Special Relativity in the 21st century
shuba
following paper enlightening and useful.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009
Warning: contains scary mathematics.
---Tim Shuba---
Sue...
> Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
> following paper enlightening and useful.
>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009
Minkowski's geometrical insight, rests on the
idea that the basic observed symmetries of
spacetime homogeneity and of isotropy of space,
which are displayed by the spacetime manifold in
the limiting situation in which the effects of
gravity can be neglected, leads to a formulation
of special relativity...>>
If gravity and inertia are the same, and they
seem to be, can a paper really have any credibility
at a macro-atomic scale if it is "neglecting"
the gravito-inertial field?
Sue...
Pentcho Valev
This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.3009v1.pdf
"However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."
Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
Einstein zombie world about their discovery?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
dedanoe
special relativity in 21 century is obsolite!! 21 century the levers
are back
dedanoe
The TimeLord
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> in
63a956cd-59b9-41a4...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 29, 4:14 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote:
>> Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
>> following paper enlightening and useful.
>>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009
[...]
> If gravity and inertia are the same, and they seem to be, can a paper
Gravity and inertia are not the same. Gravity has a non-zero acceleration
associated with it and inertia always concerns zero acceleration. They
can not be the same.
[...]
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
moky
verrais plutôt SO(5) comme groupe avec des boost compacts.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009
Laurent
Ian Parker
Mais la transformation de Lorentz est SU(2). Rotation.
L'electron et le positron sont les generateurs.
- Ian Parker
Pentcho Valev
Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
of relativity"?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
rot...@gmail.com
> transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
> of relativity"?
>
> Pentcho Valev
Here is my take on the subject. The definitions used in physics ( defs
of length and time...) entail (imply) that the speed of light is
constant in all i-frames. There is therefore no need to postulate it.
Since it is constant, and with the princ. of relativ. imply the usual
consequences of SR.
The Lor. trans. can not be deduced *solely* from the princ. of
relativ. for one must define the words (terms and concepts) used.
Without such definitions, "principle of relativity" has no meaning.
moky
rot...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
> > transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
> > of relativity"?
It is not a matter of agreeing, it is a matter of proving.
If I correctly read the article by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, here is
what he *proves*.
If a theory satisfies
1. causality
2. homogeneity of space and time
3. all inertial frames are equivalent,
then the transformations laws are Lorentz with a parameter $c$ to be
fixed by experiments.
If you put c=infinity, then you get Gallilée, if c has any finite
value, you get special relativity with all the contractions stuffs.
Just reading the Levy-Leblond's article, you cannot conclude
"Gallilée" or "Lorentz". You have to add some phenomenological
assumptions.
Adding the assumption "light speed is invariant" implies c=light speed
and c=finite.
One can replace the latter by the weaker assumption "there exists an
invariant speed", and one gets a theory with all the contraction of
lengths, but not specially that light has an invariant speed.
You can even replace by the more intuitive assumption "there exists a
maximal speed", but I have no proof at hand right now[1].
If you want a *proof* of Lorentz under the assumption of existence of
an invariant speed (denoted by c), read this one, and replace
everywhere "light" by "something that displaces at speed c" :
http://student.ulb.ac.be/~lclaesse/echa.pdf
(and forget the introduction about Michelson and all the
electromagnetism stuff : just replace all that by the assumption that
there exists an invariant speed)
Have a good night
Laurent
[1] If someone has a reference, I accept :)
Pentcho Valev
Your masters have almost all abandoned the sinking ship so you may
some day become a great boss in Einsteiniana. Judging from your
thoughts above, you are able to introduce even more confusion in
Einstein zombie world than they did (most of your masters would not go
as far as to say that Divine Albert's Divine Theory would remain
correct even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
source). Bonne chance!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
shuba
Laurent wrote:
> You can even replace by the more intuitive assumption "there exists a
> maximal speed", but I have no proof at hand right now[1].
Even that can be shown to be a result of the relativity principle.
> [1] If someone has a reference, I accept :)
A.R. Lee and T.M. Kalotas, "Lorentz transformations from the
first postulate", American Journal of Physics 43:5 (1975).
"We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz
transformation by invoking the principle of relativity
alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of the
existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a velocity
is shown to be a necessary consequence of the first
postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite is borne out
by experiment."
Also see section 11.10 beginning on page 38 of the following book
chapter.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic192578.files/chap11.pdf
---Tim Shuba---
Androcles
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-3783A...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Yet another essay by a fuckheaded Harvard student that is totally clueless.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
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?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to Ian Parker:
"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________
According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________
According to Spirit of Truth:
that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
'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' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
moky
> as far as to say that Divine Albert's Divine Theory would remain
> correct even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
How do you know that ?
It seems that YOU abandoned the sinking ship of c'=c+v, because you
already gave up in 7 threads on a question as simple as "is Lorentz
the good group in the non gravitational case ?" :
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dc9dce22bcf708e9/5f4a7c7121f36f7c?show_docid=5f4a7c7121f36f7c
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/3f176de9c1bb81ab/298c07d03bfd85ca?show_docid=298c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/f9d3fe3b6c2626f8/defdc42e9464510a?show_docid=defdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dcb5ccb45525e0ac/3e8d684e9b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/c87197498ff1f4c6/bc41aed26491b359?show_docid=bc41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/2bb34dae37cda3d3/fd4ee0e291b1760d?show_docid=fd4ee0e291b1760d
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/cc0a6fed33f71c0c/63a62537bda02ab5?show_docid=63a62537bda02ab5
Good night
Laurent
Pentcho Valev
Bravo Shuba! Your references will expose even more clearly the essence
of Einsteiniana. Just a small question. If, as the hypnotist says
below, "light could behave like a baseball":
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic192578.files/chap11.pdf
p.38: "Relativity without c....it is easy to imagine a universe where
the speed of light depends on the frame of reference. Light could
behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed of light
postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations
between frames, using only the relativity postulate."
why should one read the rest of the idiotic camouflage instead of
finding a much better text:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
moky
> > Also see section 11.10 beginning on page 38 of the following book
> > chapter.
> >
> > http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic192578.files/chap11.pdf
Merci, j'en prend bonne note. Je ne savais pas que Lorentz se
déduisait des seuls principes de bases comme l'homogénéité de
l'espace.
> why should one read the rest of the idiotic camouflage instead of
> finding a much better text:
Because the text proposed by Shuba says more. It proves that Lorentz
(with a parameter V) is automatic from some general principles like
homogeneity of space.
You should agree with that because, at this point, up to equations
(11.73), everything is fully compatible with Gallilée.
If you put V=infinity in (11.73), you get Gallilée.
Everybody, including you, agree with (11.73). The point is that
everybody says "V is finite", while you say "V is infinite".
Read the tree first points of page XI-39.
> why should one read the rest of the idiotic camouflage instead of
If you say "idiotic", it means that there is an obvious mistake.
Where ?
Camouflage of what ?
Laurent
Pentcho Valev
I just compare David Morin's text and Bansh Hoffmann's text:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Both David Morin and Banesh Hoffmann are 100% Einsteinians so there
can be no prejudice as I compare their texts. And yet I am inclined to
declare: Banesh Hoffmann's text is perfect, David Morin's text is
idiotic. Also, David Morin's text camouflages Banesh Hoffmann's text.
I admit these are just impressions of mine that I cannot prove.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Matthew Johnson
Pentcho Valev says...
