Deriving the Lorentz Transformation Without Einstein's First or Second Postulate
Shubee
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.
Updated May 27, 2007
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
> Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate 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.
Sooooo....what _are_ the axioms?
How do you know what you have derived is actually special relativity?
After several years I _still_ see nothing about energy, momentum,
mass....
THE_ONE
MOTION contains Two variables. 1) Distance and 2) Speed.
Variables range from zero to infinity, or in this case of course the
variables range from greater than zero to infinity, since zero itself
would obviously mean no motion at all. Now if we were to set both of
these Variables to infinity, the outcome would be as follows.
1) Traveling across an infinite distance,
--> To continue to travel without end.
2) Traveling at an infinite speed,
--> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.
Note: If it takes time to get from point "A" to point "B", this means
that you can still move faster and use less time to get from point "A"
to point "B", therefore you are still traveling at a finite speed, not
at an infinite speed. Only if no time at all occurs while moving
across any distance, is the speed actually an infinite speed.
This combination of infinities produces a paradox because,
1) + 2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without
the passage of any time at all. Or a more amusing version, TO GO ON
FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL.
This observation got me going. From there on I eventually figured out
that all matter is in constant motion. It was a change in direction of
travel across Space-Time that made variable spatial velocities
possible, while at the same time changing the rate of the passage of
time.
If the direction of this constant motion was pointed across space
only, then Time is at a stand still for the traveller, allowing him to
go on forever across an infinite distance in no time at all.
Yet at the same time, Special Relativity never popped up even though
my theory produced the same equations known today as the Lorentz-
Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the
Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
So this relativity stuff has me beat.
Bill Hobba
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180244883.4...@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.
Bill
Eric Gisse
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180244883.4...@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...
proton
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180244883.4...@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.
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180244883.4...@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
jem
> Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate 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.
>
Back from your run, Shooby? Well, persons who run away everytime they're asked to defend or explain their claims should be happy to learn that it's entirely inconsequential what postulates are used to derive a physical theory, since Science doesn't distinguish between postulates and theorems.
It is odd though that you'd claim to have derived a result from the "most irreducible axioms possible", without ever explicitly indicating what those axioms are. Can you remedy that, Shooby, by posting a list of your postulates so they can be compared side-by-side with other sets of postulates that have been used to derive the LT?
jem
> On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>
>>"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1180244883.4...@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.
What's a "mathematical fantasy", Shooby? And try to answer like a mathematician, with a definition rather than an example.
>
>
>>>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.
"Mathematican" Shooby obviously doesn't realize that
1. no set of irreducible axioms is more irreducible than any other set, and
2. the smallest set of axioms needed to prove any result consists simply of the result itself.
>
>
>>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.
"Miracle Man" Shooby demonstrating an impressive "ability to unravel".
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
>
>
Sue...
> On May 26, 10:48 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate 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.
>
> Sooooo....what _are_ the axioms?
>
> How do you know what you have derived is actually special relativity?
> After several years I _still_ see nothing about energy, momentum,
> mass....
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Mass, energy or momentum is not a consideration
in either of those statements. Although mass/energy
equivalence in discussed in the SR section of
the 1920 paper, it is after resolution of the postulates
and is a heuristic exercise in preparation for the GR section.
Oliver Heaviside might have written as much but he grossly
overestimated his readers and was making better wages
following light down telegraph wires and scareing people
with his painted nails.
Sue...
>
>
>
>
rot...@gmail.com
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 !?
Shubee
> It is odd though that you'd claim to have derived a result from the "most irreducible axioms possible", without ever explicitly indicating what those axioms are. Can you remedy that, Shooby, by posting a list of your postulates so they can be compared side-by-side with other sets of postulates that have been used to derive the LT?
The common notion of a postulate list is an extremely short list
mathematically independent hypotheses that can be put into a
remarkably succinct form. My derivation of the Lorentz transformation
is based entirely on conceptualizing the toy universe Xi_2, which
consists of two moving lines in one spatial dimension. The current
description of Xi_2 requires approximately 2 & 1/3 pages. I don't know
how to encapsulate the fundamental idea presented there into one
cogent principle at this time. But I do believe that my paper is clear
and should be understandable to bright high school students. I figure
that it is only a matter of time for the assumptions in my derivation
to be neatly translated into the pure language known as mathematical
logic. So for now, do the best you can and just read those 2 & 1/3
pages.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
jem
Ah, I see, you derived the LT from the "most irreducible axioms possible", but you don't really know what those axioms are. :)
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
>
>
Shubee
> "Mathematican" Shooby obviously doesn't realize that
>
> 1. no set of irreducible axioms is more irreducible than any other set,
ir·re·duc·i·ble
-adjective
1. not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished
or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
I have clearly discovered the irreducible minimum in the subject
called special relativity. In effect, I have reduced Einsteinian SR by
showing that Einstein's principle of relativity isn't necessary and
may even be false. Eliminating an unnecessary and untestable principle
from the foundations of physics is a respectable achievement.
> 2. the smallest set of axioms needed to prove any result consists simply of the result itself.
Mathematicians are always proving that some assertions are logically
equivalent to others. For example, the axiom of choice, Zorn's lemma
and Zermelo's theorem (every set can be well-ordered) all imply each
other.
My derivation of the Lorentz transformation uses axioms that are
logically equivalent to the Lorentz transformation itself, correctly
interpreted. Einstein's interpretation may not even be possible. It
certainly isn't needed.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
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
rot...@gmail.com
> > 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?
Shubee
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
rot...@gmail.com
> 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.
Btw, SR does not imply the nonexistence of a Preferred Frame...But
yes, many physicist think it does.
Definitions are important. If you (or any other) talk about 'time',
'law' etc... they must define those terms clearly. I am wondering what
is the definition of "law of physics".
Shubee
> Definitions are important. If you (or any other) talk about 'time',
> 'law' etc... they must define those terms clearly.
I give a very clear definition of physics in my paper.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> I am wondering what is the definition of "law of physics".
Wonder no longer. Read http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Androcles
Nobody is ever going to see you prove anything, idiot.
Androcles
<rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180282496....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:> yes, there are physicists that are so confused that they believe that
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If you believe that I've a bridge for sale.
Tom Roberts
> Btw, SR does not imply the nonexistence of a Preferred Frame.
Yes it does. Just look at the first postulate of SR:
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
changes are not affected, whether these changes of state
be referred to the one or the other of two systems of
coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
[A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 17, 1905;
Trans. Perrett and Jeffery]
There can be a specific frame in which the computations are easiest, and
there can be a specific frame in which some given object is at rest, but
the _laws_of_physics_ have no such "preference", in SR.
[Please note the differences in terminology that have
evolved over the past century.]
Tom Roberts
Bilge
> On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180244883.4...@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.
Bilge
On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180244883.4...@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.
Please post a reference to hilbert's so-called atlas and I will
see if I can find einstein's theory in that list. Oh, wait. Did you
mean your atlas to which you attached hilbert's name? Dumb fuck.
Bilge
> 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.
>
Why don't you try submitting it to a mathematics or physics journal
(yet again)? Tired of having it rejected?
rot...@gmail.com
>
> Yes it does. Just look at the first postulate of SR:
>
> The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
> changes are not affected, whether these changes of state
> be referred to the one or the other of two systems of
> coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
> [A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 17, 1905;
Just look at Einstein's reply to his (your) comment:
"...remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not
exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it [for
computations]." Einstein, 1930
> There can be a specific frame in which the computations are easiest, and
> there can be a specific frame in which some given object is at rest,
Correct.
> but the _laws_of_physics_ have no such "preference", in SR.
Also correct.
The "laws" have no preference but that does not mean that there is no
preferred frame. Actually, one can choose any frame he wants and to
forever use that frame to do all his calculations. He can call that
frame a preferred frame.
> [Please note the differences in terminology that have
> evolved over the past century.]
Precisely.... what do we mean by 'preferred frame' ...
Eric Gisse
No wonder you think this crap is 'magical', you have no idea what you
are doing.
guskz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just listen to Eric Gisse, he believe Temperature is not a rank 0
tensor.
Shubee
> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.]
A Hilbert quote, cited on page 2 of my paper,
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
demonstrates that Hilbert viewed his program for the axiomatization of
all physics as including "not only of those theories coming near to
reality, but also, as in geometry, of all logically possible
theories." It is logical to call that dream the Hilbert atlas of all
conceivable universes.
