A Great Introduction To Special Relativity
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
What makes my approach intuitive, easy and interesting is that I derive the
Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation using magic,
elementary algebraic manipulation and a clear definition of time. The charm
in my approach is that inattentive readers and inexperienced (superficial)
thinkers who know the difference between Galilean and Einsteinian physics
are left wondering why the magic seems to work.
If you understand the magic, then you understand relativity.
Eugene Shubert
Dr. Strangelove
Titan Point
> I believe my way is far simpler. You can download a MS word version at
>
> http://members.triton.net/daveb/relativity.doc
Simple enough for Richard Perry? I doubt it.
Hayek
Titan Point wrote:
That is not the question.
Can it be made simple enough for you ?
And then you would discard it as being too simple.
The net result would be null, and exactly you posting
here, not knowing a thing about relativity, or any
physics for that matter, and deluding yourself to be an
expert.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Eugene Shubert
news:3E133A9C...@yahoo.com...
:
: It must be magic as you say, because it sure isn't real. Dilation and
: contraction ar artifacts of a backdoor mathematical approach. Think of a
: number from 1 to 9, multiply by 4, divide by last three digits of
: birthdate, etc. etc..... you are x year old. Same fucking thing, but
: much easier to just ask for your fucking age. Crackpot.
:
: --
: Richard Perry
: http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Dear Richard,
I am truly flattered.
Are you judging my well-reasoned mathematical argument from my
use of the word magic? In my use of that word, I only meant a stage
performance, slight of hand and ordinary mathematical trickery.
Appearing to do the miraculous isn't crack-pottery. Entertainment
is a valid and recognized teaching tool. Please don't be angry
with me because you can't see a flaw in my argument. Truthfully,
my derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation has no real magic in it at all. True sorcery is
conjuring up incantations to explain relativity like the meaningless
and troublesome phrase, "moving clocks run slow." By comparison,
I've explained relativity in the truest and highest sense.
You shouldn't call anyone a crackpot if you can't refute what
they say. What isn't real about my derivation? I think it's
perfectly valid. Didn't I prove all my claims? It's obvious
that you don't appreciate clever arguments or understand
my mathematical trickery.
Do you have a single, rational objection based on the conventional
and accepted view of physics, logic or mathematics?
What do you know about relativity anyway? What are your
credentials, if you don't mind answering, for the record?
More importantly, have you seen any recognized experts
in relativity, like Steve Carlip, condemning my derivation?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
Hayek
Eugene Shubert wrote:
You put the students on the wrong foot by starting with
"a rigid material rod". There is no such thing. This
might be fine for a mathematical course, but it violates
all physics. You destroy their intuition. Many
relativity 'doubters' here, start with infinitely long
rigid rods, and then prove superlightspeeds, because if
they jolt such a rod here it moves at proxima centauri 4
light years along.
I do not agree that you give a clear definition of time.
Time is caused by inertia, it is ok to equate this by a
moving rod, the rod moves because of inertia, but the
reader is not informed.
The Shubertian clock definition also nicely avoids any
physical interpretation or reality.
You claim that time 'only has meaning locally' but
ignore that it takes a 'rigid' rod that 'moves'
inertially to constitute your time. Inertial movement is
not something that is a local happenstance. Mach's
Principle/GR states that it is caused by the masses
surrounding us, stars & galaxies.
Further, you say there is no proof that simultaneity
exists, but is there a proof to the opposite ?
Again the reader is put on the wrong foot, and his
intuition totally perturbed, time is forming as a
dimension in his mind already.
Tom Snyder
"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in message
news:3e13...@sys13.hou.wt.net...
I enjoyed your derivation. It reminded me of some comments that Pauli made
in his book _Theory of Relativity_ (1921), page 11. The following is a
quote from the book:
|| The simple structure of [the Lorentz transformation equations]
|| makes one wonder whether they could not have been derived
|| from general group-theoretical considerations, without having
|| to assume the invariance of [the speed of light]. To what extent
|| this is possible has been shown by Ignatowsky, and Frank and
|| Rothe [in papers written between 1910 and 1912]. One need
|| assume no more than the following conditions:
|| (a) the transformations must form a one-parameter homogenous
|| linear group;
|| (b) the velocity of K relative to K' is equal and opposite to that
|| of K' relative to K
|| (c) the contraction of lengths at rest in K' and observed in K is
|| equal to that of lengths at rest in K and observed in K'.
|| This already suffices to show that the transformation formulae
|| must be of the form
|| x' = (x-vt)/Sqrt(1-kv^2), t' = (t-kvx)/Sqrt(1-kv^2)
[end of quote]
In the equations at the end of the quote, I used the letter k rather than
Pauli's alpha. Note that these equations are exactly the concluding
equations as given in your derivation [in matrix form]. The assumption (a)
in Pauli's quote is similar to your assumption of group structure in your
derivation. Assumption (b) of Pauli is similar to your condition that
L^(-1)(v) = L(-v). Assumption (c) of Pauli is similar to your taking the
expressions for T and T' [given just above your statement of Theorem 1] as
identical to one another with the same denominator [mu].
