The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
Shubee
explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Androcles
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7df8c23f-3ba5-4e62...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, and you are one of them, nothing important Shubert.
Shubee
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
YBM
> "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> Weinberg.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> better than Einstein did.
Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.
PD
> "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
>
> It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> better than Einstein did.
It wouldn't be surprising if you were a reasonably good graduate
student. However, as you are not, it is also not surprising that you
understand relativity rather poorly and pretty darned superficially,
even compared to Einstein.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
PD
> Most relativists are satisfied with the traditional superficial
> explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
> superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
> why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
> that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
> for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.
Well done. Feel superior now?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Shubee
Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays or even
believing that the Lorentz transformation has to be derived from
Poincaré's relativity postulate is extraordinarily naive.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Juan R.
> "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> Weinberg.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
Hi Shubee, interesting that you cite Weinberg.
Precisely he has a section on his textboook on Gravitation and Cosmology
explicitely devoted to criticism of the 'hocus pocus' mysticism by
relativists.
In "The geometric analogy" Weinberg discredits general relativists by
using terms like "metric", "affine connection", and "curvature".
I know of one experimentalist on this thread who likes to write
"manifold".
Of course, Weinberg words were not well-received by relativist community,
as explained in "Weinberg as a relativist heretic" on
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html
Main point of Weinberg, Feynman, and others physicists is that typical
relativists' explanations are not fundamental.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
YBM
Synchronization can be achieved with light rays as well as many other
means.
Confusing synchronization with clock continuous resetting, as you do,
is worse than naive.
Shubee
simple clock synchronization scheme to the status of a law of physics.
When did I ever insist on such stupidity?
Shubee
PD
> On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > > Weinberg.
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> > > It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> > > better than Einstein did.
>
> > Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
> > this is doubtfull.
>
> Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays
They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
fro. Walking will work.
PD
> Einstein formalized his version of special relativity by exalting a
> simple clock synchronization scheme to the status of a law of physics.
Nah, that was the gimme part. Have to find *some* way to synchronize
them without readjusting them between every measurement.
Shubee
>
> Synchronization can be achieved with light rays as well as many other
> means.
My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
> Confusing synchronization with clock continuous resetting, as you do,
> is worse than naive.
Where's the error in beginning with arbitrary clock synchronization
functions? There is nothing wrong with my approach to the
axiomatization of physics. It's a perfectly valid path that I've taken
but you simply don't understand it.
There's a mathematical clock structure at each point in the universe.
There is a simple definition of time. And I'm free to reset any
uncountably infinite number of clocks, either continuously or
discontinuously. It's my choice.
It's simply wrong-headed to assume Einstein's two postulates because
they're not required to derive the Lorentz transformation. It's easy
to see that the relativity postulate isn't implied by the Lorentz
transformation. Why are you incapable of believing that the relativity
principle isn't needed to derive the LT?
My axioms are obviously superior to Einstein's. I only need assume:
1. Newton's first law of motion.
2. Time is mathematically well-defined and is defined the same way in
all inertial frames of reference.
Consequently, the relativity postulate could be false and my theory
could still be true. But if relativity is true, then my theory is
still true. Therefore, I have a stronger theory.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Mechanistic philosophers cling to the undetectable ether. Relativists
cling to the relativity postulate. Just as the ether was courageously
dismissed as an unnecessary postulate a century ago, the relativity
postulate needs to acknowledged as being unnecessary, unproved and
unprovable.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
YBM
> On Mar 29, 11:10 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>> Synchronization can be achieved with light rays as well as many other
>> means.
>
> My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
> deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...
>> Confusing synchronization with clock continuous resetting, as you do,
>> is worse than naive.
>
> Where's the error in beginning with arbitrary clock synchronization
> functions? There is nothing wrong with my approach to the
> axiomatization of physics. It's a perfectly valid path that I've taken
> but you simply don't understand it.
> There's a mathematical clock structure at each point in the universe.
> There is a simple definition of time. And I'm free to reset any
> uncountably infinite number of clocks, either continuously or
> discontinuously. It's my choice.
Synchronisation is not a "function" it is a procedure you do (in
principle) *once and for all* for a set of comoving clocks. Of course
you can define other procedures than Einstein's convention, but
- most sensible procedures are equivalent to Einstein's one
- only a small subset of all procedures defines what a frame
is in a coherent way (e.g. A in sync with B and B in sync with
C implies A in sync with C)
- your silly game is not a synchronization procedure, you're
just arbitrarely resetting every clock at every instant
(thus hiding the synchronization procedure which would
define what all your clocks would show if they were left
alone) in order to get Lorentz like so-called transformation
from galilean one.
Tom Robert's gave once on this ng a reference to a book studying
in depth this question, which concludes that Einstein's convention
(or the set of equivalent procedures) is the only relevant one.
You should definitly read that book.
> Consequently, the relativity postulate could be false and my theory
> could still be true. But if relativity is true, then my theory is
> still true. Therefore, I have a stronger theory.
You don't have a theory, you are like a monkey imitating a man : you
wrote down some x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' and formulas but you don't
get the physical and mathematical point about what a transformation
is. In fact, as other of your stupid texts have shown up, you
have a religious agenda which motives you to rehabilit some kind
of absolute time where God's creation could take place.
You are to a physicist or a mathematician what a creationnist priest
is to a biologist : a joke.
Shubee
> Shubee a écrit :
>
> > My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
> > deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
>
> This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
> even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
> transformations since you haven't defined it...
It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.
Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.
Shubee
YBM
> On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>> Shubee a écrit :
>>
>>> My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
>>> deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
>> This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
>> even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
>> transformations since you haven't defined it...
>
> It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
> while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.
>
> Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
> ruler slide under all their noses so that their nose moves equal
> distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
> define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
> to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
> times synchronized?
It's not an uninteresting way to define a clock, the burden of the
proof, anyway, is on you :
- precise the way numbers are written on the rule
- how does it generalize on a 3D spacial frame ?
- prove that it is coherent
If you could do so, you'd have basically defined a synchronisation
procedure, making your statement "My point is that specifying a
particular clock synchronization before deriving the LT is completely
unnecessary." wrong.
> Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
> at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
> thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
> constant amount.
Then you can get any kind of insignificant result, such as "deriving"
LT from GT...
> Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
> cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
> "It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
> before, you are an idiot.
You still didn't get the point, did you ? I understand why you
snipped the rest of my post.
Eric Gisse
Its' been a few months - does your way of discussing relativity
address invariants, energy, momentum, or acceleration yet?
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c173cf1-800f-4511...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 29, 9:55 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> better than Einstein did.
| It wouldn't
there's that 'not' again. Never mind, kook fight.
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:55:04 -0700:
>
> > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > Weinberg.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> Hi Shubee, interesting that you cite Weinberg.
>
> Precisely he has a section on his textboook on Gravitation and Cosmology
> explicitely devoted to criticism of the 'hocus pocus' mysticism by
> relativists.
I often notice that book at the local university library when I go
there to look up something. Do you recall the section title?
> In "The geometric analogy" Weinberg discredits general relativists by
> using terms like "metric", "affine connection", and "curvature".
It seems easy to agree with Weinberg on the ridiculous mismatch in
physics and that all the fundamental forces of nature can't all be
interpreted as curvature.
> I know of one experimentalist on this thread who likes to write
> "manifold".
It's standard terminology with geometers.
> Of course, Weinberg words were not well-received by relativist community,
> as explained in "Weinberg as a relativist heretic" on
>
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists...
The anger of religious relativists makes perfect sense to me.
Mechanistic philosophy is a deeply held religious belief and Weinberg
has challenged the mechanistic philosophy of "The geometric analogy."
> Main point of Weinberg, Feynman, and others physicists is that typical
> relativists' explanations are not fundamental.
I couldn't agree more.
Shubee
> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Shubee
You qualify to stand on the line created for YBM.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
>
> YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
> Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
> will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
> synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
> please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
> x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Where is the physics, shooby? You keep treating SR like it is a
mathematical exercise and ignore things that are RELEVANT TO PHYSICS
like energy and momentum.
Hell, you still haven't even shown that the usual relativistic
invariants exist.
YBM
> To Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com>,
>
> You qualify to stand on the line created for YBM.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
>
> YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
> Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
> will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
> synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
> please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
> x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.
So now you define it as a "synchronization function", which is only
half a meaningless expression... so much for :
> It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
> while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.
Moreover you forgot one small detail :
> Let another infinitely long
> ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
> distances in equal times on the moving ruler.
How could you define what "equal times" means without defining
how time is measured for this or that, say, "nose", therefore defining a
proper synchronization procedure ?
Given that you failed to address others objections, I'm not really
waiting for you to address this one. Anyway, if you happen in the
future to regain mental sanity you could then try.
Koobee Wublee
> "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
First of all, forget about Einstein. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar. He had never formulated anything. He should pass into
oblivion because he was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. So,
Professor Weinberg's statement although being very correct is actually
of no consequence. Today, most of the physicists do not understand
** The Einstein filed equations themselves
** How these equations are derived
** Calculus of variations
It is very sad indeed because of the establishment of the Orwelling
educational system where
** MYSTICISOM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** LYING IS TEACHING.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 29, 7:55 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> First of all, forget about Einstein. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist,
> and a liar. He had never formulated anything. He should pass into
> oblivion because he was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. So,
> Professor Weinberg's statement although being very correct is actually
> of no consequence. Today, most of the physicists do not understand
Says the guy who can't even use the sphere's metric to show that the
area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2.
>
> ** The Einstein filed equations themselves
Says the guy who doesn't understand what tensors, much less tensor
equations, are.
>
> ** How these equations are derived
Says the guy who can't follow the proof of Birkhoff's theorem.
>
> ** Calculus of variations
Says the guy who can't do the simple variation to get the field
equations.
PD
That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?
Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wristwatch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?
PD
isosceles
> On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > > > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > > > Weinberg.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> > > > It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> > > > better than Einstein did.
>
> > > Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
> > > this is doubtfull.
>
> > Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays
>
> They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
> fro.Walking will work.
oahaha oahaha
you just postulated in other thread that
two distinct objects in exactly same place
is not synchronizing
maybe you should be able now to explain
to my people which of the walker you
synchronize first
oahahaa, thanks
Androcles
That doesn't
The infamous Phuckwit Duck says "That does NOT..." What a surprise.
Shubee
PD,
You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
the paper, http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Androcles
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc9179d6-ff54-4d3f...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| PD,
PD couldn't grasp a paper bag with candy in it.
PD
I've read the paper.
You didn't answer the question.
Juan R.
> On Mar 29, 11:02 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:55:04 -0700:
>>
>> > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
>> > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
>> > Weinberg.
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>>
>> Hi Shubee, interesting that you cite Weinberg.
>>
>> Precisely he has a section on his textboook on Gravitation and
>> Cosmology explicitely devoted to criticism of the 'hocus pocus'
>> mysticism by relativists.
>
> I often notice that book at the local university library when I go there
> to look up something. Do you recall the section title?
Shubee, already in the introduction Weinberg explains why he feels
disatisfied with the geometrical approach on GR and decided to take a non-
geometrical approach when writting his own book.
But the specific section was stated just below: "The geometric analogy".
Pag 147 in my book. There Weinberg explains why the geometric
interpretation is a mere analogy which is "not very useful" and warn
readers that experimental results by astronomers are matter, and those
results may be derived without using geometric formulation.
Weinberg also warns to his readers about relativists.
>> In "The geometric analogy" Weinberg discredits general relativists by
>> using terms like "metric", "affine connection", and "curvature".
>
> It seems easy to agree with Weinberg on the ridiculous mismatch in
> physics and that all the fundamental forces of nature can't all be
> interpreted as curvature.
Precisely the failure to geometrize all of physics physics promoted by
Einstein decades before is one of the main arguments by Weinberg.
In a recent work i have also proven that gravity cannot be understood in
geometric terms, except as /analogy/ on certain /approximated/
description of the physics of gravity.
Of course, general relativists cannot even heard about that without panic.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> interpretation is a mere analogy which is "not very useful" and warn
> readers that experimental results by astronomers are matter, and those
> results may be derived without using geometric formulation.
