Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Who wrote "Reflections on relativity" ?

1,160 views
Skip to first unread message

Uncle Ben

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 3:35:39 PM6/15/09
to
> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for
> abandoning special relativity as a suitable
> framework for physics was the fact that, no
> less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
> is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
> problematical assumption of a preferred class
> of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
> by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
> exists only (aside from its historical importance)
> as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas
> for important limiting cases of the general theory,
> but the phenomenological justification for those
> formulas can only be found in the general
> theory.

>>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
.---------------------------------------------

Our persistent correspondent Sue has published the above
quotation in this NG many, many times, apparently in the
belief that its message is a catecism that
she wants to be read every day by her practicing
faithful, if any.

It inspired my curiosity as to who was writing these words and what
was the context in which they were written.

Her link is to a book published online entitled "Reflections on
relativity." Mysteriously, it is not at all clear who wrote it. A
Google search on the title turns up possibilities but no clear
answer.


More to the point is the slant of the book. Sue thinks it is a
condemnation of special relativity, at least, but that is also not so
clear.


The passage concerns Einstein's thoughts about the relation between
special and general relativity. It is well-known that he went through
different phases of opinion in
the years between 1905 and 1920, sometimes thinking that what he had
done was to generalize special relativity to a larger class of
reference frames than just inertial frames. That fits the quotation
Sue has impressed on us.


But the years have passed. The modern view is that general relativity
is a theory of gravitation, and that special relativity is about space
and time, considered in a way compatible with electromagnetic theory,
and discovered to be useful in all physics in which space-time can be
considered flat enough that the full mechanism of the general theory
is not necessary.


The author of "Reflections on relativity" is certainly not in Sue's
camp. The bottom of the page linked by Sue contains a link to the
table of contents of the book. I recommend that you read the preface,
which concludes with the following words:


"This book examines the evolution of the principle of relativity in
its classical, special, and general incarnations, both from a
technical and a historical perspective, with the aim of showing how it
has repeatedly inspired advances in our understanding of the physical
world."


Sue, is this what you think says to us when you quote it
so often?


Ben

Sue...

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 4:01:52 PM6/15/09
to
On Jun 15, 3:35 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:

>
> Sue, is this what you think says to us when you quote it
> so often?

1- Study the stress energy tensor which is the
basis mentioned in the exerpt.
2- Write your Space ship paradox with four-vectors.

Then you will understand why an ether[1] theory
by any other name is still an ether theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Sue...

[1] Newton's inertial ether, not free_space which is
easily detected


>
> Ben

Miguel

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 4:05:11 PM6/15/09
to

Ben:

The author is as obscure as Sue real identity. It seems to be a
certain Kevin S. Brown. In the whole site that name appears only once.
There are several other Kevin Brown in the Internet but none of them
appears to be this guy.

Miguel Rios

Uncle Ben

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 4:40:12 PM6/15/09
to
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sue, see your doctor. You need a higher dose of Thorazine.

Ben

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 7:26:07 PM6/15/09
to
Let me state up front that I don't know who wrote it.

Uncle Ben wrote:
>> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for
>> abandoning special relativity as a suitable
>> framework for physics was the fact that, no
>> less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
>> is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
>> problematical assumption of a preferred class
>> of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
>> by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
>> exists only (aside from its historical importance)
>> as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas
>> for important limiting cases of the general theory,
>> but the phenomenological justification for those
>> formulas can only be found in the general
>> theory.
>>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

This quote seems reasonably correct to me. I have known for a long time
that the foundations of SR can only be found in GR. But I would say that
the "phenomenological justification" of SR is found in the many
EXPERIMENTS that have tested it within its domain. This is basically a
disagreement on what the words "phenomenological justification" mean.


> More to the point is the slant of the book. Sue thinks it is a
> condemnation of special relativity, at least, but that is also not so
> clear.

The few parts of it I have looked at are not a condemnation of SR at
all. But they do sometimes display the writer's rather narrow
perspective (e.g. his misunderstanding of the role of topology in modern
manifold theory, in section 9.2).


> But the years have passed. The modern view is that general relativity
> is a theory of gravitation, and that special relativity is about space
> and time, considered in a way compatible with electromagnetic theory,
> and discovered to be useful in all physics in which space-time can be
> considered flat enough that the full mechanism of the general theory
> is not necessary.

I think the modern view is more that GR is about space and time, and
gravitation is merely one aspect of that, and that SR is merely its
local limit. But this limit can be much more useful than the full theory
throughout an enormous regime of the world we inhabit.


> The author of "Reflections on relativity" is certainly not in Sue's
> camp.

NOBODY is in Sue's camp, not even Sue. A random quote generator has no
"camp".


Tom Roberts

blackhead

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 9:16:28 PM6/15/09
to

http://home.att.net/~numericana/fame/
Kevin S. Brown (Kent, WA)


[snipped]

Androcles

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 11:19:04 PM6/15/09
to

"blackhead" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:94049fa4-53fb-46a3...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...


[snipped]


So is this Kevin Brown the moron responsible for me having
to correct his nonsense like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm


Pentcho Valev

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 2:03:24 AM6/16/09
to
On Jun 16, 2:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

> Let me state up front that I don't know who wrote it.
>
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> >> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for
> >> abandoning special relativity as a suitable
> >> framework for physics was the fact that, no
> >> less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
> >> is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
> >> problematical assumption of a preferred class
> >> of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
> >> by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
> >> exists only (aside from its historical importance)
> >> as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas
> >> for important limiting cases of the general theory,
> >> but the phenomenological justification for those
> >> formulas can only be found in the general
> >> theory.
> >>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> This quote seems reasonably correct to me. I have known for a long time
> that the foundations of SR can only be found in GR.

Bravo Honest Roberts! Let us put things straight. The statement:

"Special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically


problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames,
precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox."

seems "reasonably correct" to Tom Roberts. Einsteiniana is, if not
dead, at least in agony. Einsteinians are not inclined to defend dead
science anymore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

http://www.orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/petshop1.htm
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
............................
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad
enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I
purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack
of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a
prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?,
look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable
bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

Juan R.

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 12:27:41 PM6/16/09
to
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:03:24 -0700:

(...)


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

Khi Petrovicci

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 10:35:50 AM6/17/09
to
Juan R. González-Álvarez a écrit :

> Pentcho Valev wrote on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:03:24 -0700:
>
> (...)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2lvgkv
0 new messages