense. :-) True enough.
Like I said...it's a detail. :-) And it's a bit like Newton's
mechanics; they work for low v. Similarly, SR works for low
gravitational fields.
Yes .. that's its scope. GR is the extension of SR to apply in graviational
fields.
And far more complicated, though perhaps if I were to bear down on
tensors it might become clear to me what "G = T" really means. :-)
As for disproof -- that's reasonably easy; an example
would be a peer-reviewed experiment that shows that moving
electron-positron pairs do not shift their wavelengths
from the expected 0.511 MeV value.
(Since this is impossible -- a similar experiment did show a
shift -- I'm not too worried. I can't give a proper reference
but someone did fire off decaying pi mesons at about 0.2 c.)
So really, there is nothing to disprove it.
Oh, I wouldn't say that; that particular experiment is the only one that
came to mind. There are other observations and experiments that might
be used -- though AFAIK none thus far have done so, unless one counts
Sagnac, which is also outside of SR's sphere of applicability (though an
interesting result in its own right).
--
#191,
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's Firstor Second Postulate |
28 May 2007 08:04:38 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Tue, 29 May 2007 08:55:21 +1000
<f3fopa$p2q$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tq1ri4-3i8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.math, Jeckyl
<noone@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:27:00 +1000
<f3drbk$99u$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:tftoi4-anl.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
No theory can really be proven.
How has SR been disproven?
Well, the simplest method is by using NST-2 data; the data
do not match SR, but match GR perfectly. :-)
That does not disprove SR .. you cannot use a theory outside of the area in
which it is applies.
One can, though it wouldn't make much sense. :-) True enough.
Like I said...it's a detail. :-) And it's a bit like Newton's
mechanics; they work for low v. Similarly, SR works for low
gravitational fields.
Yes .. that's its scope. GR is the extension of SR to apply in graviational
fields.
And far more complicated, though perhaps if I were to bear down on
tensors it might become clear to me what "G = T" really means. :-)
As for disproof -- that's reasonably easy; an example
would be a peer-reviewed experiment that shows that moving
electron-positron pairs do not shift their wavelengths
from the expected 0.511 MeV value.
(Since this is impossible -- a similar experiment did show a
shift -- I'm not too worried. I can't give a proper reference
but someone did fire off decaying pi mesons at about 0.2 c.)
So really, there is nothing to disprove it.
Oh, I wouldn't say that; that particular experiment is the only one that
came to mind. There are other observations and experiments that might
be used -- though AFAIK none thus far have done so, unless one counts
Sagnac, which is also outside of SR's sphere of applicability (though an
interesting result in its own right).
Let me repeat, Ghost--There has never been a prediction of special
relativity that was contradicted by an observation. So far it has
held up for 102 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's Firstor Second Postulate |
27 May 2007 11:52:10 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
Not really... There have a prediction of SR that was contradicted
by an observation. It's just as valid as it always was. GTR can
also deal with gravitation... but that's a detail :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