I mean that experimental results by astronomers are matter in a
experimental based science as physics, and those experimental results may
be derived without using geometric formulation as proven in many places.
The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> I mean that experimental results by astronomers are matter in a
> experimental based science as physics, and those experimental results
> may be derived without using geometric formulation as proven in many
> places.
Uff, i mean that experimental results by astronomers are what matters...
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Dono
>
> You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
> the paper,http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
Still peddling the same unpublished and unpublishable tired garbage ,
Shitbert?
Dono
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
<garbage snipped>
>
> Of course, general relativists cannot even heard about that without panic.
>
We can, it is your grammar that amuses us. Do you first write in
Spanish and translate with mistakes into English?
goog
What are you Dono, the newsgroup's resident name-caller? The funny
thing is that all these people you subject to your 4th grade taunting
know a lot more about relativity than you do. Can a fast pole fit in
a short barn, Dono?
GNG
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
> many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.
Not only do relativists promote the geometric view of gravity with
religious enthusiasm, they are absolutely antagonistic to all other
logical interpretations.
Shubee
Eric Gisse
Oh look, Shooby! More of the typical crank attempts at framing the
debate in an us vs them way by calling physicists "relativists"
instead of acknowledging that relativity is a fundamental part of
modern physics.
By the way, how come you still haven't figured out energy in your
"logical interpretation" ?
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
> many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.
Belief in the spacetime curvature myth is very strong. I was chatting
with a lady friend recently who asked me about relativity after she
read a book by Steven Hawking. She was shocked to hear me say that
there is no experimental evidence of spacetime curvature.
Shubee
Juan R.
An example i know is the speed of gravity myth.
First, it can be proven that the retardation arises on GR e.g.
h_MUNU = 4G Int d^3x {S_MUNU(x t_ret) / r}
is not fundamental but retardation (t_ret) arises from the geometric
(local) approximation to gravitation.
That is, GR and its retarded interactions are just an approximated view.
Second, so-called tests of GR can be matched also with theories of
instantaneous action at a distance without spacetime curvature: see, for
instance a first attempt on
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019
That work can be extended to include also *radiation*. Another common
myth by relativists is that radiation cannot be explained by action at a
distance theories and needs of retardation and fields.
Once i tried to explain some of those issues to certain academic
relativist now on this newsgroup. He completely misunderstood i said,
decided not to read references provided and started certain /ad hominem/
attack against me (where in a very unfair way he even attributed to me
stuff i *never* said).
You cannot dialoge with that kind of people. Nobel Prize for physics Max
Planck coinned the phrase:
{BLOCKQUOTE
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
}
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
I know. It was one of reason which decided to write about that on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
Not a single experiment has proved the "Gravity as warped spacetime" fig
over the "Gravity as force" figure.
Indeed, some of my colleagues believe that binary pulsar tests are
actually prefering the force formulation.
My approach to show the imposibility for a geometric formulation is
different, the "Gravity as warped spacetime" approach does not work for
many-body orbits (nonlinear regime).
The geometric formulation only can explain the local time explicit
component of the orbit.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Eric Gisse
That's what happens when a mathematician thinks he is a physicist.
Curvature is not a direct observable, but its' consequences are. The
consequences are specific and observable.
Explain Shapiro delay without appealing to curvature. Give it a try.
Black holes too - that'll be fun. Unless you ignore the question like
you do every ignore everything that threatens to disrupt your
simplified and ignorant world view.
>
> Shubee
Shubee
Juan,
I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation
potentials from the field equations or the paper by Eugene Stefanovich
but I sure do love that statement by Max Planck. Assuming Planck is
right, then the only way to break the wheels off the curvature
bandwagon is to write on the fundamentals of relativistic non-
instantaneous action-at-a-distance interactions at the undergraduate
level. Do you have any desire to do this? Do you know of any
presentation that explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant
theory of gravity?
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Shubee
YBM
> Juan,
>
> I don't have a good enough background to understand retardation
You indeed have.
Shubee
I understand that most people resemble a combination half-retarded and
half-advanced Green's functions but in your case you are entirely
retarded, as proven here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
Shubee
Juan R.
Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Cosmology-Principles-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675
Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says
{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries.
}
Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations_20.html
Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:
{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.
}
As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.
> Do you
> have any desire to do this?
Website
and blog
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com
will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.
> Do you know of any presentation that
> explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant theory of gravity?
>
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Sorry, I only know research literature.
But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
> particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
> condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
> fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
Juan,
I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
relativists. I don't recall his exact words.
> No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
> wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
> dp/0201627345
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Cosmology-Principles-Applications-
> Relativity/dp/0471925675
>
> Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
> framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
> of fundamental symmetries. }
I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.
> Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
> geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
> many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':
I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
undergraduate level. The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
theory of gravity:
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-...
> limitations_20.html
>
> Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
> ago:
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
> relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
> by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
> with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
> Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
> habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
> correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
> people react to such things -- basically, with fear.
>
> }
Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?
> As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.
>
> > Do you
> > have any desire to do this?
>
> Website
>
> http://canonicalscience.org
>
> and blog
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com
>
> will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
> formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
> by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
> adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
> in nongeometrical gravity.
>
> > Do you know of any presentation that
> > explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant theory of gravity?
>
> >http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
>
> Sorry, I only know research literature.
How is Poincare's paper on a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity,
translated into English, not research literature? Or did you mean to
write that you only know "recent literature"?
> But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003
That's infinitely more complicated than http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
How is it that you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant
theories of gravity, have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
> > particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
> > condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
> > fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
>
> Juan,
>
> I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
> he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
> because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
> relativists. I don't recall his exact words.
Still namedropping Rindler? One trick pony, Shooby. One trick pony.
>
> > No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
> > wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
> > dp/0201627345
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Cosmology-Principles-Applications-
> > Relativity/dp/0471925675
>
> > Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says
>
> > {BLOCKQUOTE
> > This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
> > framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
> > of fundamental symmetries. }
>
> I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.