[snip]
>I just compare David Morin's text and Bansh Hoffmann's text:
>http://books.google.com/books?id=3DJokgnS1JtmMC
[snip]
>Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
>had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
>one, the second principle seems absurd:
[snip]
>Both David Morin and Banesh Hoffmann are 100% Einsteinians so there
>can be no prejudice as I compare their texts.
That does not follow. You are quite inventive at coming up with excuses for
prejudice as you misquote even a "100% Einsteinian".
And yet I am inclined to
>declare: Banesh Hoffmann's text is perfect,
Ah, but the reason you call it 'perfect' is because you do not understand it.
Look at the quote above: you seem to think that Hoffman is calling the principle
'absurd'.
But he is not. He is only underlining how counter-intuitive it is, by saying,
"seems absurd". Later on, he admits that it is true, no matter how 'absurd' it
seems.
[snip]
moky
1. Let us suppose two persons, far away from all gravitational fields.
We assume the first person to move at a constant speed with respect to
the other. If they both observe a same object, will their
observations be related by a Lorentz transformation ?
2. Why did you refer to string theory as the "21 century physics" ?
3. What is your "simple derivation" of Enstein-1911 ?
3'. Where is the mistake in my derivation of anti-Einstein-1911 ?
4. Are equations (11.73) of http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic192578.files/chap11.pdf
correct, for any value of $V$ ?
I added a question 3'. I think that, if you answer 3 OR 3', I would be
able to answer the other one by myself.
Good night
Laurent
Darwin123
> On Aug 1, 11:15 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > .-.-. newsgroups trimmed, followup set .-.-.
>
> > Laurent wrote:
> > > You can even replace by the more intuitive assumption "there exists a
> > > maximal speed", but I have no proof at hand right now[1].
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" ByBaneshHoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
> had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
> one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it."
Banesh Hoffman makes a mistake here. In the sense of radiation
pressure, the photon is like a stone. This is true even though the
photon does not act like a Newtonian particle, and even though the
photon has no rest mass.
The light wave does pick up momentum and energy from its source.
The motion of the source does contribute to the radiation pressure.
This is partly because of Doppler shift. It doesn't matter if we are
talking about Galilean Doppler shift or Lorentzian Doppler shift. The
motion of the train raises the frequency in the direction of the
train, decreases the frequency in the direction opposite the train,
and varies it in between depending on angle. This changes the average
radiation pressure of the wave. However, the motion does not change
the speed of the wave. The speed of a wave and momentum of a wave are
not proportional to each other as they are with Newtonian particles.
The damage a stone does is related to its momentum, just as the
radiation pressure is related to momentum. However, the Michaelson
Morley did not at all depend on momentum. The MM experiment relied
purely on the speed of the wave. Interferometric experiments don't
measure radiation pressure. Therefore, the analogy with the stone is
very poor. A radio wave photon thrown out from a rapidly moving space
ship could be Doppler shifted to a gamma ray photon, and do a lot of
damage.
Einstein knew a great deal about radiation pressure and Doppler
shift. He wrote a great deal on the subject later, and it is the basic
of his derivation of E=mc^2. Therefore, he would know that energy is
transferred from the source to an electromagnetic wave. That was
probably the inspiration that much later led to his postulating that
light had a dual nature. Light was made of particles called photons in
addition to being made out of waves.
What the Michaelson Morley experiment helped establish was that if
light was made of particles, they were nonNewtonian. The source would
change the velocity of a Newtonian particle. The MM experiment showed
that these particles if they existed WERE NOT Newtonian. Thus, an
entirely knew dynamics had to be constructed if light was made of
particles. Of course, he did not introduce the particles right away.
Einstein worked with the idea of light as a wave for a long time.
However, I doubt there was any "temptation" to assume light was made
of Newtonian particles.
Yes, I know that Banesh Hoffman worked with the great man, knew
Einstein personally, and was a fairly good scientist himself. However,
Hoffman perhaps worked more on the high level mathematics than on the
physics itself. Banesh wasn't clear on the stone throwing level of
what a Newtonian particle is like. Hoffman's story has the same level
of authenticity as the story of Washington and the cherry tree.
Einstein did know physics, although perhaps not the Hoffman
level of mathematics, and developed his theory along a different route
than was described by Hoffman.
John Kennaugh
OK Let us inject a little realism here. Both SR theory and Ballistic
theory are consistent with the PoR. The Ballistic theory is naturally
so; it says the speed of light is relative like all other speed; SR
unnaturally so, Einstein said that his second postulate is
".... apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and then proceeded to
reconcile the two by ditching two apparently sensible and long
established axioms of physics.
The only thing which differentiates the two theories is the second
postulate. The second postulate of ballistic theory saying that the
speed of light is always determined to be c relative to the source
emitting it.
It is possible that the second postulate is of no consequence in which
case the two theories will give the same results. There is evidence that
this is the case as I argued previously:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/threa
d/10780cf53003ee23/e5109b0281ba7d68#e5109b0281ba7d68
In which I argue that what the Lorentz transforms do is to transform a
wrongly based theory so as to give the same answers as quite naturally
appear if you assume ballistic theory is correct. In a similar way to
the geocentric theory of the solar system. A dominant belief that the
earth was at the centre forced the maths to be transformed in such a way
that they gave the right answer.
As to the Harvard text book which Shuba has been quoting for years I
will reproduce my response I gave some years ago. The book seems to have
been revised since I wrote this and I cannot now access the Appendix I
quoted. The equation numbers may no longer correspond.
---------------------------------------------
The reference Scuba quotes is a section entitles "relativity without c"
If you look earlier in the same chapter the author derives the time
dilation equation using a vertical light clock on a train. As standard
he got c in both FoR by assuming that time was different in the two and
worked out the time dilation equation.
He could have got c in both FoR by assuming that height rather than time
was different in the two FoR. Why assume time is the variable not
distance? - I will return to that.
Later he has the light travelling horizontally, again he has to get c in
both FoR and in this case he assumes distance and time are different in
the two frames of reference and derives the length contraction
equations.
Above I asked why he assumed time was the variable rather than height.
Is there another possible solution by interchanging which you assume
varies? The answer to this is no. It only works one way around and the
reason for this is that the two variables are intrinsically different
mathematically.
## Length can be assumed to change differently in the direction of
motion and at right angles to the direction of motion and time cannot.##
By ditching two of what previously were considered axioms of physics
Einstein got two variables with which to get his maths to work i.e. to
reconcile his assumption of source independence with the PoR. There was
only just enough degrees of freedom to achieve his aim and what results
is an absolutely unique solution.
The Lorentz transforms are not then one of numerous sets of transforms
from which to chose. There are only two, Galilean and Lorentz.
If you assume that time and distance *are* dependent upon velocity then
from the above it should come as no surprise that such an assumption
will lead to a unique solution, nor that that unique solution will
contain a constant with units of speed, but you cannot make such an
assumption and claim that you are basing your maths only on the PoR.
Now let us examine the maths in the text book quoted.
What the maths does is to start with a general set of linear transform
equations which do *not* assume that time and distance are velocity
dependent but allows for the fact that they *might* be. Then by applying
the PoR and the mathematical laws which transforms must obey, the author
sets out to comes up with a unique solution containing a constant with
units of speed which can then be equated to c.
If he had done what he set out to do then he might have done something
significant but look closely. His initial general transforms are what
they purport to be - they do not assume time and distance *are*
dependent upon velocity they only allowing for the fact that they might
be. Note however that if they are not dependent upon velocity; the
Galilean case; the coefficient A = 1.
