The Essential History of Special Relativity
Shubee
involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
gravity.
Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
the same footing. He also simplified relativity by eliminating the
ether and by declaring two previously accepted results were
fundamental postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
Lorentz transformation.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
using Einstein's first or second postulate.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
may be laws that aren't.
Shubee
harry
news:29cc8825-5435-4457...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies.
I put some footnotes, if that's what you're after.
> Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
> would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
> Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
> equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
> accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
> through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
In fact it wasn't approximate, but he didn't realise that due to a mistake
in one of his calculations.
> Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did.
In fact Lorentz tried to attain the PoR (and succeeded without knowing it,
as Poincare acknowledged).
> He put the
> Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
> properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
> transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
> electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
> gravity.
>
> Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
> the same footing.
That happens to be already the case with the Lorentz transformations, thanks
to their group property.
> He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether
More accurately: it was "superfluous" for his derivation.
> and by declaring two previously accepted results were
> fundamental postulates.
Indeed, as he later put it (1923): "The postulate of equivalence of inertial
frames for the formulation of the laws of Nature is assumed to be valid for
the whole of physics (special relativity principle). From Maxwell-Lorentz
electrodynamics it takes the postulate of invariance of the velocity of
light in a vacuum (light principle)."
> From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
> Lorentz transformation.
Which was also appreciated by Lorentz who adopted that approach in his
teaching.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> experimental verification.
Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
> This was achieved by specifying an
> irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
> which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
> theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
> using Einstein's first or second postulate.
I could have known, you used this topic to present yourself as the next
Einstein...
And note that you are not the first to do such a thing. The laws of nature
hang together, such that one can always postulate some and then derive the
rest.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
> edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
> physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> may be laws that aren't.
You would do well to summarize it in a separate thread.
Harald
Dono
> The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> when I .....
hahahahahaha
Shubee
wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:29cc8825-5435-4457...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> I put some footnotes, if that's what you're after.
Yes. Thank you.
> > Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
> > would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
> > Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
> > equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
> > accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
> > through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
>
> In fact it wasn't approximate, but he didn't realise that due to a mistake
> in one of his calculations.
>
> > Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> > the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did.
>
> In fact Lorentz tried to attain the PoR (and succeeded without knowing it,
> as Poincare acknowledged).
Harald, please cite an internet reference for that.
> > He put the
> > Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
> > properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
> > transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
> > electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
> > gravity.
>
> > Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> > space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
> > the same footing.
>
> That happens to be already the case with the Lorentz transformations, thanks
> to their group property.
I need to edit my remark. “Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely
symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial systems on
exactly the same footing.”
Your comment is now false.
> > He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether
>
> More accurately: it was "superfluous" for his derivation.
>
> > and by declaring two previously accepted results were
> > fundamental postulates.
>
> Indeed, as he later put it (1923): "The postulate of equivalence of inertial
> frames for the formulation of the laws of Nature is assumed to be valid for
> the whole of physics (special relativity principle). From Maxwell-Lorentz
> electrodynamics it takes the postulate of invariance of the velocity of
> light in a vacuum (light principle)."
>
> > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
> > Lorentz transformation.
>
> Which was also appreciated by Lorentz who adopted that approach in his
> teaching.
>
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> > The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> > when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> > experimental verification.
>
> Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
frame of reference.
> > This was achieved by specifying an
> > irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
> > which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
> > theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
> > using Einstein's first or second postulate.
>
> I could have known, you used this topic to present yourself as the next
> Einstein...
I regard being compared to the unethical plagiarist Einstein as a
great insult.
> And note that you are not the first to do such a thing. The laws of nature
> hang together, such that one can always postulate some and then derive the
> rest.
No. I’ve raised a completely different question. What is the weakest
axiom set for a partial relativistic theory to exist?
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> > dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
> > edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> > which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
> > physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> > physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> > may be laws that aren't.
>
> You would do well to summarize it in a separate thread.
That is the summary.
Shubee
Shubee
wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
> > would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
> > Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
> > equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
> > accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
> > through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
>
> In fact it wasn't approximate, but he didn't realise that due to a mistake
> in one of his calculations.
Harald,
I've read several papers that state that Lorentz's theory evolved from
v/c order to exactness. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
where it says:
A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895[4] was the "theorem
of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c. This theorem states
that a moving observer (relative to the ether) in his „fictitious“
field makes the same observations as a resting observers in his „real“
field. This theorem was extended for terms of all orders by Lorentz
(1904)[5] and completed by Poincaré (1905, 1906)[6][7] and by Lorentz
(1906, 1916)[8] in order to obey the principle of relativity.
Shubee
Shubee
wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> > the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did.
>
> In fact Lorentz tried to attain the PoR (and succeeded without knowing it,
> as Poincare acknowledged).
And I recall reading Lorentz admitting that he didn't take the PoR as
far as Poincaré did and that it didn't occur to him that the PoR would
apply to all experiments.
Shubee
Eric Gisse
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Larry, Curly, and Moe thank you for noticing their contributions.
[snip]
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> dramatic and unpleasant.