>
> > Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
> > geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
> > many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':
>
> I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
> with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
> undergraduate level.
How are you familiar with what is and is not taught to physics
undergraduates?
> The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
> materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
> find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
> theory of gravity:
>
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Notice it was published a full decade before GR. Have you considered
that maybe you can't find even one physicist who cares because it
isn't worth caring about?
Since you fancy yourself as a physicist think that Poincare's theory
is worthy, why don't you take some of the more famous tests of GR and
show that Poincare's theory passes them with flying colors?
Juan R.
> On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
>> by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
>> condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
>> fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
>
> Juan,
>
> I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
> he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
> they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I don't
> recall his exact words.
During recent reading of Woit blog i discovered that relativist Sean
Caroll has started another attack on Steven Weinberg:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=668
Basically Carroll says that Weinberg does not know how science works!
{BLOCKQUOTE
Sean Carroll, quoting from a book by David Deutsch on parallel universes,
attacks Weinberg as not understanding how science works in a blog posting
about Science and Unobservable Things
}
Certain experimentalist at this newsgroup likes to explain here how
SCIENCE works, in his belief that he has a monopoly for that.
>> Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a
>> month ago:
>>
>> {BLOCKQUOTE
>> Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks
>> about relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too
>> intimidated by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come
>> from someone with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...]
>> worse than Steve Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a
>> logical argument, his habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on
>> the hapless correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can
>> imagine how media people react to such things -- basically, with fear.
>>
>> }
>
> Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?
No. But I know Feynman remarks about geometrical interpretation of GR:
{BLOCKQUOTE
The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to
physics.
}
"Necessary" means you can explain the experimental data without
curvature, geodesics, or any other geometrical element.
"Essential" means the geometrical formulation arises as approximation
from a more fundamental nongeometrical approach.
>> Sorry, I only know research literature.
>
> Or did you mean to
> write that you only know "recent literature"?
Right.
>> But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003
>
> That's infinitely more complicated than
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Then you may dislike my own approach, which corrects Feynman approach
adding new terms to the equation of motion.
> How is it that
> you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant theories of gravity,
> have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?
>
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
I would not say so.
Poincaré originally tried to apply to gravity the special relativity he
was developing, so far like i know he computed Mercury perihelion anomaly
and got about a 13'' (I write from memory) of the total anomaly. It was
an advance, of course, but could not explain all of the anomaly.
Probably Einstein knew this result and tried a different approach years
after.
From modern knowledge we know that Mercury perihelion anomaly has a
'special' relativity part and a 'general' part [##]. One cannot explain
relativistic graviation just /a la/ electrodynamics, writting 'special'
relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity.
Also several points on the section 9 of the pdf are not correct:
i)
retardation of interactions is not correct.
ii)
his point 4º "Since astronomical observations do not seem to show a
sensible deviation from Newton’s law" is not valid today. At galactic
scale force there exists deviation from Newton: MOND.
iii)
Lorentz transformation holds approximated character only. See also Eugene
paper.
[#] I gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for that.
[##] Before any relativist feels the need to correct this i may say that
the language used is wrong.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
PD
> On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
> > particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
> > condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
> > fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
>
> Juan,
>
> I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
> he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
> because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
> relativists. I don't recall his exact words.
I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
thanks very much.
> That's infinitely more complicated thanhttp://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003
>
> > That's infinitely more complicated than
> >http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
>
> Then you may dislike my own approach, which corrects Feynman approach
> adding new terms to the equation of motion.
I wouldn't say dislike. I would say distrust. How could I trust a
physicist that only knows very complicated things about Lorentz
invariant theories of gravity, but seems to have no understanding of
simple things in that area?
Poincaré's appears to have derived many invariants and used them to
express a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity. I don't care if his
theory made inaccurate predictions. I also don't care if Poincaré's
paper contained mathematical errors. I want to know what those
invariants of Poincaré are in modern notation and how to generate them
correctly by simplest mathematics possible.
Shubee
Juan R.
> On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>>
>> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> > Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered
>> > by particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
>> > condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
>> > fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.
>>
>> Juan,
>>
>> I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
>> he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all because
>> they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of relativists. I
>> don't recall his exact words.
>
> I'd say your recall is a little more off than "not exact". Particle
> physicists are just fine with the geometric qualities of spacetime,
> thanks very much.
>
It may be good to precise that "geometric" means in the context of the
present thread.
The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg
is precisely an extract from the same page 147 from Weinberg book i had
cited in a previous message. It is in the chapter where Weinberg rejects
any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity.
Carroll only quotes a small part from Weinberg book, ignoring the more
interesting part. A more complete quotation was provided by Kris Krogh
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=668#comment-36092
I copy and paste:
{BLOCKQUOTE
Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational
field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one
time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a
geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the
geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a
mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like “metric,”
“affine connection,” and “curvature,” but is not otherwise very useful.
The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the
astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so
on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to
the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and
photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned
that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many
general relativists.)
}
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> Poincaré's appears to have derived many invariants and used them to
> express a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity.
Ok, but a theory of the gravity we *observe* in Nature?
No [#].
> I don't care if his
> theory made inaccurate predictions. I also don't care if Poincaré's
> paper contained mathematical errors.
Being a scientist i do not have that freedom.
[#] Own Poincare recognized that.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
PD
It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.
The issue is whether there is a correlation between underlying reality
and computational methods. Because quantized fields seem to have such
computational power over such a wide domain (in size and in time),
many particle physicists believe that this computational method
reflects an underlying reality. These people look at Feynman diagrams
as more than just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative
expansion of a scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have
been the first to disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different
approaches to solving the same problem often have completely different
pictures of the underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible
to determine which one of them is "more right", because you can do the
same level of computation with any of them. It is often the case that
you can demonstrate that such different approaches are
*mathematically* equivalent, though whether that translates to
conceptually equivalent I suppose depends on how much of a
mathematician you are. Another example is lattice gauge theory, which
is another computational method used most popularly for QCD. In
lattice gauge theory, there is still quantization of the fields, but
at lattice vertices, QCD is calculated *exactly*, not perturbatively
-- and so for lattice gauge theory, Feynman diagrams (and so any
"picture" they inspire about how reality works) have no meaning.