At one stage he comes up with equation 10.67. Ignoring the fact that it
looks suspiciously like assuming the answer, he uses this to make a
substitution for A and describes what he has done as:
"All we have done so far is to make a change of variables"
This isn't true because if you take equation 10.67 and make A = 1 then V
= infinity. This makes all subsequent maths invalid for the case A = 1 ;
the Galilean case. While it started out *without* an assumption that
time and distance *are* dependent on v (only that they might be) it has
now invalidated the solution which would allow them not to be so. It
should now come as no surprise that such an assumption will lead to a
unique solution, nor that that unique solution will contain a constant
with units of speed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Newton (assuming Galilean transforms) and the ballistic theory
assume that c is finite and yet it is a common feature of such 'proofs'
that you only get the Galilean case if c = infinity showing that
somewhere within the maths the Galilean case has been invalidated. Such
proofs basically only say "If you eliminate the Galilean case the only
other option is Lorentz"
One might ask why people are so keen to derive SR without reference to
the second postulate. In his 1905 paper AE goes to some length to
justify his first postulate (because he saw that as potentially
controversial) but adds the second without comment. The second postulate
was not the result of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it was
simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among those
brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. If you assume that Maxwell's
wave in aether theory is impeccable then the MMX is seen as showing that
the speed of an observer relative to the aether is zero. The second
postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether
would experience and is expressing the generally accepted interpretation
of the MMX as described above.
It was not the MMX nor Einstein's SR theory which "killed off" the
aether. Einstein argued in favour of the aether (1920). The aether was
killed off by an arbitrary decision by those of influence in physics
that a physical interpretation (theoretical structure) was no longer to
be considered a necessary part of physics. Put simply Einstein objected
to the asymmetry in the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory but
failed to come up with an alternative theoretical structure. Physics
said "never mind who needs a theoretical structure anyway". This leaves
SR as simply a reproduction of the maths first produced by Lorentz.
As I say SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether
theory is impeccable and reconciles the MMX (which was a failure of
Maxwell's theory) by ditching 3 apparently sensible and long established
axioms of physics relating to space time and mass but the MMX was only
the first failure of Maxwell's theory. Another failure came (Lord
Rayleigh 1900) when Maxwell's electrodynamics were used to predict black
body radiation and the prediction found to be badly wrong. What became
known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. It was Planck who worked out why -
he found that light is generated in discreet lumps. Faith in Maxwell was
so strong that many, Planck included, thought that having been generated
in discreet lumps it metamorphosed into waves in the aether.
Finally Einstein showed, and got a Nobel prize for showing, that not
only was light generated in discreet lumps it remained in discreet
lumps. (photoelectric effect). The conclusion would seem inescapable to
anyone but a physicist. No matter how impressive Maxwell's wave in
aether theory was it appears that the waves of Maxwell's theory just do
not physically exist so to base SR upon the assumption that the theory
is impeccable is absurd.
The assumptions which are made about Maxwell's theory which underpin SR
come from the *physical* aether theory which Maxwell's equations were
assumed to describe not the equations themselves i.e. that those
equations are describing waves travelling in the aether, that the
permittivity and permeability of free space are the properties of the
aether which determine at what speed light travels in the aether and
prevent the velocity of the source affecting the speed at which light
travels.
Without that aether theory Maxwell's equations are simply an extension
of empirical relationships produced by Faraday, useful to radio
engineers but not suitable for Physics to build upon. No assumption can
be justly made regarding their validity outside of the conditions in
which Faraday derived his relationships. These were experimentally
verified only for low velocities of charged matter. Hardly a valid basis
for ditching 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of
physics. To accept SR and then reject the aether is the intellectual
equivalent of sawing off the branch you are sitting on - acceptable only
to mathematicians with no physical intuition.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
Tom Roberts
> OK Let us inject a little realism here.
You used the wrong word -- you are injecting some FANTASY. That is, you
do not understand SR, you do not understand the current experimental
record, and as a result you are discussing your personal FANTASY about
how you think the world "ought" to work.
Need I point out that what you are trying to do is not science?
> Both SR theory and Ballistic
> theory are consistent with the PoR.
Yes.
But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to determine
how the world works by making observations and experiments. Ballistic
theory is completely and utterly INCOMPATIBLE with the experiments. SR
is consistent with all of them that are within its domain of applicability.
> The Ballistic theory is naturally
> so; it says the speed of light is relative like all other speed; SR
> unnaturally so,
You sure use words funny, and in a self-serving and exceedingly naive
manner. There is nothing "unnatural" about this, it is just DIFFERENT
from your personal FANTASY about how you think the world "ought" to work.
Basically you are enshrining human history as a physical
principle. That is VERY BAD.
> Einstein said that his second postulate is
> ".... apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and then proceeded to
> reconcile the two by ditching two apparently sensible and long
> established axioms of physics.
Again you use words in a self-serving and exceedingly naive manner.
Einstein basically showed that there are hidden assumptions in what you
call "axioms of physics", and that there is no necessity for those
assumptions to be true; in 1905 there was no experimental record to
definitively distinguish the two (though there were numerous hints...).
Today there are LOTS of experiments that show SR to be valid, and what
you call "long established axioms of physics" to be WRONG.
What you call "ditching ... long established axioms" is really an
appropriate revolution in science (using Kuhn's meaning). After all,
NONE of the experiments and observations that "established" those
"axioms" were performed in a regime where the new theory differs from
the old (i.e. v ~ c). Physicists now understand the limits and
constraints on those "axioms" -- you should LEARN about that before
attempting to discuss this.
> It is possible that the second postulate is of no consequence in which
> case the two theories will give the same results. [...]
This is complete and utter nonsense. You need to look at the experiments
which have been performed. There are literally THOUSANDS of elementary
particle experiments that show your naive notions to be completely and
utterly incompatible with how the world we inhabit actually works.
As a basic exercise, look at the operation of FLASH, a free-electron
laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the
relativistic electron beam that is their source [#]. If the region that
generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted
from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the
downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k),
because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at
the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and
the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper
limit on k of 2.5×10^−7. Optical extinction is not present, as the
entire process occurs in very high vacuum.
[#] Just understanding why synchrotron radiation is
emitted in a narrow cone along the path of the electron
requires relativity. The FEL is merely an extreme example
of this.
About the subject of this thread:
John Kennaugh (and others) fantasize that SR will somehow be replaced
with something else during this century. In its current domain that is
essentially hopeless; whether or not SR applies well outside the current
experimental record is unknown, and I would NOT take bets about it
applying at very small distances or very large energies (and we already
know it does not apply to very large distance scales). There are
reasonable expectations that something interesting will occur at the
~few TeV scale, which will become accessible in a few years at the LHC.
The major players are thinking this has to do with electroweak symmetry
breaking, the Higgs, and/or possible supersymmetry; I would not ignore
the possibility of some sort of violation of Lorentz invariance or CPT.
To me the interesting thing about SR in the coming years will be to
perform experiments that explore the limits of Lorentz symmetry
violations. On the theoretical side, the various approaches to
violations of Lorentz invariance are quite interesting, especially
"doubly special relativity" (which is an inherently quantum
group-theoretic approach, and any mathematics that is inherently quantum
appeals to me).
Tom Roberts
Spaceman
> John Kennaugh wrote:
>> OK Let us inject a little realism here.
>
> You used the wrong word --
How dare he wish to use "realism" in physics..
LOL
Poor Tom,
Brainwashed beyond help as usual for Einstein dingleberries.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > OK Let us inject a little realism here.