I have not seen the papers of Ignatowsky, and Frank and Rothe so I don't
know how their specific derivations compare to yours. But I thought you
might be interested in knowing about them in case you weren't already.
Of course this type of derivation does not really quite nail down the
Lorentz transformation since the parameter k is still free to be chosen as
one wishes. By choosing k = 0, you get the Galilean transformation. By
choosing k = 1/c^2, you get the Lorentz transformation and the invariance of
the speed c. From experiment, Nature tells us that the latter choice is the
correct one.
Tom
and...@attglobal.net
>
> I believe my way is far simpler. You can download a MS word version at
>
> http://members.triton.net/daveb/relativity.doc
Sorry but self proclaimed explanations on
newsgroups don't cut it.
For people who really want to understand relativity, stick
to real texts like Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.
John Anerson
Dr. Strangelove
why do you even bother to reply. Go burry your head in a physics
juornal and keep your sarcasism to yourself.
New will physics WILL BE made on the web, since conventional physics
has closed the doors to new ideas.
Getting new ideas heard by physicist hasn't been met with this level
of rejection since Copernicus proposed that the earth wasn't the
center of the universe. His only proponent was burned at the stake. I
sus[pect that you would be the one lighting the fire.
and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3E1522...@attglobal.net>...
and...@attglobal.net
>
> If you really believe that, and I have no reason to doubt you, then
> why do you even bother to reply.
Because you are claiming to be able to explain SR to people and
I question that claim.
> Go burry your head in a physics
> juornal and keep your sarcasism to yourself.
>
I'm not talking about journals, I'm talking about text books.
Do you know what sarcasm means? You obviously don't know how
to spell it. Where is there any sarcasm in anything that I posted?
> New will physics WILL BE made on the web, since conventional physics
> has closed the doors to new ideas.
>
Conventional physics expects new physics to be supported the same
way that it is. By agreeing with experiment and being logically
consistent.
> Getting new ideas heard by physicist hasn't been met with this level
> of rejection since Copernicus proposed that the earth wasn't the
> center of the universe. His only proponent was burned at the stake. I
> sus[pect that you would be the one lighting the fire.
>
I'm not saying that you should be burned at the stake.
I advised people reading your posting that they would
be better served to look elsewhere if they want to understand
SR. Why do you cranks pretend to be such martyrs?
John Anderson
Dr. Strangelove
theory that disagreed with experiment? Your suggestions are laughable.
Perhaps we should compare credentials. I graduated at the top of my
class in physics and have done three years of graduate work in the
field. The ideas I am proposing are under review for publication at
this very moment. Evidently you believe that the internet cannot
possibly be used to exchange valid ideas.
I suggest that it is you who should get the H off line.
. and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3E1665...@attglobal.net>...
Eugene Shubert
news:CQ1R9.535927$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
:
: I enjoyed your derivation. It reminded me of some comments that Pauli
Dear Tom,
Thanks for mentioning that you enjoyed my derivation. You are right that my
derivation is similar in places to what others have done. The only thing I
claim is unique is that I致e derived the Lorentz transformation from the
Galilean transformation. If that is parallel with the assumption called
point (c), "the contraction of lengths," then I feel justified in claiming
that my approach is more intuitive. My point was in presenting an intuitive
introduction to special relativity with an emphasis on the meaning of
coordinates and a definition of time.
If I wanted a super-quick derivation of special relativity from a
group-theoretical point of view without any insight, then my approach would
have been different. I would have started with this page:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm and then
selected the linear solution and required symmetry.
Thanks for the intelligent review.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Minor Crank
news:9935f701.03010...@posting.google.com...
> How can you possible infer, from what i posted, that I developed a
> theory that disagreed with experiment? Your suggestions are laughable.
> Perhaps we should compare credentials. I graduated at the top of my
> class in physics and have done three years of graduate work in the
> field. The ideas I am proposing are under review for publication at
> this very moment. Evidently you believe that the internet cannot
> possibly be used to exchange valid ideas.
You are right, we should not criticize your ideas without giving them at
least a cursory glance.
Having looked at your "Special Relativity Simplified" document, I see that
you start off your so-called simplified treatment with what is customarily a
derived result, the formula for relativistic mass, altering your terminology
and notation from current customary usage. For example, you use E_0 for what
current custom refers to as "invariant mass" and E_1, the total energy, for
what would be referred to redundantly as "relativistic mass."
Relativistic mass is virtually never used in contemporary scientific
literature, for what I consider sound heuristic reasons.
http://crib.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/mass.html
Next you introduce the Lorentz time transformation equation, and from there,
I see that you quickly go backwards to derive various results. I stopped
reading at this point, because I totally disagree with your presentation.
1) Your "simplified" presentation starts off asking the beginner to accept
on faith what normally are complex and nonintuitive derived results, and
therefore it is completely backwards in its presentation.