There is no good quantized theory of gravity at the moment, and so
there is no way to even probe whether there is a mathematical or
conceptual equivalence (cf the caveat above) between the geometric
approach and the perturbative quantum approach.
PD
grecian
PD wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:33 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:00:05 -0700:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
feynman was not a god, but a moron like any othar moron
you foool
Shubee
Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find
Lorentz invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
Shubee
PD
I suppose this depends on your attitude in life. If you take the
approach that everyone is equal in being morons, then your
expectations for anything more than stupidity will be very low. If you
take the approach that everyone is equal in having an exceptional
talent, though not necessarily an exceptional talent in the same area,
then your expectations will be substantially different.
I do get the impression that a lot of cranks here come in with the
attitude, "I'm a moron. I've been told I'm a moron. You are no better
than me. So you must be a moron, too. This is a discussion group for
morons. Might as well be about physics as about anything. Doesn't
matter."
PD
overlord
wrong again as usual
_you_ ve been proved moron so many times
empiricaly, i mean with clear data with no errorbars,
so you must be a moron
also here, and everywhere, where you take quotes
out of context and make yourself slogans, and you
foken really bulive in them
you seems foken brain dead
Shubee
> On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Shubee a écrit :
>
> > > > My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
> > > > deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
>
> > > This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
> > > even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
> > > transformations since you haven't defined it...
>
> > It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
> > while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.
>
> > Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
> > yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
> > ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
> > distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
> > define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
> > to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
> > times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
> > at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
> > thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
> > constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
> > cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
> > "It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
> > before, you are an idiot.
>
> > Shubee
>
> That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
> locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
> Are those clocks synchronized?
>
> Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
> 12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wristwatch reads 12:18, 12:20,
> 12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?
>
> PD
I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized. How
do any of those clock time definitions invalidate my derivation of the
Lorentz transformation at http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
?
Shubee
PD
I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not. Now
the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.
Juan R.
> Juan,
>
> Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
> theory.
Beauty is a relative concept. One may call "beauty" other may name "ugly".
And in the end *experiment* is the judge in science. It has no importance
how 'beauty' anyone believes his theory is but it fails to explain data.
> How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
> invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
Fail to understant that are you asking for.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
JanPB
> On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > > > > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > > > > Weinberg.
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> > > > > It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> > > > > better than Einstein did.
>
> > > > Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
> > > > this is doubtfull.
>
> > > Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays
>
> > They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
> > fro.Walking will work.
>
> oahaha oahaha
>
> you just postulated in other thread that
> two distinct objects in exactly same place
> is not synchronizing
Synchronising is actually not at all fundamental to relativity. Its
claim to fame is that:
1. SR was derived originally by using a sync convention,
2. It mimics Newtonian absolute sync for low speeds,
3. It allows for easier quantification of certain effects.
Nevertheless, SR can be derived without setting up any sync convention
(IOW, it's a convenience, not a necessity).
The bottom line is that Shubee's talking about "believing that clocks
have to synchronized with light rays" is not even wrong - it's plain N/
A.
--
Jan Bielawski
PD
Exactly. SR can use *any* isotropic sync signal, where "isotropic" is
the key. Using light is just not necessary, but since the isotropy is
experimentally confirmed, it's handy. But you're also right that it
does not require synchronization at all, nor does it require multiple
clocks.
PD
Juan R.
>> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=668#comment-36092
>>
>> I copy and paste:
>>
>> {BLOCKQUOTE
>> Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a
>> gravitational field as producing a change in the geometry of space and
>> time. At one time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be
>> brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with
>> disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of
>> gravitation has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our
>> language in terms like "metric," "affine connection," and "curvature,"
>> but is not otherwise very useful. The important thing is to be able to
>> make predictions about images on the astronomers' photographic plates,
>> frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn't matter
>> whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effect of
>> gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons or to a
>> curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned that these
>> views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many general
>> relativists.)
>>
>> }
>>
>> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>
> It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.
Some list, statistics confirming your statement?
> These people look at Feynman diagrams as more than
> just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative expansion of a
> scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have been the first to
> disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different approaches to
> solving the same problem often have completely different pictures of the
> underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible to determine which
> one of them is "more right", because you can do the same level of
> computation with any of them.
Well we may speculate about Feynman thinking on his own diagrams or we
can just quote Feynman thoughts about the geometrical picture of gravity:
{BLOCKQUOTE
The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to
physics.
}
> There is no good quantized theory of gravity at the moment, and so there
> is no way to even probe whether there is a mathematical or conceptual
> equivalence (cf the caveat above) between the geometric approach and the
> perturbative quantum approach.
My postings on this thread were about the geometric and the *classical*
field approach to gravity. The references cited were also about
formulating classical gravity as a relativistic field theory.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
PD
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> PD wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:54:59 -0700:
>
>
>
> >>http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=668#comment-36092
>
> >> I copy and paste:
>
> >> {BLOCKQUOTE
> >> Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a
> >> gravitational field as producing a change in the geometry of space and
> >> time. At one time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be
> >> brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with
> >> disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of
> >> gravitation has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our
> >> language in terms like "metric," "affine connection," and "curvature,"
> >> but is not otherwise very useful. The important thing is to be able to
> >> make predictions about images on the astronomers' photographic plates,
> >> frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn't matter
> >> whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effect of
> >> gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons or to a
> >> curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned that these
> >> views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many general
> >> relativists.)
>
> >> }
>
> >> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>
> > It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.
>
> Some list, statistics confirming your statement?
Just my contact with my colleagues in particle physics.
>
> > These people look at Feynman diagrams as more than
> > just mnemonics for writing down terms in a perturbative expansion of a
> > scattering matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have been the first to
> > disagree. He was fond of pointing out that different approaches to
> > solving the same problem often have completely different pictures of the
> > underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible to determine which
> > one of them is "more right", because you can do the same level of
> > computation with any of them.