That's because they are all in your head. You have taken a simple
geometric theory and shit all over it. There is nothing in there that
is actually special relativity. Your "derivation" of the Lorentz
transformation is predicated on several assumptions that have no basis
other than "it gets me the answer I want". In addition your theory is
physically meaningless [sliding rulers? the hell?], does not
generalize, does not contain any possible description of the
kinematics that actually make SR useful, and finally is simply ugly.
> The consequences are severe in that the whole
> edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> which requires more work.
"If you think the problem is bad now, wait until I've fixed it!"
How the fuck did you graduate with that mathematics degree when you
write things like this? SR isn't anything near a tautology - its a
theory of PHYSICS. It has to pass experimental test. That's what it
means to be a physical theory.
> The theory states that all the laws of
> physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> may be laws that aren't.
It actually states something else. Review the postulates of special
relativity - the actual theory, not your arcane contraption - and
answer the question at your leisure.
>
> Shubee
harry
> On Jun 13, 8:05 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
>> > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
>> > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>>
>> I put some footnotes, if that's what you're after.
>
>
>> > Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
>> > would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
>> > Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
>> > equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
>> > accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
>> > through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
>>
>> In fact it wasn't approximate, but he didn't realise that due to a
>> mistake
>> in one of his calculations.
>>
>> > the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did.
>>
>> In fact Lorentz tried to attain the PoR (and succeeded without knowing
>> it,
>> as Poincare acknowledged).
>
Instead I have the original papers which state and acknowledge that (Lorentz
1904, Poincare 1905).
>> > He put the
>> > Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
>> > properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
>> > transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
>> > electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
>> > gravity.
>>
>> > Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
>> > space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
>> > the same footing.
>>
>> That happens to be already the case with the Lorentz transformations,
>> thanks to their group property.
>
> I need to edit my remark. “Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely
> symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial systems on
> exactly the same footing.”
>
> Your comment is now false.
No, why? The Lorentz transformations comply to Poincare's PoR, according to
which the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame.
>> > He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether
>>
>> More accurately: it was "superfluous" for his derivation.
>>
>> > and by declaring two previously accepted results were
>> > fundamental postulates.
>>
>> Indeed, as he later put it (1923): "The postulate of equivalence of
>> inertial
>> frames for the formulation of the laws of Nature is assumed to be valid
>> for
>> the whole of physics (special relativity principle). From Maxwell-Lorentz
>> electrodynamics it takes the postulate of invariance of the velocity of
>> light in a vacuum (light principle)."
>>
>> > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
>> > Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> Which was also appreciated by Lorentz who adopted that approach in his
>> teaching.
>>
>> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>>
>> > The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
>> > when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
>> > experimental verification.
>>
>> Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
>
> That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
> frame of reference.
SRT doesn't contain such a postulate, just the PoR which was by then a
matter of observation. Of course you can argue that not all possible
observations can be tested, but that is true for any law of physics.
>> > This was achieved by specifying an
>> > irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
>> > which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
>> > theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
>> > using Einstein's first or second postulate.
>>
>> I could have known, you used this topic to present yourself as the next
>> Einstein...
>
> I regard being compared to the unethical plagiarist Einstein as a
> great insult.
The topic is about science...
>> And note that you are not the first to do such a thing. The laws of
>> nature
>> hang together, such that one can always postulate some and then derive
>> the
>> rest.
>
> No. I’ve raised a completely different question. What is the weakest
> axiom set for a partial relativistic theory to exist?
>
>> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>
>> > The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
>> > dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
>> > edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
>> > which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
>> > physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
>> > physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
>> > may be laws that aren't.
>>
>> You would do well to summarize it in a separate thread.
>
> That is the summary.
>
> Shubee
> On Jun 13, 8:05 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
It was in fact a new theory, although it was of course based on his theory
of electrons. As Lorentz put it himself:
"It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of
certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order
of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought
to frame a theory of this kind. I believe it is now possible to treat
the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the
velocity will be that it be less than that of light. I shall start from the
fundamental equations of the theory of electrons."
Those "fundamental assumptions" were really new. Probably the word "many"
was put there because it appeared to him that it still didn't work
perfectly. Poincare corrected the glitch and showed that Lorentz's new
theory resulted in the Lorentz transformations which achieve perfect
relativity of inertial frames.
Cheers,
Harald
Androcles
The genesis of the theory of relativity
Oh DO shut up!
Or at least quit cross-posting your crap to sci.physics and sci.math,
you have your own fucking newsgroup for your garbage.
--
Androcles
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:121336...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| "Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:29cc8825-5435-4457...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
| > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
| > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
|
| I put some footnotes, if that's what you're after.
No you didn't, those are not yours.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jun 13, 4:09 am, Shubee wrote:
>
> > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> Larry, Curly, and Moe thank you for noticing their contributions.
Einstein the nitwit, Einstein the plagiarist, and Einstein the liar.
<shrug>
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> > dramatic and unpleasant.
>
> That's because they are all in your head. You have taken a simple
> geometric theory and shit all over it. There is nothing in there that
> is actually special relativity. Your "derivation" of the Lorentz
> transformation is predicated on several assumptions that have no basis
> other than "it gets me the answer I want".