>
> You used the wrong word -- you are injecting some FANTASY. That is, you
> do not understand SR, you do not understand the current experimental
> record, and as a result you are discussing your personal FANTASY about
> how you think the world "ought" to work.
>
> Need I point out that what you are trying to do is not science?
>
> > Both SR theory and Ballistic
> > theory are consistent with the PoR.
>
> Yes.
>
> But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to determine
> how the world works by making observations and experiments. Ballistic
> theory is completely and utterly INCOMPATIBLE with the experiments. SR
> is consistent with all of them that are within its domain of applicability.
Special relativity would be consistent even with experiments showing
that "the photon has a nonzero mass" and "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", isn't it
Honest Roberts:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."
> limit on k of 2.5×10^-7. Optical extinction is not present, as the
> entire process occurs in very high vacuum.
Honest Roberts do you really believe that nothing has changed in
Einstein zombie world and your idiotic camouflage is still efficient?
In Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
the "emitting body" is MACROSCOPIC, Honest Roberts. Even your silliest
zombies would tell you that testing the postulate by using electrons
as emitting bodies is incorrect.
> [#] Just understanding why synchrotron radiation is
> emitted in a narrow cone along the path of the electron
> requires relativity. The FEL is merely an extreme example
> of this.
>
> About the subject of this thread:
> John Kennaugh (and others) fantasize that SR will somehow be replaced
> with something else during this century. In its current domain that is
> essentially hopeless; whether or not SR applies well outside the current
> experimental record is unknown, and I would NOT take bets about it
> applying at very small distances or very large energies (and we already
> know it does not apply to very large distance scales). There are
> reasonable expectations that something interesting will occur at the
> ~few TeV scale, which will become accessible in a few years at the LHC.
> The major players are thinking this has to do with electroweak symmetry
> breaking, the Higgs, and/or possible supersymmetry; I would not ignore
> the possibility of some sort of violation of Lorentz invariance or CPT.
Yes all your masters predict Lorentz violations and your sycophancy is
understandable Honest Roberts but still be careful:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
> To me the interesting thing about SR in the coming years will be to
> perform experiments that explore the limits of Lorentz symmetry
> violations. On the theoretical side, the various approaches to
> violations of Lorentz invariance are quite interesting, especially
> "doubly special relativity" (which is an inherently quantum
> group-theoretic approach, and any mathematics that is inherently quantum
> appeals to me).
>
> Tom Roberts
Honest Roberts your sycophancy is understandable indeed but useless I
am afraid. Lee Smolin would not allow you to visit the Perimeter
Institute for the simple reason that he is much sillier than you.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> OK Let us inject a little realism here.
>>
>> You used the wrong word --
>
>How dare he wish to use "realism" in physics..
>LOL
I should have known better shouldn't I :o) I still have this naive old
fashioned idea that 'physics' is about what is 'physical' and the job of
science is to try to understand nature, to understand the physical
processes involved and what causes what. Silly of me.
>Poor Tom,
>Brainwashed beyond help as usual for Einstein dingleberries.
>:)
>
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> OK Let us inject a little realism here.
>
>You used the wrong word -- you are injecting some FANTASY. That is, you
>do not understand SR, you do not understand the current experimental
>record, and as a result you are discussing your personal FANTASY about
>how you think the world "ought" to work.
>
>Need I point out that what you are trying to do is not science?
>
>
>> Both SR theory and Ballistic theory are consistent with the PoR.
>
>Yes.
>
>But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to determine
>how the world works by making observations and experiments. Ballistic
>theory is completely and utterly INCOMPATIBLE with the experiments.
The only person who has seriously looked critically at the so called
evidence against ballistic theory is Fox. He only looked at Ritz's
theory which by then had not been updated for 60 years and expressed
surprise how well it explained "...the vast quantity of phenomena
described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory".
He did not as far as I am aware look at Waldron's 1977 theory. His later
conclusion seems to be that when viewed critically the first 'valid'
experimental evidence is that of his own experiment in 1964. Even if his
experiment does disprove ballistic theory (and it is flawed) it means
that had physicists retained their critical faculties instead of giving
way to prejudice that for 60 years ballistic theory was in fact equally
valid experimentally as SR. The lack of objectivity demonstrated by
physicists is shown in the fact that it was totally ignored.
> SR is consistent with all of them that are within its domain of
>applicability.
>
>
>> The Ballistic theory is naturally so; it says the speed of light is
>>relative like all other speed; SR unnaturally so,
>
>You sure use words funny, and in a self-serving and exceedingly naive
>manner. There is nothing "unnatural" about this, it is just DIFFERENT
>from your personal FANTASY about how you think the world "ought" to work.
What *everyone* had previously thought the world worked.
>
> Basically you are enshrining human history as a physical
> principle. That is VERY BAD.
Tough - live with it.
>> Einstein said that his second postulate is
>> ".... apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and then proceeded to
>>reconcile the two by ditching two apparently sensible and long
>>established axioms of physics.
>
>Again you use words in a self-serving and exceedingly naive manner.
>Einstein basically showed that there are hidden assumptions in what you
>call "axioms of physics", and that there is no necessity for those
>assumptions to be true;
There is no necessity to assume any axioms of physics are true. Things
evolve. It is nevertheless true that those particular axioms (three not
2 as I said) had been accepted for about 3 centuries before Einstein
ditched them.
You need a really good reason to ditch an accepted axiom and absolutely
cast iron reasons for ditching 3 in one go. The best you can suggest are
'hints':
>in 1905 there was no experimental record to definitively distinguish
>the two (though there were numerous hints...).
The numerous 'hints' which you allude to are enshrined in the acceptance
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory. AE ditched the axioms on the
assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable - after it
had been shown that the waves of Maxwell do not physically exist.
Something physicists refused to accept.
> Today there are LOTS of experiments that show SR to be valid, and what
>you call "long established axioms of physics" to be WRONG.
As I keep pointing out both Ballistic theory and SR have a very strong
tendency to give the same answer. Ballistic theory does not require the
ditching of those axioms yet gives the same answer. Your assumption that
because SR gives the right answer that it implies that the long
established axioms of physics are wrong. What you are talking about are
experiments interpreted by believers for believers. Who, apart from Fox,
has taken a serious look at them from the alternative view point?
You can win any case if there is no one in the defence team other than
rank amateurs like me.
>
>What you call "ditching ... long established axioms" is really an
>appropriate revolution in science (using Kuhn's meaning). After all,
>NONE of the experiments and observations that "established" those
>"axioms" were performed in a regime where the new theory differs from
>the old (i.e. v ~ c).
SR is based on the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable. Take away the aether and you leave only Maxwell's equations
which are simply extensions of empirical relationships relating to
charge established by Faraday at low speed. The assumptions ('hints':o)
underpinning SR were based on the aether theory the equations were
thought to represent not on the equations themselves.
>Physicists now understand the limits and constraints on those "axioms"
>-- you should LEARN about that before attempting to discuss this.
You are suggesting that I study what has been built on dodgy foundations
without in anyway showing that the foundations are anything but rotten.
>> It is possible that the second postulate is of no consequence in
>>which case the two theories will give the same results. [...]
>
>This is complete and utter nonsense. You need to look at the
>experiments which have been performed. There are literally THOUSANDS of
>elementary particle experiments that show your naive notions to be
>completely and utterly incompatible with how the world we inhabit
>actually works.
>
>As a basic exercise, look at the operation of FLASH, a free-electron
>laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
>
>A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to
>the relativistic electron beam that is their source [#]. If the region
>that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light
>emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c),
>then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is
>k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before
>light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters,
>v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short
>as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10^0 >extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum.