David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics
Physics should evolve from a small number of axioms
``If geometry is to serve as a model for the treatment of physical
axioms, we shall try first by a small number of axioms to include as
large a class as possible of physical phenomena, and then by
adjoining new axioms to arrive gradually at the more special
theories. ...The mathematician will have also to take account not
only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in
geometry, of all logically possible theories. He must be always
alert to obtain a complete survey of all conclusions derivable from
the system of axioms assumed.'' David Hilbert, International
Congress of Mathematicians, Paris France, 1900. [1].
The definition of physics
Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A
universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter,
energy and their interactions. Think of each model universe as
filling one page in the atlas of all possible universes.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
I'm waiting for Tom Roberts to tell me if he sees anything that I need
to correct in the paper first, before I submit it to a mathematics
journal. He's the only respectable physicist around here competent
enough to understand my derivation.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
TruthCheck
> 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.
The_Man
> On May 27, 6:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > "Mathematican" Shooby obviously doesn't realize that
>
> > 1. no set of irreducible axioms is more irreducible than any other set,
>
> ir·re·duc·i·ble
> -adjective
> 1. not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished
> or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
>
> I have clearly discovered the irreducible minimum in the subject
> called special relativity. In effect, I have reduced Einsteinian SR by
> showing that Einstein's principle of relativity isn't necessary and
> may even be false. Eliminating an unnecessary and untestable principle
> from the foundations of physics is a respectable achievement.
>
> > 2. the smallest set of axioms needed to prove any result consists simply of the result itself.
>
> Mathematicians are always proving that some assertions are logically
> equivalent to others. For example, the axiom of choice, Zorn's lemma
> and Zermelo's theorem (every set can be well-ordered) all imply each
> other.
>
> My derivation of the Lorentz transformation uses axioms that are
> logically equivalent to the Lorentz transformation itself,
So in other words, you have derived the Lorentz transformation from
itself. Wow! Very impressive for a mathemtician!
The_Man
As long as it isn't one that YOU'VE designed. Maybe you "set it up",
like you used to supposedly "set up" instruments for NASA, which is
more usually done by janitorial personnel.
Phineas T Puddleduck
The_Man <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps he did the Stonehenge model for Spinal Tap?
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
Bill Hobba
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180256566....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180244883.4...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
>
Tom Roberts
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
"axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
The whole point of the "toy universes" appears to be an attempt to
describe uniform rectilinear motion without calling it that. The unusual
method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each other is unrelated
to common usages of the word, and the need for an arbitrary and
conventional minus sign should be a BIG RED FLAG that something is
amiss. Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative. There are reasons to
dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper. k=0 is never dismissed
at all, and the possibility is just ignored. Given the historical
significance of k=0 (the Galilei group) this is a major omission.
The author appears to be completely ignorant of modern mathematics, or
indeed any math other than elementary algebra (e.g. the labored and
clumsy application of group theory without ever mentioning this fact,
confusion about the Euclid group, the misuse of the standard symbol for
a direct-sum without mention, and the overall tone of presentation
implies the author has never read the technical literature). This whole
paper seems like a "just so" story which could be told using modern
mathematics in far less space and with much more clarity (e.g.
digressions to "ancient times" and attempts at using rational numbers
are not helpful to a modern audience).
The author is also ignorant of the vocabulary of modern physics (e.g.
repeated misuse of the term "proper"), and the very basics of physics
(the world we inhabit has 3 spatial dimensions, but there is no obvious
way to generalize this construct to 3 spatial dimensions).
> I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
No, you have merely demonstrated that you can use his PoR without
stating that you did so, and can fool yourself into believing your own
omission. Had you made an attempt to enumerate your axioms you would
have learned this.
Hint: how did you select your initial frame, and what
conditions apply to that selection? -- Without the PoR you
need to specify unusual conditions....
> You obviously don't understand my claim of devising the most
> irreducible axioms possible.
Without stating those axioms, you have no valid claim. You'll find you
have actually used A LOT more axioms than you seem to think. You just
did not bother to enumerate them, and thus have deceived yourself.
Unacknowledged assumptions are a difficult problem.
As Bilge pointed out, a major reason Einstein is so
revered today is because he pointed out some important
but unacknowledged axioms that pervaded the physics of
his day, but were not necessary; he showed that without
them he could reconcile two cherished principles that
were previously thought to be irreconcilable.
> My derivation of the Lorentz transformation uses axioms that are
> logically equivalent to the Lorentz transformation itself, correctly
> interpreted.
You GREATLY overestimate you own cleverness. Which is all the more
remarkable because you repeatedly make claims about your "axioms", which
you have never displayed. That's just ridiculous. And sad.
Tom Roberts
Sam Wormley
Thanks Tom.
Bill Hobba
"proton" <leosa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180257668.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 10:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180244883.4...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
>>
>> You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
>> frames?
>>
>
> 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 Hobba
<rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180297262.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
To find that out simply read the physical literature. It means a frame in
which the laws of physics are different or an inertial frame moving at
constant velocity to an inertial frame that is not inertial (such would
violate the POR) - or some other reasonable interpretation. An inertial
frame is isotropic and homogeneous (in fact some authors such as Landau take
that as its definition - and is the one I prefer) - if an aether existed it
would create an aether wind that breaks isotropy and mean frames moving at
constant velocity were not inertial - in violation of the POR. Of course
one must make reasonable assumptions - and those reasonable assumptions are
spelt out in the literature eg see Grifftihs - Introduction to
Electrodynamics page 449. He reaches a different conclusion to me (ie makes
slightly different reasonable assumptions) - but the exact conclusion
reached is not important - it is an understanding of the issues involved.
For that you need simply to read the proper literature eg Griffiths
discusses why the CMBR, for example, does not constitute a preferred frame.
Bill
The Ghost In The Machine
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:37:19 GMT
<3ti6i.57919$Ug.4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Nobody can. SR can never be proven and has already been
disproven (by its bigger brother, GR, but that's a detail :-) ).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
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
Bill Hobba
> On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180244883.4...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Persons who distrust Einstein's relativity postulate
>>
>> You distrust that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
>> frames?
>
> 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
>
>
>
Bill Hobba
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:A2s6i.136215$_c5.18850@attbi_s22...
I second that. An excellent post indeed.
Thanks
Bill
Sam Wormley
>
> 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 :-)
Eric Gisse
> Shubee wrote:
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
> alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
I have mentioned this...
[...]
>
> After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
> to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative. There are reasons to
> dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper. k=0 is never dismissed
> at all, and the possibility is just ignored. Given the historical
> significance of k=0 (the Galilei group) this is a major omission.
...and this.
I have mentioned that k=0 gives Galilean transformations, and
mentioned that he didn't explain k < 0 and suggested that he explore
it. Apparently I am unworthy to comment.
>
> The author appears to be completely ignorant of modern mathematics, or
> indeed any math other than elementary algebra (e.g. the labored and
> clumsy application of group theory without ever mentioning this fact,
> confusion about the Euclid group, the misuse of the standard symbol for
> a direct-sum without mention, and the overall tone of presentation
> implies the author has never read the technical literature). This whole
> paper seems like a "just so" story which could be told using modern
> mathematics in far less space and with much more clarity (e.g.
> digressions to "ancient times" and attempts at using rational numbers
> are not helpful to a modern audience).
He actively rejects group theoretical approaches. Not only does he
know about them, he dismisses them. It is less than clear as to why
because as you say, it is rather clumsy.
I have mentioned the group theory version of SR many times, and I have
seen it mentioned to him in past postings [over years].
>
> The author is also ignorant of the vocabulary of modern physics (e.g.
> repeated misuse of the term "proper"), and the very basics of physics
> (the world we inhabit has 3 spatial dimensions, but there is no obvious
> way to generalize this construct to 3 spatial dimensions).
I have asked him repeatedly why he hasn't generalized to 3 dimensions
yet. Apparently because I "don't understand" his toy universe, I am
unworthy of an explanation as to why he won't generalize.
[snip remainder]
Despite what he says, he won't listen to a damn word of what you just
said.
Sam Wormley
That above should read "There has never been a prediction of SR
Jeckyl
news:tftoi4-...@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?