The nitwit Einstein’s 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform is
totally garbage. However, the plagiarist Einstein he was able to
produce the answer the liar Einstein wanted. <shrug>
> In addition your theory is
> physically meaningless [sliding rulers? the hell?], does not
> generalize, does not contain any possible description of the
> kinematics that actually make SR useful, and finally is simply ugly.
The Lorentz transform is only useful that it degenerates into the
Galilean transform. Other than that, it will give erroneous result.
<shrug>
> > The consequences are severe in that the whole
> > edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> > which requires more work.
>
> "If you think the problem is bad now, wait until I've fixed it!"
A multi-year super senior is bragging about able to fix mathematics.
<shrug>
> How the fuck did you graduate with that mathematics degree when you
> write things like this?
Don’t mind others. Mind yourself first. I have counter you being at
least 3 super seniors already. <shrug>
> SR isn't anything near a tautology - its a
> theory of PHYSICS.
SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> It has to pass experimental test. That's what it
> means to be a physical theory.
Why bother to pass any experimental test if the conjecture is faulty
right from the very start? The Lorentz transform manifests the twin’s
paradox. <shrug>
> > The theory states that all the laws of
> > physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> > physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> > may be laws that aren't.
>
> It actually states something else. Review the postulates of special
> relativity - the actual theory, not your arcane contraption - and
> answer the question at your leisure.
SR remains merely a conjecture --- an absurd one actually. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 13, 8:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 4:09 am, Shubee wrote:
>
> > > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> > > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> > > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> > Larry, Curly, and Moe thank you for noticing their contributions.
>
> Einstein the nitwit, Einstein the plagiarist, and Einstein the liar.
> <shrug>
>
[snip whatever]
You sure like to talk about Einstein a lot. Have you finished the
altar yet?
[...]
Koobee Wublee
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Actually, I have counted only one --- Galileo about 400 yeas ago.
<shrug>
> Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
> would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
> Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
> equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
> accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
> through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
Lorentz’s interpretation of the Lorentz transform is more absurd than
SR. <shrug>
> Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
> Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
> properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
> transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
> electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
> gravity.
You are wrong here. Larmor was the first to come up with the Lorentz
transform. It was done only after Voigt modified the Galilean
transform and came up with the Voigt transform to explain the null
results of the MMX. <shrug>
Poincare merely did the analysis on the Lorentz transform. The most
important concept is the relative simultaneity (combination of time
dilation and the principle of relativity). However, he failed to
notice a paradox in relative simultaneity.
If you look back through Voigt’s work, I am not surprised that you
will find Voigt already had derived the Lorentz transform but
discarded it in favor of the Voigt transform because of the twin’s
paradox.
> Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
> the same footing. He also simplified relativity by eliminating the
> ether and by declaring two previously accepted results were
> fundamental postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
> Lorentz transformation.
Poincare did not derive any transform or come up with any theories,
nor did Einstein. They just interpreted the Lorentz transform which
is already symmetric because it satisfies the principle of
relativity. <shrug>
> The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
> irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
> which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
> theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
> using Einstein's first or second postulate.
Knowing what the Lorentz transform is, anyone can follow Einstein’s
footsteps to fudge the derivation of the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
> edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
> physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> may be laws that aren't.
Any conjecture based on the Lorentz transform is another
interpretation as SR, LET, and others. After all, the Lorentz
transform is garbage because it manifests the twin’s paradox. <shrug>
Uncle Al
>
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> Lorentz made a key step
Hey stooopid:
1) Newton mathematized all then-known physics by 1687. Mercury's
orbit was off by an RCH.
2) Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism by 1867. Maxwell and
Newton were incompatible.
3) Einstein redrived all Newton less gravitation according to
Maxwell by 1916 - Special Relativity
4) Einstein postulated the Equivalence Principle from his elevator
Gedankenexperiment, presented spacetime as a geometry, and was
airtight except for quantum mechanics - General Relativity. Mercury's
orbit and falling light were predicted then observed to spec. GPS
works to spec.
> There are
> physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> may be laws that aren't.
Name one that isn't.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Juan R.
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that involved
> three major players and their critical reactions to the electrodynamics
> of moving bodies.
>
> Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that would
> obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations. Lorentz
> exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental equations for the
> interaction between electrons and fields, and thus accounted for the
> absence of effects of the motion of the earth through the ether, but
> only to a certain approximation.
>
> Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
> Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
> properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
> transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
> electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
> gravity.
>
> Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly the
> same footing.
But this was done before by Poincaré, as Lorentz also recognized.
Note also that was Poincaré the first who introduced the invariant
s^2 = c^2 t^2 - x^2
which naturally implies that space and time may be in same footing.
> He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether and
> by declaring two previously accepted results were fundamental
> postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz
> transformation.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
> irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
> which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
> theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
> using Einstein's first or second postulate.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
> edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of physics
> may be divided into two distinct categories. There are physical laws
> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws that
> aren't.
You do not give a definition for "same", therefore I have a doubt about
that you really mean.
Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
Shubee
> > Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> > space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly the
> > same footing.
>
> But this was done before by Poincaré, as Lorentz also recognized.