>
> Well we may speculate about Feynman thinking on his own diagrams or we
> can just quote Feynman thoughts about the geometrical picture of gravity:
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to
> physics.
>
> }
I believe that's what I just said. If two equivalent formalisms and
conceptual frameworks result in the same calculated agreement with
experimental results, then there is no way to determine which of them
is "necessary or essential" as an interpretation.
Shubee
That is correct.
> Now
> the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
> them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
> to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
> amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.
I have given you a perfectly good definition of a clock positioned at
each point (x,y,z). You need to understand that to an infinite array
of clocks you can add or subtract a constant amount f(x,y,z) to each
one. I'm assuming that you're a physicist so I had to explain that to
you.
Shubee
Shubee
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:34:41 -0700:
>
> > Juan,
>
> > Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
> > theory.
>
> Beauty is a relative concept. One may call "beauty" other may name "ugly".
>
> And in the end *experiment* is the judge in science. It has no importance
> how 'beauty' anyone believes his theory is but it fails to explain data.
>
> > How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
> > invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
>
> Fail to understant that are you asking for.
Poincaré lists 8 distinct but elementary invariants in his paper. See
the equation numbers 5 and 7 in http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
How many invariants in special relativity are you aware of? How many
distinct invariants of the Poincaré group exist? This is how
mathematicians measure the understanding of physicists in spacetime.
I quote:
"Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
Erlanger Program.
"Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.
"A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.
"The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré group."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Shubee
PD
OK, but that doesn't help distinguish a set of clocks from a set of
monotonic random number incrementers. You can always add an offset
f(x,y,z) to all of the clocks to get them to correspond at that
moment, but at the next increment, they are all randomly scattered
again. That means that you have to add an offset that not only varies
by position but by time: f(x,y,z,t). This effectively removes their
value as clocks. Moreover, you have to decide how you are going to
determine what the function f(x,y,z,t) is at every increment.
Put it this way. Suppose you have a set of counters a_i (i=1...n),
which generate a decimal number that looks like this: a_i(j) = j +
ran[0,1]_n.
Thus you might see the following:
a_1(1) = 1.0023 a_1(2) = 2.8374 a_1(3) = 3.3113 ...
a_2(1) = 1.4392 a_2(2) = 2.3048 a_2(3) = 3.0309 ...
a_3(1) = 1.9830 a_3(2) = 2.8471 a_3(3) = 3.7582 ...
...
a_n(1) = 1.2922 a_n(2) = 2.3244 a_n(3) = 3.2485 ...
Now, for any j, you can always find a function f_i(j) that turns all
of the a_i(j) to a'_i(j) = j + 0.5 exactly. That is, a_i(1) = 1.5000
for all i, a_i(2) = 2.5000 for all i, a_i(3) = 3.5000 for all i.
But that doesn't change the fact that your a_i's are still randomly
generated, and you're having to adjust them with an f_i(j) that is
just as complex as the clock readings.
Not useful.
PD
Juan R.
>> > It is also heterodox among a lot of particle physicists as well.
>>
>> Some list, statistics confirming your statement?
>
> Just my contact with my colleagues in particle physics.
Now understand. We may be contacting different people ;-)
>> > These people look at Feynman diagrams as more than just mnemonics for
>> > writing down terms in a perturbative expansion of a scattering
>> > matrix. Interestingly, Feynman would have been the first to disagree.
>> > He was fond of pointing out that different approaches to solving the
>> > same problem often have completely different pictures of the
>> > underlying reality -- and it's completely impossible to determine
>> > which one of them is "more right", because you can do the same level
>> > of computation with any of them.
>>
>> Well we may speculate about Feynman thinking on his own diagrams or we
>> can just quote Feynman thoughts about the geometrical picture of
>> gravity:
>>
>> {BLOCKQUOTE
>> The geometrical interpretation is not really necessary or essential to
>> physics.
>>
>> }
>
> I believe that's what I just said. If two equivalent formalisms and
> conceptual frameworks result in the same calculated agreement with
> experimental results, then there is no way to determine which of them is
> "necessary or essential" as an interpretation.
An important difference between relativists (geometers) and no-geometers
is that relativists often forget or avoid to speak about the existence of
a nongeometrical formulation.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
I have not fully digested all of Juan's claims and statements, but this
is just silly.
EVERY ONE of our current fundamental theories of physics is Lorentz
invariant. A modern physicist can easily and trivially "find"
Lorentz-invariant expressions by simply using an appropriate
representation of the Lorentz group. This of course includes the usual
tensors of GR.
In Poincare's day knowledge of group theory was limited to a handful of
mathematicians; today it is fundamental in nearly every field of
physics, and is taught to undergraduates.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. If you want to reset the
clock time, then you can only add or subtract a constant amount to
whatever the arrow is pointing to. If you disagree with that, then you
need to repeat kindergarten.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
How many distinct invariants of the Poincaré group can you derive?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/e94b9f9a04c035ec
Shubee
PD
And if the clock runs slow or fast?
And how do you *check* that the clock runs slow or fast?
But let's back up a step.
Say you've got two clocks in two places:
Here There
and you look at the clock Here and at the master clock on the wall,
and you see that you have to adjust the clock Here by adding a
constant amount. Fine, you do that.
But now you have to walk outside and down the street to see if the
clock There needs an adjustment.
So you look at the master clock on the wall, make note of what it
says, and then you walk down the street and find the clock There, and
you see that this clock does not read what you jotted down as what the
master clock said and so you have to adjust it. By how much should you
adjust the clock There? And how can you check whether that is the
right amount?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
I discuss clock speed for mathematical clocks in my paper:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> But let's back up a step.
> Say you've got two clocks in two places:
> Here There
> and you look at the clock Here and at the master clock on the wall,
> and you see that you have to adjust the clock Here by adding a
> constant amount. Fine, you do that.
> But now you have to walk outside and down the street to see if the
> clock There needs an adjustment.
> So you look at the master clock on the wall, make note of what it
> says, and then you walk down the street and find the clock There, and
> you see that this clock does not read what you jotted down as what the
> master clock said and so you have to adjust it. By how much should you
> adjust the clock There? And how can you check whether that is the
> right amount?