Jeckyl
What prediction ?
Jeckyl
Ooops .. soory.
Bill Hobba
Phaw. He is a respectable physicist, no doubt about it. He is also a
gentleman of the first order. But quite a few respectable physicists post
here and every single one, Tom Roberts included, have torn you paper to
shreds. BTW Tom has again posted (as he has done many times) the errors you
make. Will you respond?
Bill
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
Bilge
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.]
>> On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> >> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1180244883.4...@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.
>>
>> Please post a reference to hilbert's so-called atlas and I will
>> see if I can find einstein's theory in that list. Oh, wait. Did you
>> mean your atlas to which you attached hilbert's name? Dumb fuck.
>
> A Hilbert quote, cited on page 2 of my paper,
In other words, you have attached hilbert's name to your own
misguided ambitions.
Sue...
> On May 27, 12:17 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.]
> > On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 1:39 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
> > >> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1180244883.4...@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.
>
> > Please post a reference to hilbert's so-called atlas and I will
> > see if I can find einstein's theory in that list. Oh, wait. Did you
> > mean your atlas to which you attached hilbert's name? Dumb fuck.
>
> demonstrates that Hilbert viewed his program for the axiomatization of
> all physics as including "not only of those theories coming near to
> reality, but also, as in geometry, of all logically possible
> theories." It is logical to call that dream the Hilbert atlas of all
> conceivable universes.
>
> David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics
> Physics should evolve from a small number of axioms
>
> ``If geometry is to serve as a model for the treatment of physical
> axioms, we shall try first by a small number of axioms to include as
> large a class as possible of physical phenomena, and then by
> adjoining new axioms to arrive gradually at the more special
> theories. ...The mathematician will have also to take account not
> only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in
> geometry, of all logically possible theories. He must be always
> alert to obtain a complete survey of all conclusions derivable from
> the system of axioms assumed.'' David Hilbert, International
> Congress of Mathematicians, Paris France, 1900. [1].
I seem to recall that geometry has something to do with
straight and curved lines. Most of our physial observations
make the false assumtpion that light moves in straight lines.
More often than not, an expanding sphere or an expanding
torus makes a better representation of the real mechanism.
So if you draw a continuum scale from a pure wave interpretation
to a pure particle interpretation, there would seem to be an
infinite number of geometries that could find a place on that
continuum.
You might want to set your alarm clock a bit earlier
if you and your progeny hold some hope for sorting through
all the possibilites in the next few generations.
Sue...
>
> The definition of physics
>
> Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A
> universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter,
> energy and their interactions. Think of each model universe as
> filling one page in the atlas of all possible universes.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf- Hide quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message news:mXs6i.5381$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Yes, but will it make a difference?
How many times has he been told all this by how many people?
It is well known that Shubert is not even remotely interested.
Remember, there is some of selection process at work here.
Only those who are thoroughly immune to rebuttal (and abuse)
can survive here. Compare with Luttgens, Androcles, Wilson,
Savain, Seppala, Valev...
This place is a selection ground for autistics.
How long has Shubert been around? That should say enough.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tftoi4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
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.
Shubee
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
> alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions. My work is a work
in progress. I wouldn't mind adding my axioms at the very end. The
point of the paper is to teach students of high school algebra how to
derive the LT equations as simply as possible, with the fewest
assumptions possible.
> The whole point of the "toy universes" appears to be an attempt to
> describe uniform rectilinear motion without calling it that.
No. The whole point of Xi_2 is to arrive at equations (1) and (2),
which are nonlinear, new and the basis of my entire derivation. Thanks
for acknowledging that I'm presupposing Newton's first law of motion
and that I've described Newton's first law with nonlinear equations!
> The unusual method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each
> other is unrelated to common usages of the word,
I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock." Forgive me
for breaking with tradition and for using a kindergarten concept that
is too difficult for physicists to understand.
> and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
> be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
this down as one of my axioms.
AXIOM 1.
If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
clocks. (Sigh).
> Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
> with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
> frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
Do you really believe that children would have a problem
conceptualizing clock time as an arrow moving steadily along a
continuum of numbers? That's the beauty of my approach. Elapsed time
is proportional to the distance traveled on a number line.
> After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
> to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative.
You are confused. My k is defined differently than what you're
expecting. The rotation matrix is automatically excluded in my
approach. The operation defined by equation (30) is not associative
for negative k on real numbers. Ask a mathematician.
> There are reasons to
> dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper. k=0 is never dismissed
> at all, and the possibility is just ignored. Given the historical
> significance of k=0 (the Galilei group) this is a major omission.
There is no omission. You just haven't read carefully enough. I wrote:
"To emphasize that k is nonnegative, we write k = 1/c^2. At this
point, the only meaning that I have ascribed to c is that c is a real
number greater than zero. If the case where k=0 needs to be
considered, we may adopt the convention that c=infty in that
instance."
> The author appears to be completely ignorant of modern mathematics, or
> indeed any math other than elementary algebra (e.g. the labored and
> clumsy application of group theory without ever mentioning this fact,
You have already displayed a remarkable amount of pompous arrogance
and the need to obfuscate the simplicity of my kindergarten clock. Now
you belittle me because I use the right level of mathematics for high
school students. Didn't I say they are my intended audience? And what
is the basis of your fantasy? I did not use any group theory in my
derivation. My boast is that group theory, like Einstein's relativity
principle, isn't required to derive the LT.
> confusion about the Euclid group,
No. You are confused and thanks for clearly demonstrating that.
> the misuse of the standard symbol for
> a direct-sum without mention,
I did not misuse oplus and it is used for much more than just a direct
sum. Thanks for giving me a review that's all about style and no
substance.
> and the overall tone of presentation
> implies the author has never read the technical literature).
My goal wasn't to mimic the technical literature, which is often
bombastic in style.
> This whole
> paper seems like a "just so" story which could be told using modern
> mathematics in far less space and with much more clarity (e.g.
> digressions to "ancient times" and attempts at using rational numbers
> are not helpful to a modern audience).
I thought that my discussion of how real numbers are constructed set
the tone quite nicely on how simple my derivation really is.
> The author is also ignorant of the vocabulary of modern physics (e.g.
> repeated misuse of the term "proper"),
If the velocity of an object is v, what is its proper velocity? It's
exactly what I said it is without the unnecessary 4-vector definition.
If I can't use the term proper velocity because its ordinary meaning
applies to 4-vectors, should I replace my misused term "proper
velocity" with "Shubee velocity"?
> and the very basics of physics
> (the world we inhabit has 3 spatial dimensions, but there is no obvious
> way to generalize this construct to 3 spatial dimensions).
There are plenty of derivations of the Lorentz transformation in 1
spatial dimension in the "scientific literature" and I certainly don't
see the need to apologize for something intended for students of high
school algebra.
> > I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
>
> No, you have merely demonstrated that you can use his PoR without
> stating that you did so, and can fool yourself into believing your own
> omission.
Where did I use it? I only used the time equations from Xi_2 and the
assumption that my kindergarten time concept is well-defined
mathematically and is frame independent. That's correct. Time can be
defined in a similar manner, point by point, throughout the universe.
This approach permits both linear and nonlinear solutions. I gave a
reference to the nonlinear solution that solves the given problem and
presented all the major details for the linear case. Then I showed
that answer to be equivalent to the Lorentz transformation. The entire
approach of mine is perfectly consistent with an absolute frame of
reference. Therefore, I'm not using anything unnecessary like
Einstein's PoR. Note that I'm not excluding it either but future
editions of my paper will explain the logical possibility that
Einstein's PoR is a mathematical fantasy, i.e., it may be like the
Continuum Hypothesis or its negation. Physicists can use either one of
these two axioms and never reach a contradiction but only one of these
axioms is really true. Likewise, it could be that Einsteinian SR
doesn't even exist in the Hilbert atlas of all possible universes.
> Had you made an attempt to enumerate your axioms you would
> have learned this.
>
> Hint: how did you select your initial frame, and what
> conditions apply to that selection? -- Without the PoR you
> need to specify unusual conditions....
You seem truly and honesty baffled by Xi_2.
> > You obviously don't understand my claim of devising the most
> > irreducible axioms possible.