>
> Note also that was Poincaré the first who introduced the invariant
>
> s^2 = c^2 t^2 - x^2
>
> which naturally implies that space and time may be in same footing.
Juan,
I need to correct my paragraph. "Einstein made Poincaré's theory
completely symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial
systems on exactly the same footing." That's what I meant.
Poincaré assumed an unobservable absolute frame of reference. That
makes all the distance measures and clock readings in different
inertial frames of reference fundamentally different. Poincaré's
theory was already fully mathematically symmetric and that's all one
needs for real physics. However, Einstein really did originate the
unobservable symmetry where the meaning of time and distance flip-
flops back and forth, depending on the observer. That simply doesn't
happen with the assumption of an unobservable absolute frame of
reference. In this sense, I strongly believe that Einstein complicated
Poincaré's theory by insisting on the unobservable.
The innovation in my approach is that I'm really going back to
Poincaré's easier to understand theory but in my revision I'm not
presupposing that an unobservable absolute frame of reference exists
or doesn't exist. In that sense, I believe that I've created a theory
that is more fundamental than both Einstein's special relativity and
Poincaré's original relativity.
Shubee
Shubee
>
> Instead I have the original papers which state and acknowledge that (Lorentz
> 1904, Poincare 1905).
>
> >> > space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
> >> > the same footing.
>
> >> That happens to be already the case with the Lorentz transformations,
> >> thanks to their group property.
>
> > I need to edit my remark. “Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely
> > symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial systems on
> > exactly the same footing.”
>
> > Your comment is now false.
>
> No, why? The Lorentz transformations comply to Poincare's PoR, according
> to which the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame.
Poincaré's theory already had the all the necessary mathematical
symmetry that one needs for real physics. But Einstein complicated
Poincaré's theory by insisting on an additional unobservable symmetry
where the meaning of time and distance flip-flops back and forth,
depending on the observer. That simply doesn't happen with the
assumption of an unobservable absolute frame of reference. In this
sense, I strongly believe that Einstein complicated Poincaré's theory
by insisting on the unobservable.
The innovation in my approach is that I'm really going back to
Poincaré's easier to understand theory but in my minimalist approach
I'm not presupposing that an unobservable absolute frame of reference
exists or doesn't exist. In that sense, I believe that I've created a
theory that is more fundamental than Poincaré's original relativity
and Einstein's revision.
> >> > The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> >> > when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> >> > experimental verification.
>
> >> Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
>
> > That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
> > frame of reference.
>
> SRT doesn't contain such a postulate, just the PoR which was by then a
> matter of observation. Of course you can argue that not all possible
> observations can be tested, but that is true for any law of physics.
Poincaré believed in an unobservable, absolute frame of reference.
And, of course, Poincaré originated the PoR. Are you saying that the
PoR in special relativity, as taught today, is identical to the PoR in
Poincaré’s original relativity?
Even if Einstein’s PoR is identical to the PoR in Poincaré’s original
relativity and even though physicists today might not have declared
the nonexistence of an unobservable, absolute frame of reference as an
axiom clearly enough for you, they sure do presuppose its nonexistence
when explaining Einstein’s theory. And I’m not talking about
observations. I’m talking about presuppositions.
> > I've read several papers that state that Lorentz's theory evolved from
> > v/c order to exactness. See, for example,
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> > where it says:
>
> > A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895[4] was the "theorem
> > of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c. This theorem states
> > that a moving observer (relative to the ether) in his „fictitious“
> > field makes the same observations as a resting observers in his „real“
> > field. This theorem was extended for terms of all orders by Lorentz
> > (1904)[5] and completed by Poincaré (1905, 1906)[6][7] and by Lorentz
> > (1906, 1916)[8] in order to obey the principle of relativity.
>
> As Lorentz put it himself:
>
> "It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of
> certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order
> of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
> independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought
> to frame a theory of this kind. I believe it is now possible to treat
> the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the
> velocity will be that it be less than that of light. I shall start from the
> fundamental equations of the theory of electrons."
This quote from Lorentz confirms what I’ve said. Lorentz started
relativity by approximating the consequences to the PoR in terms of
first order effects. The phrase, “without neglecting terms of one
order of magnitude or another” doesn’t admit an oversight or a
mathematical error. It simply refers to the business of making an
approximation.
> Those "fundamental assumptions" were really new. Probably the word "many"
> was put there because it appeared to him that it still didn't work
> perfectly. Poincare corrected the glitch and showed that Lorentz's new
> theory resulted in the Lorentz transformations which achieve perfect
> relativity of inertial frames.
How does that contradict my opening post?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/238815ad2efed0f5
Shubee
Shubee
> >> > The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> >> > when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> >> > experimental verification.
>
> >> Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
>
> > That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
> > frame of reference.
>
> SRT doesn't contain such a postulate,
I found a reference for you in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
In their article on special relativity, in the section titled
“Postulates”, it clearly states:
"It should be noted that the derivation of special relativity depends
not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several tacit
assumptions (which are made in almost all theories of physics),
including the isotropy and homogeneity of space and the independence
of measuring rods and clocks from their past history." (Einstein,
"Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity", 1920).
The independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history
is not an assumption that I'm willing to make.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Edward Green
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
Please provide brief abstract definitions. Thanks.
Edward Green
> SR remains merely a conjecture --- an absurd one actually. <shrug>
Why is the conjecture of Lorentz invariance "absurd"?
Shubee
Where did I use the word "same" or the concept of sameness? I don't
know what you mean.
> Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
I always thought that physicists used the words "invariant" and
"covariant" as synonyms, so again, I don't know what you mean.
Shubee
Dono
> I always thought that physicists used the words "invariant" and
> "covariant" as synonyms, so again, I don't know what you mean.
>
Shitbert,
They SOUND the same but they MEAN totally different things.
Attend a physics freshman class, you might learn new things.
Tonico
**************************************************************
Oh, my hollie mollie!! Are you kidding? You are the one that wrote in
the first post of this thread "The next significant development in
the history of relativity occurred when I eliminated everything from
relativity that was not amenable to experimental verification".
You've worked out a "significant step in relativity's history"...and
you think "invariant" and "covariant" is the same?!?!? For someone
who's been messing around with Lorentz, Maxwell, Poincare, Einstein et
al., you don't even known what a covariant tensor is, how the
covariant law for electromagnetism is given, and etc.??!
Dude, could it be that, perhaps, you need FIRST to study some physics
so that then you'll know what you're talking about?
Geeeessssseees!
Regards
Tonio
Eric Gisse
He doesn't understand or accept any resolution of the Twins paradox,
nor does he understand when he can and cannot apply the Lorentz
transformations.
T.H. Ray
isotropy and homogeneity imply time as a simple
parameter of reversible direction. Lorentz Transformation
would not be true otherwise. Thus, past history of the
measuring instrument can play no role in the measurement
result, or the observers could not agree on the result.
Tom
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.
> pdf
harry
Sorry I can't parse that....
> The innovation in my approach is that I'm really going back to
> Poincaré's easier to understand theory but in my minimalist approach
> I'm not presupposing that an unobservable absolute frame of reference
> exists or doesn't exist.
Which is what Einstein did, as quoted.
> In that sense, I believe that I've created a
> theory that is more fundamental than Poincaré's original relativity
> and Einstein's revision.
At first sight that can't be right: Already Newton made the same assumptions
(his first law and the PoR), but he used the Galilean equations. Thus it
appears that either you or Newton made a mistake.
>> >> > The next significant development in the history of relativity
>> >> > occurred
>> >> > when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable
>> >> > to
>> >> > experimental verification.
>>
>> >> Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.
>>
>> > That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
>> > frame of reference.
>>
>> SRT doesn't contain such a postulate, just the PoR which was by then a
>> matter of observation. Of course you can argue that not all possible
>> observations can be tested, but that is true for any law of physics.
>
> Poincaré believed in an unobservable, absolute frame of reference.
> And, of course, Poincaré originated the PoR. Are you saying that the
> PoR in special relativity, as taught today, is identical to the PoR in
> Poincaré’s original relativity?
I disagree with the concept of modifying a theory while pretenting that what
one teaches dates from the time of inception. Apart of that, the idea of
different PoR concepts was unheard of, that's a later invention. Any
perceived difference between the PoR of Einstein and Poincare is a splitting
of hairs: the variations in formulations by each of them were greater than
the differences between the two.
> Even if Einstein’s PoR is identical to the PoR in Poincaré’s original
> relativity and even though physicists today might not have declared
> the nonexistence of an unobservable, absolute frame of reference as an
> axiom clearly enough for you, they sure do presuppose its nonexistence
> when explaining Einstein’s theory. And I’m not talking about
> observations. I’m talking about presuppositions.
Later relativistis both claimed the existence or nonexistence of an ether.
However, the purpose of Einstein's approach to the New Mechanics was to turn
it into a principle theory which does NOT make such a preproposition, as I
alread quoted - apart of the second postulate which Pauli called the "true
essence of the aether point of view".
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001385/01/9908048.pdf
Of making NO approximation.
>> Those "fundamental assumptions" were really new. Probably the word "many"
>> was put there because it appeared to him that it still didn't work
>> perfectly. Poincare corrected the glitch and showed that Lorentz's new
>> theory resulted in the Lorentz transformations which achieve perfect
>> relativity of inertial frames.
>
> How does that contradict my opening post?
Your claim "only to a certain approximation". That should be: "but not
entirely without error".
Harald
Juan R.
Covariance:
{T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)} --> {t^(m...)_(n...); y_mn; h(y_mn)}
Invariance:
{T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)} --> {phi T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)}
with phi an isometry.
Some authors call "general covariance" to the former and "special
covariance" to latter.
Juan R.
You said
(\blockquote
The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two
distinct categories. There are physical laws that are the *same* in all
frames of reference and there may be laws that aren't.
)
I want to know what criteria you use to decide if two laws are the same
or aren't.
>> Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
>
> I always thought that physicists used the words "invariant" and
> "covariant" as synonyms, so again, I don't know what you mean.
Generally physicists don't. E.g. particle physicists emphasis is on
invariant (rather than covariant) actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_%28physics%29
Some authors use the terms "special covariance" for the former case and
"general covariance" case for the latter but in any case the two cases
are differentiated.
