| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2006 12:38:59 AM |
| Object: |
The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates |
The divinity of Einstein involves, among other things, his phenomenal
ability to extract a lot of information from very little information.
So he managed to deduce his special theory of relativity from two very
simple postulates - a feat that makes zombies hearts sing. Yet a
hypnotist apparently not very loyal to Einstein's cult claims the
postulates are four. On p. 14 in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
one reads:
"We have assumed in eq. (10.12) that Dx and Dt are linear functions of
Dx' and Dt'. And we have also assumed that A, B, C and D are constants
(that is, dependent only on v, and not on x,t,x',t')."
The mystery (there is always mystery in the education given by
Einstein's hypnotists) is that the second assumption (in fact the
fourth postulate of Einstein) seems redundant. Is it? If it is, the
divine deduction from two very simple postulates will have to be
redefined as a semi-divine deduction from three not so simple
postulates. This would be bad but not fatal. However if Einstein's
fourth postulate ("And we have also assumed that A, B, C and D are
constants...") is not redundant Einstein's deduction becomes almost
equivalent to:
We assume that Dx and Dt are linear functions of Dx' and Dt'. And we
also assume that A, B, C and D are identical to the respective
coefficients in Lorentz equations. Amazingly, although our deduction is
independent, the equations we obtain prove identical to Lorentz
equations.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates |
08 Mar 2006 01:03:48 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The divinity of Einstein involves, among other things, his phenomenal
ability to extract a lot of information from very little information.
So he managed to deduce his special theory of relativity from two very
simple postulates...
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.
"The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters".
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates |
08 Mar 2006 03:01:59 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:olvPf.10975$oL.1164@attbi_s71...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The divinity of Einstein involves, among other things, his phenomenal
ability to extract a lot of information from very little information.
So he managed to deduce his special theory of relativity from two very
simple postulates...
You snipped, worm. That gets you nowhere, it only displays your ignorance.
But if that's how you play...
You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
***** without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg
High school algebra:
x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein
xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
Right or wrong, dumbfuck?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic *****.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c
Right or wrong, shitforbrains?
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.
Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,
[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0
Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
incompetent ***** without a scrap of logic in you,
you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
*****, useless tord!
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop!
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates |
08 Mar 2006 02:38:15 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote: > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
$$ Re: "The earth relatively to the "light medium".." -- Einstein
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..."
$$ "..superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
$$ not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
$$ special properties, ..."
$$ "..nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the [OTHERwise]
$$ empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."
-- A. Einstein
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905 > > "It is known that -=- >
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium",
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest.
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture
(the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle
of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce
another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
the former, namely, that light is always propagated in [OTHERwise]
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice
for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed
will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of
the [OTHERwise] empty space in which electromagnetic processes
take place. -- A. Einstein
Re: The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates.
Re: Propagation of radiation in [OTHERwise] empty space.
Re: The German interpretation of translation is [OTHERwise] EMPTY.
Re: Einstein also infered [OTHERwise] "identical conditions" in his
mixing of frames @ DiFFERENT radii for the SAME GR TEST point-mass,
(of EARth, where he compares gedanken Polar & Equatorial pendulae).
[Clearly, if he had NOT meant "OTHERwise" there is NO distinction].
Re: "The earth relatively to the "light medium".." -- Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: "The earth relatively to the "light medium".." -- Einstein. |
08 Mar 2006 02:38:16 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote: > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
$$ Re: "The earth relatively to the "light medium".." -- Einstein
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..."
$$ "..superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
$$ not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
$$ special properties, ..."
$$ "..nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the [OTHERwise]
$$ empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."
-- A. Einstein
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905 > > "It is known that -=- >
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium",
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest.
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture
(the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle
of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce
another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
the former, namely, that light is always propagated in [OTHERwise]
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice
for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed
will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of
the [OTHERwise] empty space in which electromagnetic processes
take place. -- A. Einstein
Re: The Mystery of Einstein's Postulates.
Re: Propagation of radiation in [OTHERwise] empty space.
Re: The German interpretation of translation is [OTHERwise] EMPTY.
Re: Einstein also infered [OTHERwise] "identical conditions" in his
mixing of frames @ DiFFERENT radii for the SAME GR TEST point-mass,
(of EARth, where he compares gedanken Polar & Equatorial pendulae).
[Clearly, if he had NOT meant "OTHERwise" there is NO distinction].
Re: "The earth relatively to the "light medium".." -- Einstein.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