>
> Without stating those axioms, you have no valid claim. You'll find you
> have actually used A LOT more axioms than you seem to think. You just
> did not bother to enumerate them, and thus have deceived yourself.
I agree that I've used many axioms. But now I have enumerated one:
AXIOM 1.
If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
clocks.
This just goes to prove that you wouldn't have recognized this
assumption from reading my paper without me telling you ahead of time
that I'm going to use it.
> Unacknowledged assumptions are a difficult problem.
> As Bilge pointed out, a major reason Einstein is so
> revered today is because he pointed out some important
> but unacknowledged axioms that pervaded the physics of
> his day, but were not necessary; he showed that without
> them he could reconcile two cherished principles that
> were previously thought to be irreconcilable.
>
> > My derivation of the Lorentz transformation uses axioms that are
> > logically equivalent to the Lorentz transformation itself, correctly
> > interpreted.
>
> You GREATLY overestimate you own cleverness. Which is all the more
> remarkable because you repeatedly make claims about your "axioms", which
> you have never displayed. That's just ridiculous. And sad.
If I had stated all my assumptions in advance, like AXIOM 1, no one
would want to read my paper.
I got a good idea. In the future, I'm going to call AXIOM 1 the "BIG
RED FLAG" axiom in your honor because, to you, it seems like a
difficult concept.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
jem
> On May 27, 6:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
Shooby yet again ignores the request to define his term "mathematical fantasy".
>
>>"Mathematican" Shooby obviously doesn't realize that
>>
>>1. no set of irreducible axioms is more irreducible than any other set,
>
>
> ir·re·duc·i·ble
> -adjective
> 1. not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished
> or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
Earth to Shooby - there exist more than one ir·re·duc·i·ble sets of axioms that can be used to derive the LT.
>
> I have clearly discovered the irreducible minimum in the subject
> called special relativity.
But Shooby, yesterday you admitted you don't even know *what* axioms you used in your "derivation". :)
In effect, I have reduced Einsteinian SR by
> showing that Einstein's principle of relativity isn't necessary and
> may even be false.
`
If you generated the same theory that Einstein did, Shooby, then everything that's provable in his theory is provable in your theory (i.e. if the PoR is false in your theory, then your theory's not his theory). Where did you say you studied math?
> Eliminating an unnecessary and untestable principle
> from the foundations of physics is a respectable achievement.
Are you for real? The *only* way the PoR could be "unnecessary" is if it could be derived from Einstein's other postulates. Furthermore, it's *totally* irrelevant whether a postulate is "untestable".
>
>
>>2. the smallest set of axioms needed to prove any result consists simply of the result itself.
>
>
> Mathematicians are always proving that some assertions are logically
> equivalent to others. For example, the axiom of choice, Zorn's lemma
> and Zermelo's theorem (every set can be well-ordered) all imply each
> other.
Is that suppose to have something to do with what I said?
>
> My derivation of the Lorentz transformation uses axioms that are
> logically equivalent to the Lorentz transformation itself, correctly
> interpreted.
Shooby, you don't even know *what* axioms you used. Remember?
And nothing has to be "interpreted", Shooby - *every* result is "logically equivalent" to the assumptions from which the result is derived. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?
Einstein's interpretation may not even be possible. It
> certainly isn't needed.
I didn't think so.
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
>
>
Shubee
> If you generated the same theory that Einstein did,
> Shooby, then everything that's provable in his theory
> is provable in your theory (i.e. if the PoR is false
> in your theory, then your theory's not his theory).
Where in the world did you get the idea that I ever claimed that my
theory is identical to Einsteinian SR? I have said very clearly that
Einsteinian SR may not even appear in the Hilbert atlas of all
possible universes.
> > Eliminating an unnecessary and untestable principle
> > from the foundations of physics is a respectable achievement.
>
> Are you for real? The *only* way the PoR could be
> "unnecessary" is if it could be derived from Einstein's
> other postulates.
The PoR is unnecessary in the sense that the PoR may be a mathematical
fantasy, that it isn't required to derive any of the equations of
physics and none of those equations prove the PoR.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
jem
> On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Shubee wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>
>>I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
>>"axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
>>a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
>>all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
>>alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
>
>
> It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
> paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions.
So Shooby, why don't you hire a high school student to list your assumptions for you?
My work is a work
> in progress. I wouldn't mind adding my axioms at the very end. The
> point of the paper is to teach students of high school algebra how to
> derive the LT equations as simply as possible, with the fewest
> assumptions possible.
The fewest *number* of assumptions is one - i.e. assume the result to be proved.
>
>
>>The whole point of the "toy universes" appears to be an attempt to
>>describe uniform rectilinear motion without calling it that.
>
>
> No. The whole point of Xi_2 is to arrive at equations (1) and (2),
> which are nonlinear, new and the basis of my entire derivation. Thanks
> for acknowledging that I'm presupposing Newton's first law of motion
> and that I've described Newton's first law with nonlinear equations!
You're babbling Shooby.
>
>
>>The unusual method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each
>>other is unrelated to common usages of the word,
>
>
> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock." Forgive me
> for breaking with tradition and for using a kindergarten concept that
> is too difficult for physicists to understand.
>
>
>>and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
>>be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
>
> I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> this down as one of my axioms.
>
> AXIOM 1.
> If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> clocks. (Sigh).
That would be a definition, Shooby, not an axiom.
:) So this is what you mean by "mathematical fantasy". Newsflash, Shooby: mathematical axioms are neither true nor false - they're merely assumed provable. Where did you say you studied math?
Physicists can use either one of
> these two axioms and never reach a contradiction but only one of these
> axioms is really true.
Truth is decided by experiment, Shooby. However, this is a concept that's well beyond you at present.
Likewise, it could be that Einsteinian SR
> doesn't even exist in the Hilbert atlas of all possible universes.
There are no impossibilities in Nature, Shooby.
>
>
>>Had you made an attempt to enumerate your axioms you would
>>have learned this.
>>
>> Hint: how did you select your initial frame, and what
>> conditions apply to that selection? -- Without the PoR you
>> need to specify unusual conditions....
>
>
> You seem truly and honesty baffled by Xi_2.
It's baffling like Jabberwocky is baffling.
>
>
>>>You obviously don't understand my claim of devising the most
>>>irreducible axioms possible.
>>
>>Without stating those axioms, you have no valid claim. You'll find you
>>have actually used A LOT more axioms than you seem to think. You just
>>did not bother to enumerate them, and thus have deceived yourself.
>
>
> I agree that I've used many axioms. But now I have enumerated one:
And it's not even an axiom, but a definition, i.e. a convention. Hire that high school student, Shooby.
jem
> On May 28, 5:44 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>>If you generated the same theory that Einstein did,
>>Shooby, then everything that's provable in his theory
>>is provable in your theory (i.e. if the PoR is false
>>in your theory, then your theory's not his theory).
>
>
> Where in the world did you get the idea that I ever claimed that my
> theory is identical to Einsteinian SR? I have said very clearly that
> Einsteinian SR may not even appear in the Hilbert atlas of all
> possible universes.
The point, Shoobo, is that if you create a theory that doesn't incorporate the PoR, it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that SR incorporates it.
>
>
>>>Eliminating an unnecessary and untestable principle
>>>from the foundations of physics is a respectable achievement.
>>
>>Are you for real? The *only* way the PoR could be
>>"unnecessary" is if it could be derived from Einstein's
>>other postulates.
>
>
> The PoR is unnecessary in the sense that the PoR may be a mathematical
> fantasy, that it isn't required to derive any of the equations of
> physics and none of those equations prove the PoR.
Your understanding of math is high school level, Shooby. Every theory that incorporates the PoR, requires the PoR, and no theory that doesn't incorporate it, requires it.
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:27:00 +1000
<f3drbk$99u$1...@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw>:
Well, the simplest method is by using NST-2 data; the data
do not match SR, but match GR perfectly. :-)
Like I said...it's a detail. :-) And it's a bit like Newton's
mechanics; they work for low v. Similarly, SR works for low
gravitational fields.
As for disproof -- that's reasonably easy; an example
would be a peer-reviewed experiment that shows that moving
electron-positron pairs do not shift their wavelengths
from the expected 0.511 MeV value.