Shubee
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> You said
>
> (\blockquote
> The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two
> distinct categories. There are physical laws that are the *same* in all
> frames of reference and there may be laws that aren't.
> )
>
> I want to know what criteria you use to decide if two laws are the same
> or aren't.
Thank you Juan. That's a great question and very helpful. I see now
that I have to rewrite my interpretation. I propose the following
revision, if you believe it's sufficiently clear:
The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two
distinct categories. There are physical laws that are frame
independent and there may be physical laws that aren't. A frame is an
inertial frame of reference. A law is a mathematical equation that has
a physical interpretation. Laws of interest consist of equations
containing physical constants and parameters (such as rest mass, spin,
charge, position, time, velocity, acceleration, etc) or other abstract
or measurable quantities (such as quantum amplitudes, magnetic and
gravitational field strengths etc). A physical law is frame
independent if the equation describing some aspect of motion or the
interactions of matter and energy in spacetime is true in all inertial
frames of reference.
> >> Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
Yes, that's what I'm referring to, if I understand the meaning of a
covariant law. If so, then all the laws the physics in the original
relativity theory of Lorentz and Poincaré are covariant laws whereas,
in Einstein's interpretation, they are invariant.
> > I always thought that physicists used the words "invariant" and
> > "covariant" as synonyms, so again, I don't know what you mean.
>
> Generally physicists don't. E.g. particle physicists emphasis is on
> invariant (rather than covariant) actions.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_%28physics%29
That link doesn't define what is meant by a covariant action but I
assume it means an action that is nearly invariant or possibly
completely invariant if the action can be supplemented with
appropriate gauge-conditions.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0610154
I know that general covariance in physics is the invariance of the
form of physical laws under arbitrary differentiable coordinate
transformations.
> Some authors use the terms "special covariance" for the former case and
> "general covariance" case for the latter but in any case the two cases
> are differentiated.
I can see the distinction between special and general covariance in
the relativity theory of Lorentz and Poincaré versus Einstein's theory
when explained in terms of a physical distinction, but I still don't
see a mathematical difference in that instance.
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Juan R.
> On Jun 15, 8:04 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> You said
>>
>> (\blockquote
>> The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two
>> distinct categories. There are physical laws that are the *same* in
>> all frames of reference and there may be laws that aren't.
>> )
>>
>> I want to know what criteria you use to decide if two laws are the same
>> or aren't.
>
> Thank you Juan. That's a great question and very helpful. I see now that
> I have to rewrite my interpretation. I propose the following revision,
> if you believe it's sufficiently clear:
>
> The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two
> distinct categories. There are physical laws that are frame independent
> and there may be physical laws that aren't. A frame is an inertial frame
> of reference. A law is a mathematical equation that has a physical
> interpretation.
A minor point Shubee, there may be laws are not equations. E.g. the
second law of thermodynamics for irreversible phenomena (d_iS > 0).
> Laws of interest consist of equations containing
> physical constants and parameters (such as rest mass, spin, charge,
> position, time, velocity, acceleration, etc) or other abstract or
> measurable quantities (such as quantum amplitudes, magnetic and
> gravitational field strengths etc). A physical law is frame independent
> if the equation describing some aspect of motion or the interactions of
> matter and energy in spacetime is true in all inertial frames of
> reference.
Better, but does not still answer my question about criteria.
For instance, for a frame: E^2 = m^2 + p^2
For another frame: E^2 = m^2
Do you consider both equations to be the same or not?
Also, in my opinion physical laws would be not limited to existence of
some spacetime background.
Physical laws previous to special relativity are not defined in
spacetime. And some modern research approaches tend to abandon the
spacetime background by a more general physical arena.
I myself am developing a post-relativity theory where spacetime is an
emergent quantity. One of difficulties was i could not use relativists
definition of invariance-covariance (which is based in the assumption of
spacetime) and I had to develop dynamical generalizations.
Wald in chapter 4 of his celebrated textbook defines special and general
covariance both in mathematical form and contrast both.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
--
Edward Green
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> EdwardGreenwrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:52:58 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 14, 6:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> >> Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?
>
> > Please provide brief abstract definitions. Thanks.
>
> Covariance:
>
> {T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)} --> {t^(m...)_(n...); y_mn; h(y_mn)}
>
> Invariance:
>
> {T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)} --> {phi T^(a...)_(b...); g_ab; f(g_ab)}
>
> with phi an isometry.
>
> Some authors call "general covariance" to the former and "special
> covariance" to latter.
Hmm... I got exactly what I asked for! Too brief and too abstract for
me. Sorry to waste your time.
If you care to throw some good money after bad though, how about a
brief gloss, in words, what those extremely compact formulae have to
say for themselves? Anybody?
Juan R.
In words.
Imagine one equation has a term (1 v v) where v is velocity in an
inertial frame of reference.
A Lorentz transformation to another frame gives (1 v' v'). The 1 remains.
This is invariance.
A general transformation to a non-inertial frame may give a term (g' v'
v') where in general g' /= 1.
You can rewrite the original term like (g v v) with (g = 1)
The value for g has changed but the equation is invariant in abstract
form. This an intuitive picture for general covariance.