I note that every time we have this debate you have to find something
else to pin your faith on. Some time back I recall it was that GPS
satellites had to have their clocks adjusted for 'time dilation'. You
should be ashamed of the fact that a rank amateur like me who claims
neither to be a physicist nor a mathematician showed using O-level maths
that ballistic theory requires exactly the same correction.
So here you are 100 years after the event still trying to find a
convincing demonstration of the assumption made by Einstein. He assumed
that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and that therefore
the MMX showed that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether -
which is what the second postulate is describing.
You no longer believe in the aether, Maxwell's waves have been shown not
to actually exist, light is made up of particles and the ONLY physical
process which can determine at what speed they travel is that taking
place in the source - the aether could, if it exists, take charge of
the speed of light and cause source independence as Einstein assumed.
I don't think it was wrong to kill off the aether but physics didn't
follow through. It kept bits of aether theory for no better reason than
it wanted to keep them even though with no aether there was no
theoretical justification for doing so. Like 'independent fields', and
'source independence'. It based theory on a set of equations which
without the physical theory involving the aether are simply empirical
relationships suitable for use by radio engineers designing aerials.
Photons have mass. They are deflected by gravity, they gain energy when
falling under gravity, they lose energy when they escape from gravity,
they have momentum - they apply pressure when they bump into things. But
no. Your argument is that they cannot have mass because if they did it
would mean SR is wrong. Isn't that a case of putting the cart before the
horse? Belief taking precedence over evidence?
>
> [#] Just understanding why synchrotron radiation is
> emitted in a narrow cone along the path of the electron
> requires relativity. The FEL is merely an extreme example
> of this.
As Waldron puts it. An alternative theory only has to explain the facts
not the accepted interpretation of the facts.
I repeat - You can win any case if there is no one in the defence team
other than rank amateurs like me. Which group of qualified professionals
is, or has ever, looked at the alternative with a view to seeing if they
could make it work?
>About the subject of this thread:
>John Kennaugh (and others) fantasize that SR will somehow be replaced
>with something else during this century.
Perhaps the question should be "Is physics relevant in the 21st
century?". Funding for physics is reducing. No one is interested in
teaching physics in schools. Numbers of students wishing to study
physics are dropping. Society at large is getting disillusioned with it.
It is seen as a closed community with its own incomprehensible language
which is increasingly isolated from everyday life and where the basis by
which a physicist gains status is by impressing other physicists with
more status than himself. All society generally see of physics are a few
TV programs each of which is more fantastic than the last. It is now
hard to see where science fiction ends and physics starts, physics
having incorporated so many of the ideas of science fiction writers
including 'added dimensions' and 'parallel universes'. Physics is
becoming increasingly irrelevant to society.
> In its current domain that is essentially hopeless; whether or not SR
>applies well outside the current experimental record is unknown, and I
>would NOT take bets about it applying at very small distances or very
>large energies (and we already know it does not apply to very large
>distance scales). There are reasonable expectations that something
>interesting will occur at the ~few TeV scale, which will become
>accessible in a few years at the LHC. The major players are thinking
>this has to do with electroweak symmetry breaking, the Higgs, and/or
>possible supersymmetry; I would not ignore the possibility of some sort
>of violation of Lorentz invariance or CPT.
>
>To me the interesting thing about SR in the coming years will be to
>perform experiments that explore the limits of Lorentz symmetry
>violations. On the theoretical side, the various approaches to
>violations of Lorentz invariance are quite interesting, especially
>"doubly special relativity" (which is an inherently quantum
>group-theoretic approach, and any mathematics that is inherently
>quantum appeals to me).
"doubly special relativity" - [sheeee!] Basically Physics view of nature
is getting more and more and more complex. It could be that this
reflects the 'nature' of nature. OTOH if physics did take a wrong turn a
century ago and has been building on that mistake ever since the only
way to keep making it work is more and more layers of complexity.
--
John Kennaugh
"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I should
have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of Castile (1221-1284)
having studied the Ptolemaic system.
Darwin123
>
> why should one read the rest of the idiotic camouflage instead of
> finding a much better text:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
I don't think it is a better text. Just from the section that you
quoted, I would say that it is a mediocre text. Banesh makes a mistake
in your quotation, one that I have pointed out to you several times.
He assumes that the radiation pressure of light is not affected by
Doppler shift, and that Einstein knew this false fact. Based on this,
he states that particles of light could have been Newtonian but
Einstein guessed the right answer anyway.
Banesh is brown nosing of Einstein worse than any of than any of
the other people you accuse. He practically says that Einstein was
magic. Einstein magically knew the right answer. Like Nosterdamus.
I prefer to think that Einstein really knew how to deduce. Like
Sherlock Holmes. Not like Nosterdamus.
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>>> OK Let us inject a little realism here.
>>>
>>> You used the wrong word --
>>
>> How dare he wish to use "realism" in physics..
>> LOL
>
> I should have known better shouldn't I :o) I still have this naive old
> fashioned idea that 'physics' is about what is 'physical' and the job
> of science is to try to understand nature, to understand the physical
> processes involved and what causes what. Silly of me.
Me too,
But I would rather be silly and crazy, than stupid or braindead of course.
John Kennaugh
Pity it wasn't like Mycroft Holmes whom Sherlock acknowledged to
have a superior mind.
If you deduce from wrong assumptions what you deduce, no matter how
logical, is flawed. Einstein's assumption was that Maxwell's wave in
aether theory was impeccable; hardly a sensible assumption considering
that he got a Nobel prize for showing that the waves of Maxwell's wave
in aether theory do not ever exist. Having made that assumption the MMX
apparently shows that an observer's speed relative to the aether is
always zero. His second postulate simply describes what an observer,
stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. It really is that simple.
It leaves the question as to how every observer can be stationary w.r.t
the aether and Einstein tried to address that question, in rather vague
term in his 1920 lecture. In it he objected to the asymmetry in the
theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory but totally failed to come up
with a believable alternative. Physics, which had become maths
orientated, then changed the rules by saying "Who needs a theoretical
structure anyway" so SR was accepted without one.
It was in this manner that physics "killed off" the aether. Nothing to
do with Albert, nor experiment, not theoretical wizardry but by changing
the rules under which Physics operates such that a 'theory' no longer
needs a physically feasible hypothesis to accompany the maths.
Thus the Maths of SR - first produced by Lorentz a decade or so before
Einstein - were accepted as 'theory' and Albert unjustly got the credit.
SR adds nothing to Lorentz's theory it merely takes away the theoretical
basis and that was only possible because physics changed its own rules.
Note that Lorentz's theory was his attempt to explain why (as per the
MMX) an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t the aether.
As I have said the assumption - that Maxwell's wave in aether theory was
impeccable - was flawed anyway because light is particulate and
Maxwell's waves do not exist but having then stopped believing in the
aether the assumption is doubly absurd. The equations themselves are
simply extensions of empirical relationships produced by Faraday from
experiments done with charge at low speed and have nothing to say as
regards the interpretation of the MMX which was testing for the speed of
the observer w.r.t the aether not Maxwell's equations. It is ONLY if you
link the equations with the physical aether theory that the
interpretation of the MMX underpinning SR is valid.
Two theories of light have dominated physics. One said that
light was waves of energy propagating in a medium The other that space
is empty and something travels from source to destination (typically
particles of light) its speed being a function of the process generating
it. These may be summarized as 'Light Propagates', or 'Light travels'.