(Since this is impossible -- a similar experiment did show a
shift -- I'm not too worried. I can't give a proper reference
but someone did fire off decaying pi mesons at about 0.2 c.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
<m9y6i.72235$Ch.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
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, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>The unusual method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each
> >>other is unrelated to common usages of the word,
>
> > I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> > moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock." Forgive me
> > for breaking with tradition and for using a kindergarten concept that
> > is too difficult for physicists to understand.
>
> >>and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
> >>be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
> > I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> > this down as one of my axioms.
>
> > AXIOM 1.
> > If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> > moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> > clocks. (Sigh).
>
> That would be a definition, Shooby, not an axiom.
For Tom Roberts, my use of the "BIG RED FLAG" conjecture is proof that
something is "amiss." So let's not jump to any conclusions here until
a panel of experts can be assembled to decide if my BIG RED FLAG
conjecture really is an axiom, or a definition or just common sense.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote in messagenews:mXs6i.5381$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in messagenews:A2s6i.136215$_c5.18850@attbi_s22...
> >> Thanks Tom.
>
> > I second that. An excellent post indeed.
>
> Yes, but will it make a difference?
Wait a minute. What evidence is there that my use of the "BIG RED
FLAG" conjecture violates any of the known laws of physics?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Please post a reference to hilbert's so-called atlas and I will
> >> see if I can find einstein's theory in that list. Oh, wait. Did you
> >> mean your atlas to which you attached hilbert's name? Dumb fuck.
>
> > A Hilbert quote, cited on page 2 of my paper,
>
> In other words, you have attached hilbert's name to your own
> misguided ambitions.
If I had taken the concept as my own creation and labeled it Shubert's
atlas of all conceivable universes, you would have pounced on me for
stealing Hilbert's idea, Dumb fuck.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Androcles
: In sci.math, Androcles
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.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
<32G6i.74336$Ch.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
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, ewi...@earthlink.net
Murphy was an optimist.
Eric Gisse
> On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> > "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> > a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> > all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
> > alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
>
> It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
> paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions. My work is a work
> in progress. I wouldn't mind adding my axioms at the very end. The
> point of the paper is to teach students of high school algebra how to
> derive the LT equations as simply as possible, with the fewest
> assumptions possible.
No, shooby, it is ridiculous to see that you don't even bother writing
down the axioms you use despite the prolific amount of whining you
have made about the usage of axioms in physics.
You are high if you think your method is the anywhere near "simply as
possible, with the fewest assumptiosn possible". I can derive the
Lorentz transformations far faster, and with _FAR_ less additional
mathematical baggage via group theory. I have explained this to you
before, and it didn't register then so I don't expect it to register
now.
BTW: no high school student is going to understand this shit. High
school students don't even know what a coordinate transformation is.
>
> > The whole point of the "toy universes" appears to be an attempt to
> > describe uniform rectilinear motion without calling it that.
>
> No. The whole point of Xi_2 is to arrive at equations (1) and (2),
> which are nonlinear, new and the basis of my entire derivation. Thanks
> for acknowledging that I'm presupposing Newton's first law of motion
> and that I've described Newton's first law with nonlinear equations!
...and the basis of your derivation cannot generalize to higher
dimensions, and is thus worthless.
>
> > The unusual method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each
> > other is unrelated to common usages of the word,
>
> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock." Forgive me
> for breaking with tradition and for using a kindergarten concept that
> is too difficult for physicists to understand.
Using a child's perception of a clock as the basis for your theory is
utterly asinine.
>
> > and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
> > be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
> I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> this down as one of my axioms.
>
> AXIOM 1.
> If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> clocks. (Sigh).
Where the hell did you say you graduated from, exactly?
>
> > Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
> > with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
> > frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
>
> Do you really believe that children would have a problem
> conceptualizing clock time as an arrow moving steadily along a
> continuum of numbers? That's the beauty of my approach. Elapsed time
> is proportional to the distance traveled on a number line.
>
> > After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
> > to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative.
>
> You are confused. My k is defined differently than what you're
> expecting. The rotation matrix is automatically excluded in my
> approach. The operation defined by equation (30) is not associative
> for negative k on real numbers. Ask a mathematician.
Bullshit, shooby. You do not consider k=0, and you simply reject on
the basis of it being 'unphysical' the k<0 case.
As far as asking a mathematician....why bother? Actual mathematicians
have commented on your works in the past, and never favorably.
>
> > There are reasons to
> > dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper. k=0 is never dismissed
> > at all, and the possibility is just ignored. Given the historical
> > significance of k=0 (the Galilei group) this is a major omission.
>
> There is no omission. You just haven't read carefully enough. I wrote:
>
> "To emphasize that k is nonnegative, we write k = 1/c^2. At this
> point, the only meaning that I have ascribed to c is that c is a real
> number greater than zero. If the case where k=0 needs to be
> considered, we may adopt the convention that c=infty in that
> instance."
Liar. This was not in past revisions of your paper. "If the case where
k=0 needs to be considered, we may adopt the convention that c=infty
in that instance."
You can't even explain why k = 1/c^2 instead of 1/c or just 1. You
have no mathematically sound justification for your choice of k, just
that k = 1/c^2 is the only way for you to recover special relativity
and thus your choice.
>
> > The author appears to be completely ignorant of modern mathematics, or
> > indeed any math other than elementary algebra (e.g. the labored and
> > clumsy application of group theory without ever mentioning this fact,
>
> You have already displayed a remarkable amount of pompous arrogance
> and the need to obfuscate the simplicity of my kindergarten clock. Now
> you belittle me because I use the right level of mathematics for high
> school students. Didn't I say they are my intended audience? And what
> is the basis of your fantasy? I did not use any group theory in my
> derivation. My boast is that group theory, like Einstein's relativity
> principle, isn't required to derive the LT.
You are an idiot no matter how you slice it - if your intended
audience _really is_ high school students, you desperately need a
rewrite so they can understand it. Then you need to actually get it to
them - this is a piss-poor newsgroup for that. If your intended
audience isn't high school students, which is far more likely
considering you have attempted to get this published in actual
journals and continue to post on this newsgroup, you are lying for no
purpose.
[snip remaining, unread]
Eric Gisse
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> > "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> > a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> > all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
> > alone makes this paper useless, but it has numerous other faults as well.
>
> It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
> paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions. My work is a work
> in progress. I wouldn't mind adding my axioms at the very end. The
> point of the paper is to teach students of high school algebra how to
> derive the LT equations as simply as possible, with the fewest
> assumptions possible.
No, shooby, it is ridiculous to see that you don't even bother writing
down the axioms you use despite the prolific amount of whining you
have made about the usage of axioms in physics.
You are high if you think your method is the anywhere near "simply as
possible, with the fewest assumptiosn possible". I can derive the
Lorentz transformations far faster, and with _FAR_ less additional
mathematical baggage via group theory. I have explained this to you
before, and it didn't register then so I don't expect it to register
now.
BTW: no high school student is going to understand this shit. High
school students don't even know what a coordinate transformation is.
>
> > The whole point of the "toy universes" appears to be an attempt to
> > describe uniform rectilinear motion without calling it that.
>
> No. The whole point of Xi_2 is to arrive at equations (1) and (2),
> which are nonlinear, new and the basis of my entire derivation. Thanks
> for acknowledging that I'm presupposing Newton's first law of motion
> and that I've described Newton's first law with nonlinear equations!
...and the basis of your derivation cannot generalize to higher
dimensions, and is thus worthless.
>
> > The unusual method of defining "time" by coordinates passing each
> > other is unrelated to common usages of the word,
>
> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock." Forgive me
> for breaking with tradition and for using a kindergarten concept that
> is too difficult for physicists to understand.
Using a child's perception of a clock as the basis for your theory is
utterly asinine.
>
> > and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
> > be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
> I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> this down as one of my axioms.
>
> AXIOM 1.
> If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> clocks. (Sigh).
Where the hell did you say you graduated from, exactly?
>
> > Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
> > with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
> > frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
>
> Do you really believe that children would have a problem
> conceptualizing clock time as an arrow moving steadily along a
> continuum of numbers? That's the beauty of my approach. Elapsed time
> is proportional to the distance traveled on a number line.
>
> > After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
> > to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative.