T.H. Ray
I don't thnk they say anything at all.
How about if we look at Einstein's own words?
In The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton U Press, 1956
pp. 9--11), he shows that linear orthogonal
transformations in the Cartesian system of coordinates
"...have an objective significance, independent of the
particular choice of the Cartesian coordinates, as can
be expressed by an invariant with respect to linear
orthogonal transformations. This is the reason that the
theory of invariants, which has to do with the laws that
govern the form of invariants, is so important for
analytical geometry." He follows with another example of
a geometrical invariant, using volume.
Einstein next shows that invariants "...are not the only
forms by means of which we can give expression to the
independence of the particular choice of the Cartesian
coordinates. Vectors and tensors are other forms of
expression." He demonstrates that the equations of
straight lines " ...have a significance which is
independent of the system of coordinates." He
continues, "[I]f the three components of a vector
vanish for one system of Cartesian coordinates, they
vanish for all systems, because the equations of
transformation are homogeneous. We can thus get the
meaning of the concept of a vector without referring to
a geometrical representation. The behaviour of the
equations of a straight line can be expressed be saying
that the equation of a straight line is co-variant with
respect to linear orthogonal transformations."
This is why I told Shubee earlier that he does not
grasp the mathematical model of special relativity--he
tries to argue that the clocks and rods of measure are
not independent of the measurement. Einstein's case
is, however, both mathematically and physically
crank-proof.
Tom
Dono
> There are physical laws that are frame
> independent and there may be physical laws that aren't.
DvM,
This needs to be added to the "Immortal Fumbles".
Especially since it comes from the "re-writer of special relativity",
mr. Shittybert
Juan R.
From the administrator of the Immortal Fumbles website:
"Even when you fail to realize that you are flatly wrong about
something, the best thing to do, is to at least think 'Oops!'.
Are you Androcles in disguise?"
--- Administrator to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
"You act exactly like Androcles, and that is no compliment.
Your Dono-alias is severely compromized."
--- Administrator to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
--
Edward Green
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> EdwardGreenwrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:27:06 -0700:
Ok... got it. Roughly. Thanks.
I had noticed in the past that the equivalance of coordinate systems
in general relativity is of a different character than that in special
relativity -- more machinery goes into it.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
...you are also a proven liar, Juanshito :-)
Juan R.
> On Jun 17, 1:38 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>:
> http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d5814688f0.jpg
>
> ...you are also a proven liar, Juanshito :-)
You lies in action :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fee82c0d7b37d278
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71827fe68647ca7c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/45ec8f3cf4df0fd8
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1134132abaff1002
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07b98bca64850e21
Michael Helland
> Shubee wrote:
>
> > The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> > involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> > electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> > Lorentz made a key step
>
> [snip]
>
> Hey stooopid:
>
> 1) Newton mathematized all then-known physics by 1687. Mercury's
> orbit was off by an RCH.
> 2) Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism by 1867. Maxwell and
> Newton were incompatible.
> 3) Einstein redrived all Newton less gravitation according to
> Maxwell by 1916 - Special Relativity
1905.
> 4) Einstein postulated the Equivalence Principle from his elevator
> Gedankenexperiment, presented spacetime as a geometry, and was
> airtight except for quantum mechanics - General Relativity. Mercury's
> orbit and falling light were predicted then observed to spec. GPS
> works to spec.
>
> > There are
> > physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> > may be laws that aren't.
>
> Name one that isn't.
I've heard that galaxies are "gravitationally bound" and thus aren't
subject to the laws of cosmological expansion.
We really don't know what it's like to be an observer outside of a
gravitationally bound structure.
Conjecture: Maybe the laws are different in that frame of reference?
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>
Juanshito, Juanshito
So other people are calling you Shito, I see. Now, how about those two
crackpot conferences that you have been invited but you are too sick
to attend?
Shubee
BURT
> The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
> involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies.
>
> would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
> Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
> equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
> accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
> through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.
>
> Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
> the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
> Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
> properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
> transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
> electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
> gravity.
>
> Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
> space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
> ether and by declaring two previously accepted results were
> fundamental postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
> Lorentz transformation.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
> when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
> experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
> irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
> which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
> theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
> using Einstein's first or second postulate.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
> dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
> edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
> physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
> physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
> may be laws that aren't.
>
Shubee no flat atoms in Lorentz transformation. Atoms have slow
physics.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> On Jun 14, 6:43 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I always thought that physicists used the words "invariant" and
> > "covariant" as synonyms, so again, I don't know what you mean.
>
> You've worked out a "significant step in relativity's history"...and
> you think "invariant" and "covariant" is the same?!?!?
That significant step in the history of relativity is shrouded with
mysticism to mystify the public to accept bullsh*t. <shrug>
> For someone
> who's been messing around with Lorentz, Maxwell, Poincare, Einstein et
> al., you don't even known what a covariant tensor is, how the
> covariant law for electromagnetism is given, and etc.??!