My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
meaning to clock synchronization.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
PD
I've read your paper, thanks. That's why I'm asking you these
questions. Einstein was thrilled when Planck wrote him to ask a
question about his thinking that wasn't explained well in the paper.
I'm sure Einstein didn't tell Planck, "Just read the paper."
PD
Shubee
So you're saying that you don't understand Xi_2. Ok, I'll rewrite that
section today just for you. Can you tell me what you don't understand
about one number line or ruler sliding on another and each point of
both lines being conceptualized as an arrow that is moving along a
continuum of numbers?
Shubee
PD
Please pay attention to the examples I gave.
In your example, you are assuming you KNOW:
1. That the rulers have equal spacing.
2. That the spacing on each ruler is equidistant.
3. That the rate at which one ruler slides against the other is
constant.
The question is one of *measurement*, not idealization. *How* (in
essential but practical terms) do you verify that any of those things
are in fact the case? The Einstein synchronization scheme is a
practical scheme that accomplishes that verification.
>
> Shubee
Shubee
Actually I don't assume that the distance scale on one ruler is
comparable and equal to the scale on the other ruler. That's an
unnecessary assumption that I don't use in my derivation. When I
rewrite my section on Xi_2, I'll explicitly mention this property that
Xi_2 possesses, which I call incommensurability.
> 2. That the spacing on each ruler is equidistant.
That follows trivially from the definition of a Euclidean space.
> 3. That the rate at which one ruler slides against the other is
> constant.
Axiom 1 of my two fundamental axioms assumes that Newton's first law
of motion is correct.
> The question is one of *measurement*, not idealization. *How* (in
> essential but practical terms) do you verify that any of those things
> are in fact the case? The Einstein synchronization scheme is a
> practical scheme that accomplishes that verification.
My point is to derive the Lorentz transformation with ideas that
children can conceptualize but many with Ph.D.'s in physics can not.
Shubee
Eric Gisse
Why is there no discussion of the invariants of special relativity in
your paper, shooby?
Juan R.
>> > How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
>> > invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
>>
>> Fail to understant that are you asking for.
>
> Poincaré lists 8 distinct but elementary invariants in his paper. See
> the equation numbers 5 and 7 in
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf How many
> invariants in special relativity are you aware of?
I have not done a list and it depends of the definition of special
relativiy.
Some authors define special relativity only for kinematics. Others (e.g.
Feynman) include dynamics on external electromagnetic fields.
In the latter case that definition of special relativity contains a four-
potential A^b invariant is not in in the former.
Would include thermal effects? Then you will find new invariant non-
mechanical four quantities.
> How many distinct
> invariants of the Poincaré group exist?
The group is defined by generators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_group
for the
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareTransformation.html
You can built different invariant mathematical objects. Just built one
and check its invariance to inhomogenenous transformation.
Note if object m is an Poincaré group invariant, then km will be also,
where k is a constant.
for physics applications take a look to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_classification
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> Shubee wrote:
>> Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
>> theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
>> invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
>
> I have not fully digested all of Juan's claims and statements, but this
> is just silly.
To avoid possible reader confusions, Tom is not saying that Juan did the
above statement, because Juan did not indeed.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
YBM
> My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
> meaning to clock synchronization.
Shubee wrote this too:
> It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
> while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.
"I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
"saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
"technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
"that.
"Cordially,
G. 't Hooft
Shubee
> "I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
> "saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
> "technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
> "that.
> "Cordially,
> G. 't Hooft
It's true that my paper of years ago was impossible to understand. It
was like what my geometry professor, Ted Frankel, said of some of the
works of Élie Cartan. "It cannot be understood by mortals." But the
paper is slowly being rewritten and is becoming understandable. None
of the equations are faulty but there still some difficult language
that needs to be simplified. The last revision is dated April 4, 2008.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
YBM
> On Apr 5, 9:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
>> "I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
>> "saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
>> "technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
>> "that.
>> "Cordially,
>> G. 't Hooft
>
Being unable to grasp irony is a sign of mental illness.
Shubee
> On Apr 5, 9:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > "I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
> > "saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
> > "technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
> > "that.
> > "Cordially,
> > G. 't Hooft
>
> It's true that my paper of years ago was impossible to understand. It
> was like what my geometry professor, Ted Frankel, said of some of the
> works of Élie Cartan. "It cannot be understood by mortals." But the
> paper is slowly being rewritten and is becoming understandable. None
> that needs to be simplified. The last revision is dated April 4, 2008.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
Take cheer YBM because you at least claim to understand what G. 't
Hooft did not.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
To that whole new paradigm you wrote and I quote:
"It's not an uninteresting way to define a clock." - YBM.
Shubee
YBM
As usual, Eugene 'Shubee' Shubert shows how dishonest he is
by quoting out of context.
In the same thread I asked you several questions about how
your procedure could (or couldn't) define a proper synchronization.
You miserabily failed to address any of them.
You cannot quote me in order to pretend that I'd support your
delusions.
Shubee
If you are now saying clearly and definitively that you don't
understand the cretin clock array
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
then my only response is, "that figures."
Shubee
YBM
You are not only a delusional crank, but also a disgusting liar. Bis
repetita :
> Let another infinitely long
> ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
> distances in equal times on the moving ruler
How could you define "equal times" without having defining properly
what time is ?
Shubee
> Shubee a écrit :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:59 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
> >> Shubee a écrit :
>
> >>> On Apr 5, 9:52 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 5, 9:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> "I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
> >>>>> "saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
> >>>>> "technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
> >>>>> "that.
> >>>>> "Cordially,
> >>>>> G. 't Hooft
> >>>> It's true that my paper of years ago was impossible to understand. It
> >>>> was like what my geometry professor, Ted Frankel, said of some of the
> >>>> works of Élie Cartan. "It cannot be understood by mortals." But the
> >>>> paper is slowly being rewritten and is becoming understandable. None
> >>>> of the equations are faulty but there is still some difficult language
> >>>> that needs to be simplified. The last revision is dated April 4, 2008.
> >>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> >>>> Shubee
> >>> Take cheer YBM because you at least claim to understand what G. 't
> >>> Hooft did not.