>
> You are confused. My k is defined differently than what you're
> expecting. The rotation matrix is automatically excluded in my
> approach. The operation defined by equation (30) is not associative
> for negative k on real numbers. Ask a mathematician.
Bullshit, shooby. You do not consider k=0, and you simply reject on
the basis of it being 'unphysical' the k<0 case.
As far as asking a mathematician....why bother? Actual mathematicians
have commented on your works in the past, and never favorably.
>
> > There are reasons to
> > dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper. k=0 is never dismissed
> > at all, and the possibility is just ignored. Given the historical
> > significance of k=0 (the Galilei group) this is a major omission.
>
> There is no omission. You just haven't read carefully enough. I wrote:
>
> "To emphasize that k is nonnegative, we write k = 1/c^2. At this
> point, the only meaning that I have ascribed to c is that c is a real
> number greater than zero. If the case where k=0 needs to be
> considered, we may adopt the convention that c=infty in that
> instance."
Liar. This was not in past revisions of your paper. "If the case where
k=0 needs to be considered, we may adopt the convention that c=infty
in that instance."
You can't even explain why k = 1/c^2 instead of 1/c or just 1. You
have no mathematically sound justification for your choice of k, just
that k = 1/c^2 is the only way for you to recover special relativity
and thus your choice.
>
> > The author appears to be completely ignorant of modern mathematics, or
> > indeed any math other than elementary algebra (e.g. the labored and
> > clumsy application of group theory without ever mentioning this fact,
>
> You have already displayed a remarkable amount of pompous arrogance
> and the need to obfuscate the simplicity of my kindergarten clock. Now
> you belittle me because I use the right level of mathematics for high
> school students. Didn't I say they are my intended audience? And what
> is the basis of your fantasy? I did not use any group theory in my
> derivation. My boast is that group theory, like Einstein's relativity
> principle, isn't required to derive the LT.
You are an idiot no matter how you slice it - if your intended
Jeckyl
> In sci.math, Jeckyl
> <no...@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" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message
>> news:tftoi4-...@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.
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms. This
> alone makes this paper useless,
I no longer believe this accusation. I did present the axioms of Xi_3
on page 6. They are exactly what I told you on this thread. I quote:
> No, you have merely demonstrated that you can use his PoR without
> stating that you did so, and can fool yourself into believing your own
> omission.
Where did I use it? I only used the time equations from Xi_2 and the
assumption that my kindergarten time concept is well-defined
mathematically and is frame independent. That's correct. Time can be
defined in a similar manner, point by point, throughout the universe.
This approach permits both linear and nonlinear solutions. I gave a
reference to the nonlinear solution that solves the given problem and
presented all the major details for the linear case. Then I showed
that answer to be equivalent to the Lorentz transformation. The entire
approach of mine is perfectly consistent with an absolute frame of
reference. Therefore, I'm not using anything unnecessary like
Einstein's PoR. Note that I'm not excluding it either but future
editions of my paper will explain the logical possibility that
Einstein's PoR is a mathematical fantasy, i.e., it may be like the
Continuum Hypothesis or its negation. Physicists can use either one of
these two axioms and never reach a contradiction but only one of these
axioms is really true. Likewise, it could be that Einsteinian SR
doesn't even exist in the Hilbert atlas of all possible universes.
And the axioms for Xi_2 also seem sufficiently clear. I think that the
way I've illustrated and explained Xi_2 by letting my axioms unfold
naturally as my derivation progresses, is the best way to communicate
my meaning to high school students. I will work on improving my
presentation of Xi_2.
> After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
> to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative. There are reasons to
> dismiss it, but they are not given in this paper.
I corrected that mistake today and uploaded the revised paper.
Thanks.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Tom Roberts
> 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
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@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" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:tq1ri4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In sci.math, Jeckyl
>> <no...@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" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:tftoi4-...@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, ewi...@earthlink.net
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".
Tom Roberts
> Wait a minute. What evidence is there that my use of the "BIG RED
> FLAG" conjecture violates any of the known laws of physics?
In the world we inhabit, time marches inexorably into the future, never
into the past. So the sign ambiguity in your "clocks" does not
correspond to the world we inhabit. <shrug>
No conventional clock based on a counter has such a sign ambiguity --
increasing counts definitively designates the future.
[That's a hint: your "clock" could be fixed rather easily.]
Tom Roberts
Bilge
> On May 27, 12:20 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Why don't you try submitting it to a mathematics or physics journal
>> (yet again)? Tired of having it rejected?
>
> I'm waiting for Tom Roberts to tell me if he sees anything that I need
> to correct in the paper first, before I submit it to a mathematics
> journal. He's the only respectable physicist around here competent
> enough to understand my derivation.
When you get your crap published in a respectable scientific
journal, your opinion of everyone who has told you that you are
an idiot, might matter.
Bilge
> On May 28, 12:12 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-27, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Please post a reference to hilbert's so-called atlas and I will
>> >> see if I can find einstein's theory in that list. Oh, wait. Did you
>> >> mean your atlas to which you attached hilbert's name? Dumb fuck.
>>
>> > A Hilbert quote, cited on page 2 of my paper,
>>
>> In other words, you have attached hilbert's name to your own
>> misguided ambitions.
>
> If I had taken the concept as my own creation and labeled it Shubert's
You already tried that with your ``shubertian clock,'' and had that
approach shot down.
> atlas of all conceivable universes, you would have pounced on me for
> stealing Hilbert's idea, Dumb fuck.
Please cite a reference in which hilbert states what you attribute to
him (not the sentence in your paper where you attribute your interpretation
of something else to him). If what you claim is accurate, why are you
spending so much effort trying to argue without posting the reference I
asked you to post? You must really be stupid if you think puffery and
attitude are a substitute for a reference you can't produce.
Tom Roberts
>>> Btw, SR does not imply the nonexistence of a Preferred Frame.
>> Yes it does. Just look at the first postulate of SR[...]
>
> Just look at Einstein's reply to his (your) comment:
> "...remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not
> exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it [for
> computations]." Einstein, 1930
OK, I now see your point: SR has no preferred frame, but the validity of
SR does not necessarily imply that nature has no such frame. It's just
that if nature does have such a frame, she has certainly hidden it quite
well. And also, we humans must use our theories to interpret the world
-- the success of SR and GR makes it superfluous to imagine such a
preferred frame. At least at present....
> what do we mean by 'preferred frame' ...
The usual meaning is a locally inertial frame that the laws of physics
somehow designate as being special in some way. The canonical example is
an aether being at rest in it, and that aether then determining EM
interactions.
Note, for instance, that the cosmological time and
corresponding frame of FRW manifolds in cosmology are not
"preferred" in this sense; the laws of physics do not make
the frame special, the symmetries of the manifold do so.
Similarly, the local CMBR dipole=0 frame is not "preferred"
in this sense.
Tom Roberts
Sam Wormley
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.
Androcles
: In sci.math, Androcles
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.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NAJ6i.12433$RX....@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,
Fuck off, Roberts.
Tom Roberts
> On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
>> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
>> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
>> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms.
>
> paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions.
I doubt that VERY MUCH. Indeed, YOU have quite clearly not recognized
all of your own assumptions. To expect a student to do so is ridiculous.
Besides, the WHOLE POINT of such a paper is so that the reader does not
need to GUESS what the author had in mind.
> [...] with the fewest
> assumptions possible.
You GREATLY overstate your case, because you have not enumerated your
assumptions, and you'll find there are A LOT more of them than you think.
> Thanks
> for acknowledging that I'm presupposing Newton's first law of motion
> and that I've described Newton's first law with nonlinear equations!
Hmmmm. Apparently you're stuck in a time warp of high school debating
society, and think everyone else is similarly trapped. Grow up.
For the record: I "acknowledged" no such thing, and your paper does no
such thing. A quick glance at any statement of Newton's first law shows
this conclusively.
Hint for the terminally dense: All statements of Newton's
first law mention "force" (necessarily), but your paper
doesn't.
> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock."
How do they know it is "steadily"? Certainly the human body is not
equipped with anything close to a "steady" appreciation of the passage
of time.
>> and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
>> be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
> I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> this down as one of my axioms.
> AXIOM 1.
> If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> clocks. (Sigh).