To make it clear imagine a large cube of 'empty space'. Imagine
a short burst of light enters that cube and some time later exits it.
For a finite period of time that cube contains energy. The light travels
theory says that the cube is empty prior to the light entering it, the
light particles travel through it and the energy is contained in and
transported by the light particles.
The light propagates theory on the other hand says that space is
not empty. That cube, like the rest of space, contains a medium, the
aether, capable of storing energy and therefore of propagating energy in
the form of waves. While modern physics claims that it has rejected the
aether it still believes that in my cube of space 'fields' can exist and
energy can be stored. "Space in which independent fields can exist" is
simply a renamed aether. A relativist's excuse is that the word aether
had a specific historic meaning and it is that which has been rejected
but this is rubbish.
The 'light propagates' theory (or any theory involving space itself
being able to support 'altered states' e.g. fields) needs the aether in
the same way that modern physics needs the neutrino. The Neutrino was
found to be 'needed' for theoretical reasons (to make a theory work!) in
1929 but since then ideas as to exactly what it is have changed several
times. First it had the same mass as an electron, then it had no mass
and now it has a very small mass and there are 4 different sorts which
can change into each other. Ideas may change again. The neutrino is
defined by the role it has to play - to transport energy. Likewise the
aether is defined by its role, as something in space who's state can be
altered in such a way as to store energy i.e. its need. To get rid of
the aether you have to change theory to also remove the need for the
aether.
One way of doing that is to accept that 'action at a distance' is simply
the way force always acts. If you do that then a 'field' is simply a
'field of influence' and cannot exist in space without a source of
influence.
I personally cannot believe that good science can result from building
on wrong assumptions and deciding that the aether is a terribly bad idea
while keeping those properties of the aether physics happened to want to
keep such as independent fields and source independence. Where is the
logic? Where is the objectivity? All I see is a belief system being
propped up with ever increasing complexity and weirdness. Having once
accepted a theory there has been an increasing tendency to resist
suggestions it might be wrong even if the very basis on which it was
accepted now appears ridiculous.
Spaceman
Logic missing? no way.. ( total sarcasm)
In such logic it is perfectally ok to say that u+v = a wrong answer
and then logically accept..
(wrong answer)/1+(u*v)c^2 = correct answer
Completely logical!
NOT
LOL
Logic missing? no way (yes again.. sarcasm)
The shortest physical distance between two points is
a curved line because you wrap a 2D surface over a sphere
and the great circle declares the shortest distance is now a curve
because you are stuck in a 2D surface on a 3D sphere.
Completely logical!
NOT
LOL
Logic missing? no way (ya sure)
When one twin travels away from Earth the age of the twin will change
because one has a clock that will run slower than the other
and just because both are the same revolutions of Earth WRT the Sun
has no relation to thier "age".
Completely logical!
NOT!
LOL
Should I go on?
Am I being illogical about being illogical?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Jul 29, 10:14 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote:
>
> > Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
> > following paper enlightening and useful.
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009
>
> > Warning: contains scary mathematics.
>
> > ---Tim Shuba---
>
> This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.3009v1.pdf
> "However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
> that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
> necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."
>
> Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
> light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
> breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
> Einstein zombie world about their discovery?
Well, because they seemed to understand that Einstein wasn't an
idiot.
Since the holy constant speed of light (C), from Maxwell is an
*EXPERIMENT*, not a THEORY.
Just like the constant speed of time from Euclid is an
*EXPERiMENT*, not a THEORY.
The first one is largely why he called many physics expeimenters:
elevator operators, rather than
experimenters, and the second one is mostly why he called many
mathematicians,
Goedel has-beens, rather than theorrsts.
Since he seemed to be the only one of the crank Hamilton Wannabee
Theorists of the time,
that seened to understand that the Special Theory of Relativity was
about *ZERO GRAVITY*,
not *GRAVITY*.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
>The shortest physical distance between two points is
>a curved line
The *nicest* distance between two points *is* a curve ;o)
--
John Kennaugh
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>
>> The shortest physical distance between two points is
>> a curved line
>
> The *nicest* distance between two points *is* a curve ;o)
So true
:)
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
That's the contradistinction to the Generalizable Gibberish
Quantum Mechanics
interpretation of S.R. though.
Which is:
Since "randomness" is so simple to teach, teach Randomness!!!
Then get a perfect night's sleep. And while you're sleeping,
have a dream that you're thinking!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to determine
>> how the world works by making observations and experiments. Ballistic
>> theory is completely and utterly INCOMPATIBLE with the experiments.
>
> The only person who has seriously looked critically at the so called
> evidence against ballistic theory is Fox.
So explain FELs using ballistic theory.
>> Basically you are enshrining human history as a physical
>> principle. That is VERY BAD.
>
> Tough - live with it.
It is not _I_ who must live with your anti-scientific foibles. I am
interested in science, not whatever it is you are trying to do. So I
won't "live with it". Goodbye.
Tom Roberts
Spaceman
> John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to
>>> determine how the world works by making observations and
>>> experiments. Ballistic theory is completely and utterly
>>> INCOMPATIBLE with the experiments.
>>
>> The only person who has seriously looked critically at the so called
>> evidence against ballistic theory is Fox.
>
> So explain FELs using ballistic theory.
Hmm?
So FEL's don't "throw with a twist and wiggle" free electrons?
It has has no "shooting" going on at all?
:)
>>> Basically you are enshrining human history as a physical
>>> principle. That is VERY BAD.
>>
>> Tough - live with it.
>
> It is not _I_ who must live with your anti-scientific foibles. I am
> interested in science, not whatever it is you are trying to do. So I
> won't "live with it". Goodbye.
Your interested is science?
Then how come you use multiple standards for time and distance?
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> But that is not the point. The point of doing science is to
>>>determine how the world works by making observations and
>>>experiments. Ballistic theory is completely and utterly INCOMPATIBLE
>>>with the experiments.
>> The only person who has seriously looked critically at the so called
>>evidence against ballistic theory is Fox.
>
>So explain FELs using ballistic theory.
>
>
>>> Basically you are enshrining human history as a physical
>>> principle. That is VERY BAD.
>> Tough - live with it.
>
>It is not _I_ who must live with your anti-scientific foibles.
I believe that the function of science is to try and *understand*
nature, a function which used to be a part of physics as it still is
with all other science. History shows that that fundamental principle
was dropped from physics in order to accept the otherwise untenable
position it had got itself into. It had accepted a theory which had no
associated theoretical structure and rather than accept that it was
wrong it changed its own rules to make it acceptable. That was rather
silly because the theory it had accepted was based upon the assumption
that Maxwell's wave in aether was impeccable when it had been clearly
demonstrated that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.
It then decided it didn't like the aether who's existence underpinned
the assumptions on which SR is based and having decided that the aether
is a terribly bad idea it nevertheless kept whatever properties of the
aether it decided it wanted having absolved itself of any responsibility
to explain how those properties could be alternatively justified if
there is no aether. Physics has been corrupted by human weakness -
prejudice and personal ego - and hence human history and human nature IS
a part of the basis of modern physics. I make no apology for pointing
this out. To assume otherwise is to assume physicists aren't human and
don't have human weaknesses.