The tall words “invariance” and “covariance” are invented to confuse
and mystify. The wording of bullsh*t does not matter. What counts is
the mathematics involved. <shrug>
The Lorentz invariance refers to the principle of relativity
discovered by Galileo 400 hundred years ago. Just because the ones
who are late at learning Galileo’s work discovered the symmetry in the
principle of relativity and thus invariance in them, it does not
conjure up any divine phenomena to mystify the ones, like yourself,
struggling to learn some physics. <shrug>
Invariance also refers to the geometry where no observation or choice
of coordinate systems can alter this geometry unless you are a warlock
or a witch. <shrug>
Covariance is associated with the covariant derivative invented by
Ricci to justify for the divine nature of the geodesic equations
derived by Christoffel. The covariant derive is merely a man-made
mathematical operator. Since man is not god, the covariant derivative
cannot define the actual geometry as GR is misleading the public to do
so. <shrug>
> Dude, could it be that, perhaps, you need FIRST to study some physics
> so that then you'll know what you're talking about?
So, when are you going to learn some physics?
> Geeeessssseees!
What’s up with that? How come your English has improved drastically
overnight? Do you have a good Spanish-to-English-to-Spanish
dictionary at hand?
Juan R.
> On Jun 18, 12:47 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>
>
> Juanshito, Juanshito
>
> So other people are calling you Shito, I see.
Don't lye, only you use that karandash :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fee82c0d7b37d278
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71827fe68647ca7c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/45ec8f3cf4df0fd8
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1134132abaff1002
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07b98bca64850e21
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
> Now, how about those two
> crackpot conferences that you have been invited but you are too sick to
> attend?
Beni replies you about 04:20 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZp3C65vps
Juan R.
> On Jun 18, 12:47 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>
>
> Juanshito, Juanshito
>
> So other people are calling you
A smart guy as you would invent better excuses, no?
Try again, i am giving you a second chance :-)
Dono
>
> The tall words “invariance” and “covariance” are invented to confuse
> and mystify. The wording of bullsh*t does not matter. What counts is
> the mathematics involved. <shrug>
>
Is this because you don't understand what either term means?
> The Lorentz invariance refers to the principle of relativity
> discovered by Galileo 400 hundred years ago. Just because the ones
> who are late at learning Galileo’s work discovered the symmetry in the
> principle of relativity and thus invariance in them, it does not
> conjure up any divine phenomena to mystify the ones, like yourself,
> struggling to learn some physics. <shrug>
>
OK, shithead
can you write down how Maxwell wave equation transforms when passing
from frame A to frame B in relative motion wrt each other with speed
v? All blather and no math, eh?
> Covariance is associated with the covariant derivative invented by
> Ricci to justify for the divine nature of the geodesic equations
> derived by Christoffel. The covariant derive is merely a man-made
> mathematical operator. Since man is not god, the covariant derivative
> cannot define the actual geometry as GR is misleading the public to do
> so.
Ahh, you have laid off the attacks on Einstein, you "progressed" to
attacking differential geometry.
So, a simple question, show the covariance for the (E,B) pair under
the Lorentz transforms.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dono wrote on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:00:02 -0700:
>
> > On Jun 18, 12:47 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>
>
> > Juanshito, Juanshito
>
> > So other people are calling you
So, other people figured out as a Shito. What's the big deal, you ARE
a JuanShito!
Juan R.
Somewhat as when 'other' people rated the posts Karandash :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fee82c0d7b37d278
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71827fe68647ca7c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/45ec8f3cf4df0fd8
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1134132abaff1002
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07b98bca64850e21
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
Say us Karandash, how many people there is in your head? 115-116?
Bob Cain
> Say us Karandash, how many people there is in your head? 115-116?
Juan, from the attackers you seem to have attracted up I'd say your street cred
has increased dramatically. (If you don't know what "street cred" means, it's a
compliment.) :-)
What is damaging that same street cred is your silly dicing with the morons.
Good fortune,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> Say us Karandash, how many people there is in your head? 115-116?
>
> Juan, from the attackers you seem to have attracted up I'd say your
> street cred has increased dramatically. (If you don't know what "street
> cred" means, it's a compliment.) :-)
Many thanks Bob!
There was some recent discussion about this on sci.physics.foundations.
See, for instance,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/
msg/7cec0de2438aed86
Of course that moderator received a negative vote on Groups. It is not
difficult to see from whom :-)
> What is damaging that same street cred is your silly dicing with the
> morons.
I developed a set of guidelines for on-line debate
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Of course, i still recommend them but i am now improving them. From
experience and last "silly dicing" games :-) i will improve the sections:
- do not argue against a straw man
- do not argue against proud non-specialists
- do not respond to obvious flame bait and red-herring arguments
correcting some flaws i have detected.
For instance, imagine 'X' writes something and 'E' replies with one of
his usual nonsensical posts, or 'D' post some of her usual ad hominem and
lies. Well my recommendation was to completely ignore that kind of posts.
However, some people, specially novices may get confusion, and some of
them probably cannot differentiate the good reply from the wrong reply.
This is why i may change the tactic to deal with that people but, of
course, still maintaining the recommendation to avoid noise and flames.
Just wait and you will see :-)
Once recommendations were corrected i will 'attach' the link to my
signature again as in the recent past.
Sorry by inconveniences of last days, but i did need some feedback from
them and i could not just ask them in an open way :-)