You just don't get it. The whole point of writing down axioms is to have
a definitive set of statements of the assumptions of the resulting
theory. You need an "AXIOM 0" that permits you to determine WHICH of the
clocks is incrementing into the future. And you need an "AXIOM -1" that
permits you to determine what "uniform" means. And you need an "AXIOM
-2" that somehow describes how to select your Gamma1 and Gamma2. And you
need the PoR or "AXIOM -3" to ensure that your choice among different
possibilities does not affect the result.
>> Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
>> with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
>> frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
>
> Do you really believe that children would have a problem
> conceptualizing clock time as an arrow moving steadily along a
> continuum of numbers?
Certainly they cannot do so -- you merely replaced "uniform" with
"steady", which does not affect the underlying problem. You need to get
out of your high school debating society time warp and enter the real world.
> That's the beauty of my approach. Elapsed time
> is proportional to the distance traveled on a number line.
Then you need "AXIOM -4" to determine how to mark the rulers
proportional to distance.
>> After eq (30) the dismissal of k<0 is just plain wrong. k<0 corresponds
>> to the 4d Euclid group, and it is associative.
>
> You are confused. My k is defined differently than what you're
> expecting. The rotation matrix is automatically excluded in my
> approach.
I misspoke. In your reduced universe this is the 2d Euclid group.
Rotations are not "automatically excluded in [your] approach", because
that is precisely what Lorentz transforms are -- hyperbolic rotations in
the X-T plane, and this 2d Euclid group does circular rotations in the
very same plane.
> My boast is that group theory, like Einstein's relativity
> principle, isn't required to derive the LT.
You are wrong on both counts. Just because you failed to mention that
you are using the PoR and group theory does not mean that your
derivation doesn't actually use them. <shrug>
In principle you could meet this objection by enumerating
your axioms, using ONLY those axioms (at which you have a
VERY bad track record), and showing that neither the PoR
nor group theory is among them. In practice, however, you
will necessarily have axioms that are equivalent to them.
This is hard -- fish never notice the water, and the PoR and group
theory are part of the "water" of physics. I have pointed this out to
you and you STILL are unable to notice the "water" in which you swim.
You need to improve your ability of self criticism. <shrug>
> If the velocity of an object is v, what is its proper velocity?
In physics, "proper" means "in the rest frame of the object in
question", so the "proper velocity" of any object is ZERO -- that's
useless, which is why this particular phrase is not used.
>> and the very basics of physics
>> (the world we inhabit has 3 spatial dimensions, but there is no obvious
>> way to generalize this construct to 3 spatial dimensions).
>
> There are plenty of derivations of the Lorentz transformation in 1
> spatial dimension in the "scientific literature"
Except they don't have "sliding rulers" to define "time". Think about
how to construct them in 3 spatial dimensions -- it is not obvious to me
how to make them slide through each other for an arbitrary relative
motion and arbitrary rotations of the coordinate axes (freedoms that are
absent in your 2-d toys)....
>>> I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
>> No, you have merely demonstrated that you can use his PoR without
>> stating that you did so, and can fool yourself into believing your own
>> omission.
>
> Where did I use it?
As my hint implied, in selecting your initial frames. Without the PoR
you have no method to select the particular frames for which this works.
For instance, what is there to prevent one from constructing your Gamma1
on a rotating carousel? Or inside an accelerating rocket? -- looks like
"AXIOM -5" is needed....
> I only used the time equations from Xi_2 and the
> assumption that my kindergarten time concept is well-defined
> mathematically and is frame independent.
Compare what you just said to the PoR -- "frame independent" is what the
PoR is all about. You either need the PoR or an axiom equivalent to it.
<shrug>
> If I had stated all my assumptions in advance, like AXIOM 1, no one
> would want to read my paper.
Nonsense! That is _PRECISELY_ what a sensible reader would expect in a
paper with "The Axiomatizations of Physics" in its title. <shrug>
[Of course such a title is utterly inconsistent with
your insistence that you are writing for high school
students. But at least you show some consistency, in
that your paper does not live up to its title. <shrug>]
Tom Roberts
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180394796.1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Idiot.
Next thing you'll do is put Tom in your acknowledgement, right?
Tom should know better than to try to educate you.
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Shubee wrote:
> >>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> >> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
> >> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
> >> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
> >> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms.
>
> > It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
> > paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions.
>
> I doubt that VERY MUCH. Indeed, YOU have quite clearly not recognized
> all of your own assumptions.
I find it odd that you claim to able to read the innermost thoughts of
my mind but can't figure out anything with my public definition of
Xi_2.
> To expect a student to do so is ridiculous.
> Besides, the WHOLE POINT of such a paper is so that the reader does not
> need to GUESS what the author had in mind.
I didn't realize that my definition of Xi_2 is so difficult to
understand. As I said elsewhere, I will simplify it.
> > I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> > moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock."
>
> How do they know it is "steadily"? Certainly the human body is not
> equipped with anything close to a "steady" appreciation of the passage
> of time.
I believe that I could have answered that, even as a child: The
pointer of the clock moves equal distances in equal times.
> >> and the need for an arbitrary and conventional minus sign should
> >> be a BIG RED FLAG that something is amiss.
>
> > I thought that I explained that rather carefully. I'll have to write
> > this down as one of my axioms.
> > AXIOM 1.
> > If a clock is running backwards at the same rate that another clock is
> > moving forward, then a sign change is recommended for one of the
> > clocks. (Sigh).
>
> You just don't get it. The whole point of writing down axioms is to have
> a definitive set of statements of the assumptions of the resulting
> theory.
There are no axioms for Xi_2. It's pure definition.
> You need an "AXIOM 0" that permits you to determine WHICH of the
> clocks is incrementing into the future.
Every point is a clock as I've said before, and you telling me that I
have to declare that time everywhere is moving in the same direction,
otherwise high school students will be confused, needs to be examined.
What does multidirectional time mean in the context of Xi_2 and my
simple model of one ruler sliding on another? Is this the basis for
the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox that you were complaining about before?
> And you need an "AXIOM -1" that
> permits you to determine what "uniform" means.
That's a definition and not an axiom. And I have defined uniform to
mean equal distances in equal times.
> And you need an "AXIOM -2"
> that somehow describes how to select your Gamma1 and Gamma2.
That's already in the paper:
"In general, it is helpful to know the direction of motion for the
two lines. Because the number 1 is to the left of the number 2 on
the number line, we will assign a meaning to the indices 1 and 2 and
declare that Gamma_1 is moving to the left of Gamma_2."
> And you
> need the PoR or "AXIOM -3" to ensure that your choice among different
> possibilities does not affect the result.
That's a theorem.
> >> Note that "uniform motion" is assumed but not defined (uniform
> >> with respect to what?); there is no description of how such coordinate
> >> frames could be set up or uniformity of motion assured.
>
> > Do you really believe that children would have a problem
> > conceptualizing clock time as an arrow moving steadily along a
> > continuum of numbers?
>
> Certainly they cannot do so -- you merely replaced "uniform" with
> "steady", which does not affect the underlying problem. You need to get
> out of your high school debating society time warp and enter the real world.
>
> > That's the beauty of my approach. Elapsed time
> > is proportional to the distance traveled on a number line.
>
> Then you need "AXIOM -4" to determine how to mark the rulers
> proportional to distance.
Certainly not. The universe Xi_2 is built from two preexisting number
lines. These objects only need to be conceptualized.
> > If the velocity of an object is v, what is its proper velocity?
>
> In physics, "proper" means "in the rest frame of the object in
> question", so the "proper velocity" of any object is ZERO -- that's
> useless, which is why this particular phrase is not used.
Physicists in academia and industry use the phrase "proper velocity"
and their definition agrees with mine. See my equation (41) and the
following links.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperVelocity.html
http://newton.umsl.edu/run//traveler.html
http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundor/primer.html
> >>> I have proven that Einstein's relativity postulate isn't necessary
> >> No, you have merely demonstrated that you can use his PoR without
> >> stating that you did so, and can fool yourself into believing your own
> >> omission.
>
> > Where did I use it?
>
> As my hint implied, in selecting your initial frames. Without the PoR
> you have no method to select the particular frames for which this works.
By definition, the two number lines of Xi_2 are inertial frames of
reference. Likewise, adding another line to Xi_2 creates Xi_3 if all
these lines satisfy the inertial equations (1) and (2) in a frame
independent way as dictated by my axiom on page 6. In my system, all
non-inertial frames of reference have to be defined before they exist.