I say that the rationale behind the second postulate is the assumption
that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and that therefore
the MMX shows that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether and
therefore finds that light travels every which way at c. This is what
the 2nd postulate describes. Modern text books try and make out that it
is down to Maxwell's equations but that doesn't work. Firstly because
the MMX was not testing Maxwell's equations and secondly because
Maxwell's equations are simply extensions of empirical relationships
produced by Faraday; determined moving charge at low speed. Nothing can
be assumed about them outside of the conditions under which they were
determined. It is the fact that they were thought to be describing waves
in the aether which leads to the interpretation of the MMX as showing
that an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether and to the continued
assumption that light is source independent because its speed is
determined by the aether and the two properties of the aether
permeability and permittivity.
If you have an alternative explanation as to where Einstein got the idea
of the second postulate I would be interested in hearing it. You usually
avoid that discussion by snipping.
> I am interested in science, not whatever it is you are trying to do.
You should study human nature and the vast amount of evidence in every
branch of science of how it has had a distorting influence. The problem
with physics is that all opposition to orthodoxy has been effectively
suppressed.
>So I won't "live with it". Goodbye.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
--
John Kennaugh
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
"Relativity":
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html
Einstein's 1905 light postulate was just as incompatible with
Maxwell's original theory as it was with Newton's emission theory of
light. Accoding to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of
light is both VARIABLE and DEPENDENT on reference frame; it obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether
and v is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. Albert the
Plagiarist's contribution consisted in truncating the equation c'=c+v;
it just took the simple form c'=c but produced miracles (time
dilation, length contraction etc.), and that was the only reason why
Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
and he incorporated their work in his.
The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
freely acknowledge this.
This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
Pentcho Valev
> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
> > transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
> > before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
> > "Relativity":
>
> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
> is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
> don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>
> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
> and he incorporated their work in his.
>
> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
> Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
> freely acknowledge this.
>
> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
mentioned? Is it how science works?
PD
> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
> > > transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
> > > before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
> > > "Relativity":
>
> > ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
> > is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
> > don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>
> > Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
> > and he incorporated their work in his.
>
> > The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
> > Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
> > freely acknowledge this.
>
> > This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
>
> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
> mentioned? Is it how science works?
There were no references in Newton's Principia, either.
Einstein acknowledged his debt and the work of his predecessors in
many other writings.
Sorry people aren't obeying your rules.
Dirk Van de moortel
28da2817-0cc3-42c3...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
>>> transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
>>> before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
>>> "Relativity":
>>
>> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
>> is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
>> don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>>
>> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
>> and he incorporated their work in his.
>>
>> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
>> Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
>> freely acknowledge this.
>>
>> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
>
> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
> mentioned? Is it how science works?
It is how an amateur, working as a clerk in a patent office,
made his first steps.
When you see a baby bird screaming to be fed in its nest,
do you ask "It *that* how birds are supposed to fly?"
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
U70jkrCs...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
I counted nine (9!) strawman arguments.
Do you wonder why nobody wants to talk to you?
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
> >>> transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
> >>> before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
> >>> "Relativity":
>
> >> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
> >> is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
> >> don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>
> >> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
> >> and he incorporated their work in his.
>
> >> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
> >> Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
> >> freely acknowledge this.
>
> >> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
>
> > No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
> > mentioned? Is it how science works?
>
> It is how an amateur, working as a clerk in a patent office,
> made his first steps.
His next steps were the same, Clever Moortel. In 1902, in "La Science
et l'hypothèse", Henri Poincaré, in order to justify non-Euclidean
geometries, presented a parabole. Bidimensional creatures live on a
disk. The disk is heated under its center so that the temperature is
high at the center and decreases towards the periphery. The creatures
use rigid measuring rods in order to determine the geometry of their
world. They know nothing about the heater and accordingly discover
that the ratio of the circumference and the diameter is greater than
pi. The creatures conclude that Euclidean geometry cannot be true on
the disk.
Now Clever Moortel try to find Poincaré's conclusions "derived" in an
extremely silly way here:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Aug 21, 3:30 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
>>>>> transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
>>>>> before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
>>>>> "Relativity":
>>
>>>> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
>>>> is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
>>>> don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>>
>>>> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
>>>> and he incorporated their work in his.
>>
>>>> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
>>>> Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
>>>> freely acknowledge this.
>>
>>>> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
>>
>>> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
>>> mentioned? Is it how science works?
>>
>> It is how an amateur, working as a clerk in a patent office,
>> made his first steps.
>
> His next steps
When Pissing Volvo sees a baby bird screaming to be fed in its nest,
he shouts "Is *THAT* how birds are supposed to fly?"
Dirk Vdm
John Kennaugh
Your basic maths isn't very good if you can't even count. List them.
>
>Dirk Vdm
--
John Kennaugh
Dirk Van de moortel
That makes ten (10).
Dirk Vdm
John Kennaugh
I don't quite see it that way. He did acknowledge that Lorentz had made
the greatest contribution since Maxwell. His objection was to the
theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory. If one gives him the benefit
of the doubt one may believe that he was genuinely trying to improve on
Lorentz's theory. History shows that he utterly failed to come up with
an alternative theoretical structure. He wanted the PoR to be absolute
while in Lorentz's theory it was experimentally true but at a
theoretical level Lorentz's aether FoR compromised it. The only way to
have absolute (theoretical) symmetry was for every observer's
relationship with he aether to be the same and equally valid. Einstein
attempted to find a different theoretical structure based on an 'aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's' - basically the idea that as
experiment had 'shown' that every observer is stationary w.r.t the
aether that nature must provide a suitable aether to bring this about.
Physics had been taken over by the mathematicians union who were really
only interested in the maths and they wanted none of it. The nature of
physics got changed such that theoretical structure was no longer
considered a desirable part of theory. The aether was a part of the
theoretical structure so that was ditched. Part of the new philosophy
was that the only reality is what experiment shows so Einstein's
motivation disappeared in that physics no longer recognised a difference
between a PoR which is true experimentally and an absolute PoR true at
all levels of the theoretical structure - the very idea motivating
Einstein disappeared. The maths - first produced by Lorentz - was given
the status of 'theory' and Einstein given credit for it. You may
criticise Einstein for taking the credit but I do not see him as
necessarily setting out to plagiarise although I do get the impression
he was an opportunist.
>See the end of chapter 11 in his
>"Relativity":
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html
>
>Einstein's 1905 light postulate was just as incompatible with
>Maxwell's original theory as it was with Newton's emission theory of
>light. Accoding to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of
>light is both VARIABLE and DEPENDENT on reference frame; it obeys the
>equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether
>and v is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. Albert the
>Plagiarist's contribution consisted in truncating the equation c'=c+v;
>it just took the simple form c'=c but produced miracles (time
>dilation, length contraction etc.), and that was the only reason why
>Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert.
>
>Pentcho Valev
>pva...@yahoo.com
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On Aug 21, 8:03 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
>> > > transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
>> > > before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
>> > > "Relativity":
>>
>> > ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors. There
>> > is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and none do. I
>> > don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed of Einstein.
>>
>> > Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
>> > and he incorporated their work in his.
>>
>> > The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
>> > Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and they
>> > freely acknowledge this.
>>
>> > This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science works.
>>
>> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not even
>> mentioned? Is it how science works?
>
>
>There were no references in Newton's Principia, either.
>Einstein acknowledged his debt and the work of his predecessors in
>many other writings.
He certainly acknowledged Lorentz of whom he said
" He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful
simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most
important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell ...."
1920 lecture
What is interesting is that he makes no mention of Poincaré. If one
wants and unbiased view of who did what then perhaps one should look to
a historian rather than a physicist.
In the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of
Theories of Aether and Electricity, published in 1953, there is a
chapter on relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and
Lorentz." Einstein is mentioned for the first time in a paragraph on the
thirteenth page.