> >>> To that whole new paradigm you wrote and I quote:
> >>> "It's not an uninteresting way to define a clock." - YBM.
> >> As usual, Eugene 'Shubee' Shubert shows how dishonest he is
> >> by quoting out of context.
>
> > If you are now saying clearly and definitively that you don't
> > understand the cretin clock array
> > then my only response is, "that figures."
>
> You are not only a delusional crank, but also a disgusting liar. Bis
> repetita :
>
> > Let another infinitely long
> > ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
> > distances in equal times on the moving ruler
>
> How could you define "equal times" without having defining properly
> what time is ?
Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. Equal distances mean equal
times. If you disagree with that, then you need to repeat
kindergarten.
Also, all the big boys reading this thread will see that the first of
my most fundamental axioms is Newton's first law of motion. It's
stated to be assumed right there in the abstract:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
YBM
> Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
> along a continuum of numbers is a clock. Equal distances mean equal
> times. If you disagree with that, then you need to repeat
> kindergarten.
Little children also "know" intuitively that simultaneity is absolute.
> Also, all the big boys reading this thread will see that the first of
> my most fundamental axioms is Newton's first law of motion. It's
> stated to be assumed right there in the abstract:
An "axiom" making use of an undefined concept (here "time" without
stating first a coherent synchronization scheme) is meaningless...
overlord
> On Mar 30, 5:59 am, isosceles <q2k...@execs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > > > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > > > > > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > > > > > Weinberg.
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> > > > > > It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> > > > > > better than Einstein did.
>
> > > > > Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
> > > > > this is doubtfull.
>
> > > > Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays
>
> > > They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
> > > fro.Walking will work.
>
> > oahaha oahaha
>
> > you just postulated in other thread that
> > two distinct objects in exactly same place
> > is not synchronizing
>
> Synchronising is actually not at all fundamental to relativity. Its
> claim to fame is that:
>
> 1. SR was derived originally by using a sync convention,
who asked you that, and
why should i care
> 2. It mimics Newtonian absolute sync for low speeds,
mimics!? what on earth is mimics in relaticity?
> 3. It allows for easier quantification of certain effects.
why you write your sentences using numbers
they are equal stoopid
>
> Nevertheless, SR can be derived without setting up any sync convention
> (IOW, it's a convenience, not a necessity).
why netherthaless, you just appeared ta be
sure in your mimics
>
> The bottom line is that Shubee's talking about "believing that clocks
> have to synchronized with light rays" is not even wrong - it's plain N/
> A.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
agree, then why relaticists always are talkin
about synchronize this and synchronize that
Shubee
Your confession that you don't understand the cretin clock array and
that the definition of time in kindergarten is meaningless to you is
duly noted.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
Shubee
JanPB
Convenience (the ease of quantification of certain phenomena).
Just like using Cartesian coordinates is a convenience in Euclidean
geometry.
--
Jan Bielawski
Shubee
> On Mar 30, 5:59 am, isosceles <q2k...@execs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 10:59 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > > > "Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
> > > > > > understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
> > > > > > Weinberg.
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o
>
> > > > > > It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
> > > > > > better than Einstein did.
>
> > > > > Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
> > > > > this is doubtfull.
>
> > > > Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays
>
> > > They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
> > > fro.Walking will work.
>
> > oahaha oahaha
>
> > you just postulated in other thread that
> > two distinct objects in exactly same place
> > is not synchronizing
>
> Synchronising is actually not at all fundamental to relativity. Its
> claim to fame is that:
>
> 1. SR was derived originally by using a sync convention,
>
> (IOW, it's a convenience, not a necessity).
>
> have to synchronized with light rays" is not even wrong - it's plain N/
> A.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
I hope you understand the context of my remark. I was talking to a
cretin that doesn't believe that time has meaning unless clocks are
synchronized.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5d422e20f28f7420
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b4f2c83a393917f7
Frankly, I'm a little worried by the prospect that spacetime needs
humans to believe in clock synchronization or that the laws of physics
demand that clocks be synchronized. What do you personally think might
happen to the fabric of spacetime if my approach to teaching spacetime
physics would be adopted?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
overlord
i disagree entirely
you can cartesian to 100% accurate relations
but you cant do 100% accurate with clocks out of synch
becus even if thay happen to be in synch, you nevar know
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
YBM
> Frankly, I'm a little worried by the prospect that spacetime needs
> humans to believe in clock synchronization or that the laws of physics
> demand that clocks be synchronized.
As long as the laws of physics make use of some kind of 't' coordinate,
you have to define what this coordinate is, just as 'x', 'y', 'z'
or any other term you happen to use.
> What do you personally think might
> happen to the fabric of spacetime if my approach to teaching spacetime
> physics would be adopted?
This is not a approach of anything : just a bunch of words and
misunderstood formulas thrown away by a delusional and dishonest
crank with a religious agenda.
End of story. Anyway your crap has been debunked here several
times. When do you intend to try again to sell it here again ?
Do you really think people cannot read past threads ?
PD
Actually, you DO know, and there is a very simple procedure by which
to check whether they are or not. This is an *experimental* procedure,
and it has nothing to do with mental abstractions like sliding number
lines past each other at constant rate. It is a procedure that works
with *real* measuring devices, because -- when it comes down to it --
physics has to do with the regularities observed in real measurements,
not with mental abstractions.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Jan Bielawski
overlord
thank you sir,
now teach me about this 100% accurate procedure
> physics has to do with the regularities observed in real measurements,
regularities!?
what kind of 100% accurate sure procedure is that?
> not with mental abstractions.
exactly, this is what am i afraid for
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > Jan Bielawski
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000:
>
>> Shubee wrote:
>>> Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
>>> theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
>>> invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?
>> I have not fully digested all of Juan's claims and statements, but this
>> is just silly.
>
> To avoid possible reader confusions, Tom is not saying that Juan did the
> above statement, because Juan did not indeed.
Yes. Sorry for the possible mis-attribution.
Unrelated note: several of your references (the more important ones) are
not in the library here, and interlibrary loan is taking a while....
Tom Roberts