2) Your presentation uses terminology that deviates from current customary
usage.
3) Your presentation incorporates outdated concepts using this deviant
terminology.
I can go on, but I don't think you really want to hear any more.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but I find the conventional treatment much
preferable.
"Minor Crank"
Dr. Strangelove
trying to make it a bit easier to understand. In an original version
of the paper, I started out with the postulate that time rate is
inversely proportional to energy. That idea was difficult for people
to accept. In this paper I am proving that, at least, in a limiting
case time rate is indeed inversely proportional to energy. Only after
justifying that claim with equations well accepted, do I go on to show
how "easy" deriving relativity is. I am not trying to make new science
in this paper, but merely to to develop a more graphical
representation for SR. As for the E0, E1, they r meant to be
identiacal objects. One at rest and one in motion relative to it.
At any rate, I thank you for you curteous honesty. That quality is
badly lacking among physicist.
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<uiGR9.233043$qF3.19562@sccrnsc04>...
Minor Crank
news:9935f701.03010...@posting.google.com...
> At any rate, I thank you for you curteous honesty.
You're welcome. Although I disagreed strongly with the pedagogical approach
that you followed, I didn't see anything especially wrong with the results
that you were trying to present.
I myself have had some pet ideas on alternate ways of introducing relativity
to beginners, but I've discovered it is EXTREMELY difficult to improve on
the basic approach that Einstein used!
Minor Crank
and...@attglobal.net
Einstein did that over 95 years ago. There are several better
approaches
that have been developed since then. See Spacetime Physics by
Taylor and Wheeler.
John Anderson
Minor Crank
> Minor Crank wrote:
> Einstein did that over 95 years ago. There are several better
> approaches
> that have been developed since then. See Spacetime Physics by
> Taylor and Wheeler.
You're right, and yes, I like their approach very much.
My point, though, was to stress politely but VERY firmly to "Dr.
Strangelove" that his approach to explaining SR is totally backwards and
inferior even to the nearly one century old explanation given by Einstein,
to say nothing of more modern treatments.
"Minor Crank"
Dr. Strangelove
square root of negative one and using standard trig functions might
have some value to someone. Perhaps a high school trig student who
isn't familiar with complex hyperbolic functions. As far as you guys
are concerned: I GIVE UP.
For those of you who did take the time to at least look, I thank you
for your time.
I am actually trying to get acceptance for a far more radical idea,
and this paper was an attempt to open the door. It didn't work.
The radical idea will really inflame most of you. If you enjoy tearing
people apart for radical ideas check out
http://members.triton.net/daveb Download or view the web based
version of my Unification theory.
I have already been called every name in the book in several forums,
so you can do no more damage to my ego, but feel free to fire away. I
can take anything you can dish out, because I an absolutely sure I am
right.
I am absolutely sure I am correct.
The theory is raw and needs a good deal of work and I could use help
should any of you be interested.
I will be adding a page with a list of nasty, dirty, degrading words
and phrases directed towards me, that the reader can just click on
rather than having to waste time emailing me or leaving feedback.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Ok guys, you made your point(s). I just thought that eliminating the
> square root of negative one
That was eliminated a long time ago. The spacetime coordinates
(t,x,y,z) are real. The proper time is given by
(ds)^2 = (dt)^2 - ((dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2))/c^2
because the metric is diag(1,-1,-1,-1) and not the
Euclidean diag(1,1,1,1).
John Anderson
R Tobin
Don't give up so easily. I read your paper and find it very
interesting.
Two thing strike me and I must ask where you found them, if you didn't
come up with them on your own.
1) The Inverse energy time relationship.
2) The non orthogonal relationship between time and space
Has anyone proposed these before and if so where?
Oriel36
Do you know the funny thing about relativity,you don't even have to
oppose the damn thing,its just that a few here are pointing out that
cosmological observation are so far out of kilter with theory,at least
with relativity and qm that all these mathematical and linguistic
dancesteps are a clear sign that men have been living inside their
heads for far too long.
As far as I can tell new insights come effortlessly if you drop
opposition to relativity entirely for like all extreme ideas that
sound good at the beginning drift towards dismal and dour conclusions
when founded on spurious precepts and relativity is full of them.
Its just that there are not enough people around at the moment to
consider what the actual structure and motion of the cosmos is outside
the relativistic and qm framework,the fact that weakwilled scientists
allowed relativity to snowball into the mess it has become reflects
badly on 'scientists' for the past 100 years insofar as it means some
participants here have to clean up the mess and put the study of the
cosmos back on track.
The magic of relativity is simply its linguistic sleight of hand
ripped out of Newton's definition of relative and absolute,relativity
sounds great and profound but nothing could be further from the truth
whereas Newton was pretty switched on even with the limited
observational data he had.
The upshot is that if someone goes to consider Universal
rotation,somebody like Patrick Reany will pop up and declare "Rotation
WRT what ?",but he would'nt bring himself to consider that relativity
so skews observation that it is impossible to consider Universal
rotation with spacetime as an obstacle.