"(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory
of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted
much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of
the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is
the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each
other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted. In this paper
Einstein gave modifications which must now be introduced into the
formulae for aberration and for the Doppler effect."
My understanding was that Poincaré put forward a number of suggestions
without being very specific or decisive as to which was superior and
that Einstein developed one of Poincaré's ideas but I could be wrong
about that. In the end of course the only thing left of that idea is the
maths and they were first produced by Lorentz who should get the credit
rather than Einstein. Had Einstein succeeded in producing a theoretical
structure without the asymmetry in the theoretical structure of
Lorentz's theory it would be a different matter but in SR the same maths
as Lorentz is presented without a theoretical structure and SR only
became acceptable when physics decided that a theory didn't need a
theoretical structure.
As far as SR is concerned I am unclear as to what on earth anyone thinks
that Einstein achieved apart from adding formulae for aberration and for
the Doppler effect to Lorentz's maths. His maths is described by Waldron
as "rather clumsy algebra". As far as the Doppler equation derivation
is concerned it is simply conventional Doppler shift with Fo multiplied
by the time dilation factor but because of his unconventional choice of
which direction he considers positive (which he fails to make clear) the
equation appears strange as a result.
--
John Kennaugh
Spaceman
It was all a trick of light.
The use of the supposedly dimensionless (1) in the silly
equations should have been a suspect long ago.
lightspeed = ~186,000 miles per second.
The speed of light has 2 dimensions in it. (distance and time)
How can a minimum of 2 dimensions speed be considered to be "dimensionless"
at all is where the trick was pulled from the hat.
In short how does ~186000 miles per second ever equal 1?
Does half that speed equal a dimensionless (unitless) 0.5?
:)
Look inside the hat and you see that lightspeed was not dimensionless
(nor unitless) and should have never been able to be used as such.
The "magician" fooled the audience for 100 yrs.
He used multiple standards for distance and time to make the math
work out. (rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks)
:)
PD
It's worth nothing that it is not all that uncommon for people to do
work in parallel and independently, pretty much unaware of each other.
Part of the reason for this is that the same precursor work will
provoke the same questions, and two or more people will go about
trying to answer the same question over the next several years.
Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomanaga are excellent examples of this, all
working on quantum electrodynamic independently and pretty much
unaware of each other's work.
Science is a human endeavor.
PD
gl...@aol.com
< Einstein did acknowledge that Lorentz had made the greatest
contribution since Maxwell. His objection was to the theoretical
structure of Lorentz's theory. If one gives him the benefit of the
doubt one may believe that he was genuinely trying to improve on
Lorentz's theory. >
< History shows that he utterly failed to come up with an alternative
theoretical structure. He wanted the PoR to be absolute, while in
Lorentz's theory it was experimentally true but at a theoretical level
Lorentz's aether FoR compromised it. The only way to have absolute
(theoretical) symmetry was for every observer's relationship with the
aether to be the same and equally valid. Einstein attempted to find a
different theoretical structure based on an 'aether without the
immobility of Lorentz's' - basically the idea that as experiment had
'shown' that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether that nature
must provide a suitable aether to bring this about. >
In 1905 he based his theory on the postulate that light moves at c
"in empty space", and that a luminiferous medium (such as the ether)
would prove to be superfluous. Years later he realized that without
such a medium his theories would make no sense.
Don't blame him that physics accepted senseless notions as the basis
of the nonsensical theories they now believe.
< Physics had been taken over by the mathematicians union who were
really only interested in the math and they wanted none of it. The
nature of physics got changed such that theoretical structure was no
longer considered a desirable part of theory. The aether was a part of
the theoretical structure, so that was ditched. Part of the new
philosophy was that the only reality is what experiment shows; so
Einstein's motivation disappeared in that physics no longer recognized
a difference between a PoR which is true experimentally and an
absolute PoR true at all levels of the theoretical structure - the
very idea motivating Einstein disappeared. The equations - first
produced by Lorentz - were given the status of a 'theory' and Einstein
was given credit for it. >
I completely agree with you, there.
< You may criticize Einstein for taking the credit, but I do not see
him as necessarily setting out to plagiarize although I do get the
impression he was an opportunist. >
He didn't set out to be a plagiarist, but he became one
nevertheless. When you understand the equations of his segment 3, in
which he tried - and failed! - to derive the Lorentz transformation
equations he saw in Poincare's June, 1905 paper, you will see that he
not only got them from there - without mentioning P's name - but he
didn't even understand how they work.
Oddly enough, neither do any relativists. (If they did, they would
know that the experimentally verified STR equations don't fit the
THEORY of relativity; so they wouldn't be relativists.)
If you want to know how it could be possible that no relativist in
over 100 years understood Einstein's rather simple 1905 equations, see
my answer, given in my next posting: Why relativists don't understand
Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
Meanwhile, thank you, John, for your unusually reasonable argument.
glird
John Kennaugh
>On Aug 22, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh wrote:
>>< Einstein did acknowledge that Lorentz had made the greatest
>>contribution since Maxwell. His objection was to the theoretical
>>structure of Lorentz's theory. If one gives him the benefit of the
>>doubt one may believe that he was genuinely trying to improve on
>>Lorentz's theory. >
> Ok.
>
>>< History shows that he utterly failed to come up with an alternative
>>theoretical structure. He wanted the PoR to be absolute, while in
>>Lorentz's theory it was experimentally true but at a theoretical level
>>Lorentz's aether FoR compromised it. The only way to have absolute
>>(theoretical) symmetry was for every observer's relationship with the
>>aether to be the same and equally valid. Einstein attempted to find a
>>different theoretical structure based on an 'aether without the
>>immobility of Lorentz's' - basically the idea that as experiment had
>>'shown' that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether that nature
>>must provide a suitable aether to bring this about. >
> In 1905 he based his theory on the postulate that light moves at c
>"in empty space", and that a luminiferous medium (such as the ether)
>would prove to be superfluous. Years later he realized that without
>such a medium his theories would make no sense.
> Don't blame him that physics accepted senseless notions as the basis
>of the nonsensical theories they now believe.
Re the "empty space" quote where he introduced his 2nd postulate the
wording was so loose that it had several different meanings. Later in
the paper he does a better job and that second attempt is what is
normally quoted.
If you actually read what he says re the aether:
"The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an
'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."
In view of what he later said the key word is 'inasmuch'. His 1920
lecture is deliberately vague but two things are clear firstly that he
wants to retain the concept of the aether itself, secondly that he
rejects the idea of a FoR stationary w.r.t the aether. The word
'inasmuch' puts emphasis on not requiring an 'absolutely stationary
space' in other words a FoR stationary w.r.t the aether.
Whether that is the correct interpretation doesn't matter that much. If
others did take it as saying "my theory doesn't need an aether" someone
should have questioned how he managed without it.
Ta
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
The speed of light is 1 metricated foot* per nanosecond
A metricated foot is used by timber merchants and equals 300mm as in the
phrase "its a metricated 6ft length" :o)
>Does half that speed equal a dimensionless (unitless) 0.5?
>:)
>
>Look inside the hat and you see that lightspeed was not dimensionless
>(nor unitless) and should have never been able to be used as such.
>
>The "magician" fooled the audience for 100 yrs.
>He used multiple standards for distance and time to make the math
>work out. (rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks)
>:)
>
--
John Kennaugh
Androcles
Only by those timber merchants that were also matriculants.
Spaceman
Ouch.
That one hurt my funny bone.
:)