All copies of Euclidean space of dimension n are identical.
> For instance, what is there to prevent one from constructing your Gamma1
> on a rotating carousel? Or inside an accelerating rocket? -- looks like
> "AXIOM -5" is needed....
You can't put mathematical objects on a rocket. If you believe that, I
have a really big number 5 that I want to sell you. Where
mathematicians assemble their mathematical creations does not affect
mathematical truth. <shrug>
> > I only used the time equations from Xi_2 and the
> > assumption that my kindergarten time concept is well-defined
> > mathematically and is frame independent.
>
> Compare what you just said to the PoR -- "frame independent" is what the
> PoR is all about. You either need the PoR or an axiom equivalent to it.
> <shrug>
Einstein's PoR is interpreted to mean that there is no absolute frame
of reference. The nonexistence of an absolute yet undetectable frame
of reference cannot be proven from my postulate. Isn't that obvious?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Shubee
I do respect Roberts' input. And he gave a valuable suggestion. In my
rewrite of Xi_2 I'm going to mention that time everywhere in Xi_2 is
moving in the same direction, otherwise bright high school students
will be confused. We can't be too careful these days.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On May 29, 7:42 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 7:30 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > So much for respecting his input.
>
> I do respect Roberts' input. And he gave a valuable suggestion. In my
> rewrite of Xi_2 I'm going to mention that time everywhere in Xi_2 is
> moving in the same direction, otherwise bright high school students
> will be confused. We can't be too careful these days.
Of course. You pick the least trivial thing he has said, and go from
there. Naturally you ignore the things myself and others have told you
in the past, and which Tom also said.
You still aren't even writing down the axioms you use. Nor are you
explaining how to generalize this derivation to all 3 spatial
dimensions. Nor are you explaining how it is simpler than the group
theory approach to SR. Nor are you explaining why your approach is
superior...etc, etc, etc.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bill Hobba
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:TFX6i.203455$Iq2.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
I think that Tom knows he is an uneducateable idiot. What Tom does, that I
like very much, is provide a lot of detail I never thought of, about why his
ideas are so silly. That detail is both educational and interesting eg it
never occurred to me before that group theory is often used without it being
explicitly stated - but now that Tom has mentioned it I see just how true it
is - even in unrelated areas like statistical modelling that I am into at
the moment. For example, if I remember the gist of it correctly, it is
used - without reference - in a proof I saw of the Erdos, Feller, Pollard
theorem, by examining the relation between different ensembles started at
different times and looking at the transformations between them ie assuming
those transformations form a group - which they must if the proof is to make
sense. Heuristically this theorem is rather easy to prove - rigorously
quite another matter. In examining the transformations you are assuming,
without explicitly stating it, they form a group - but because you imagine
them as actual ensembles of things you do not explicitly realize it - just
like in relativity you actually think of real clocks and rulers viewed from
different frames without explicitly saying the transformations form a group
ie from physical insight, you automatically assume without realizing it, a
mathematical property. Because a rigorous proof of the Erdos, Feller,
Pollard theorem is very non trivial, you see all sorts of graduations for it
from the totally rigorous to really hand waving stuff.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
Tom Roberts
> On May 28, 8:05 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>> On May 27, 8:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Shubee wrote:
>>>>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>>> I find it quite ridiculous for this paper to emphasize the
>>>> "axiomatization of physics" in title, abstract, and the opening page and
>>>> a half, and then to completely and utterly omit presenting any axioms at
>>>> all. Or even make any discernible progress towards such axioms.
>>> It would be ridiculous if a high school student couldn't understand my
>>> paper or would fail to recognize all my assumptions.
>> I doubt that VERY MUCH. Indeed, YOU have quite clearly not recognized
>> all of your own assumptions.
>
> I find it odd that you claim to able to read the innermost thoughts of
> my mind but can't figure out anything with my public definition of
> Xi_2.
I'm merely reading what you have written, here and in your paper. It is
QUITE CLEAR that you do not realize all the many assumptions you have
made. <shrug>
And I am criticizing THE PAPER. THE PAPER does not include a list of
axioms, or any acknowledgment whatsoever of the MANY assumptions you
have implicitly made.
>> To expect a student to do so is ridiculous.
>> Besides, the WHOLE POINT of such a paper is so that the reader does not
>> need to GUESS what the author had in mind.
>
> I didn't realize that my definition of Xi_2 is so difficult to
> understand. As I said elsewhere, I will simplify it.
The problem is not really "understanding", the problem is LACK OF
AXIOMATIZATION. Do, please, go back and LOOK at the title you put on the
paper and the claims you have made.
>>> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
>>> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock."
>> How do they know it is "steadily"? Certainly the human body is not
>> equipped with anything close to a "steady" appreciation of the passage
>> of time.
>
> I believe that I could have answered that, even as a child: The
> pointer of the clock moves equal distances in equal times.
You merely push the problem back yet another level: you now need "AXIOM
-6" to determine what "equal times" are, and "AXIOM -7" to determine
what "equal distances" are. It is clear to the rest of us you are NOT
making progress here....
>> You need an "AXIOM 0" that permits you to determine WHICH of the
>> clocks is incrementing into the future.
>
> Every point is a clock as I've said before, and you telling me that I
> have to declare that time everywhere is moving in the same direction,
No! READ WHAT I WROTE! You have two sequences that increment in opposite
directions, and no way to determine which is increasing in the future
and which is decreasing. The world we inhabit comes "equipped" with a
sense of the future....
>> And you need an "AXIOM -1" that
>> permits you to determine what "uniform" means.
>
> That's a definition and not an axiom.
There is no real distinction between definitions and axioms, in that
both can be referenced in proofs. An undefined term like "uniform" is
just as devastating to your cause as is a missing axiom. <shrug>
> And I have defined uniform to
> mean equal distances in equal times.
Which does not solve the problem -- defining one phrase in terms of
other undefined phrases does nothing.
>> And you
>> need the PoR or "AXIOM -3" to ensure that your choice among different
>> possibilities does not affect the result.
>
> That's a theorem.
Where? You have no axioms from which to derive any theorems. <shrug>
> [...]
This is obviously going nowhere. Don't expect me to respond unless you
wake up, learn something about the subject of axiomatization, and say
something new and useful.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > I find it odd that you claim to able to read the innermost thoughts of
> > my mind but can't figure out anything with my public definition of
> > Xi_2.
>
> I'm merely reading what you have written, here and in your paper. It is
> QUITE CLEAR that you do not realize all the many assumptions you have
> made. <shrug>
You have declared with great contempt that you have to guess at the
meaning of Xi_2 from what I've written but you also say that you
recognize all the assumptions that I've made. You can't have your cake
and eat it too.
> > I didn't realize that my definition of Xi_2 is so difficult to
> > understand. As I said elsewhere, I will simplify it.
>
> The problem is not really "understanding", the problem is LACK OF
> AXIOMATIZATION. Do, please, go back and LOOK at the title you put on the
> paper and the claims you have made.
"The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1". You do a fine job of always
snipping "Step 1". What are you? The copyright police? Do you own the
trademark on the phrase "Step -1"? Hilbert's philosophy of what he
meant by the axiomatization of physics is clear and I'm in perfect
harmony with it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
The meaning of Step 1 is my own interpretation.
> >>> I wrote that "Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that
> >>> moves steadily along a continuum of numbers is a clock."
> >> How do they know it is "steadily"? Certainly the human body is not
> >> equipped with anything close to a "steady" appreciation of the passage
> >> of time.
>
> > I believe that I could have answered that, even as a child: The
> > pointer of the clock moves equal distances in equal times.
>
> You merely push the problem back yet another level: you now need "AXIOM
> -6" to determine what "equal times" are, and "AXIOM -7" to determine
> what "equal distances" are. It is clear to the rest of us you are NOT
> making progress here....
That's only because you know not to debate a mathematician when you're
clearly outranked because you can't possibly win. So you take the
position of pseudo-intellectual. Anyone who has read Richard Feynman
recognizes the lowbrow game you're playing:
"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into
that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite
each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are
talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do
you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard
P. Feynman
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> "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
Eric Gisse
[...]
> 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