The Pre-Shubertian Clock Class For Physicists and Engineers
Eugene Shubert
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnb62ing....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Eugene Shubert:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >>
> >> "Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin,
> >> rigid material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals
> >> like a ruler."
> >
> >Bilge, I can remember when I wrote this and thinking it was practically
> >a joke.
>
> Maybe you should have stopped at that point.
I couldn't stop. Laughing at physicists is too much fun.
> >My perception is that most physicists believe "that the real number
> >line is an infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers
> >etched into it at regular intervals like a ruler."
>
> Physicists deal with _physical_ objects. A number-line is meaningless
> unless it represents something, in which case, you should use what it
> represents, if you want to convey physics.
I'm guessing that you are a physicist specializing in _physical_
objects. Is spacetime physical?
> >>
> >> Which I assume is supposed to convey the idea that there is something
> >> physically significant about coordinates once liberated from physical
> >> objects.
> >
> >Mathematicians have the power to attach metrics to sets of points and
> >to conceive of the five regular solids as being solid.
>
> And, as the saying goes, a topologist is someone who can't tell the
> difference between a doughnut and a coffe cup. You can attach any metric
> you want to something, but that doesn't mean you've described anything
> physical.
It's pretty obvious that I described a ruler and that you want to
argue about what it's made of.
> >http://www.sor.princeton.edu/~rvdb/LPbook/probs/ch15.pdf Einstein
> >proposed using fat rods and an infinite number of mechanical clocks. I
> >modernized the rods and constructed one awesome and everywhere present
> >Shubertian clock. You seem unable to distinguish between style and
> >substance.
>
> Since you portray your "derivation" as being pedagogically superior
> to other derivations, style is rather important. On the other hand,
> since you're supposedly deriving something with physical significance,
> the derivation should have some physically significant content.
What do you mean? It's all physically significant content.
> You
> saved that for the last line, where you identify the constant k, but
> then you never give any physical insight into why one should choose
> light to be `c'.
I have an unfinished symphony. Are you saying that I couldn't finish
my paper if I wanted to? My family is famous for unfinished
symphonies.
> >> That would seem to put the cart before the horse, since "equally
> >> spaced" is matter of definition.
> >
> >If you need a definition, try translation invariance.
>
> I mentioned that. Let me reemind you of what I said in the
> part you snipped: If you want a purely mathematical derivation,
> why not just start with an infinitessimal displacement, and
> derive rotations and boosts in one shot? Then you can connect
> the physics at the end.
>
> That would have been simpler, shorter and purely a coordinate
> transformation.
My paper is aimed at the level of high school mathematics.
> >> If I start with a 1000 nuclei and keep
> >> time by defining a time interval of 1 unit to correspond to each decay,
> >> I'll certainly have linear plot. Unfortunately, it will look like a log
> >> plot once converted to what one typically means by "equally spaced" time
> >> intervals.
> >
> >I'm dying to know what university and degree program is responsible
> >for removing from you the power of ordinary abstract thought that God
> >gave to all the higher animals.
>
> Apparently, you've never seen a kurie plot.
Apparently, you don't realize how irrelevant your comments are.
> >> If you are going to use math alone to derive the lorentz
> >> transforms, ...
> >
> >I don't know of any derivations of the Lorentz transformation that
> >don't use math alone.
>
> Some reason you snipped the rest of that, where I suggested a much
> simpler way?
It might be simpler if you can explain it to a high school student.
> > I do it better. My derivation should be perfectly understandable to
> > a caveman who requires a more physical approach. Think of it as math
> > AND rubbing two sticks together.
>
> I tried that, but there was no connection and the math seemed
> contrived.
That kind of trick should work, even for physicists. The next step is
to figure out what a proper question would be.
> >> It's also mathematically perverse to believe you can start with the
> >> limit of a function and recover the function. In this case, that would
> >> be starting with the galilean transforms, which are limiting case of
> >> the lorentz transforms as c->oo, and "recovering" the lorentz transforms.
> >> I can think of any number of functions which have the same limit,
> >> so any number of functions could be "derived" from galilean transforms.
> >
> >You seem unable to distinguish between style and substance.
>
> Do you really think there's no substantive difference between starting
> with a function and taking the limit, or starting with the limit and
> recovering the function?
I meant to say that you seem unable to distinguish between appearance
and proof.
> >> You can't define uniform speed in special relativity in any simple
> >> way which isn't ultimately circular.
> >
> > It's clear that I defined uniform speed with respect to something
> > assumed stationary. An ignorant Aristotelian knows what stationary
> > means.
>
> Then perhaps you can define it for me without using a circular
> argument. If you don't see the problem, then you haven't really
> understood why einstein abandoned special relativity to develop the
> general theory.
>
> > Even Ken Seto knows what it means.
>
> I rest my case.
The verdict is in. The evidence has been weighed. You have lost
your case.
> > I expressed no desire to define the obvious.
>
> And in the part you snipped, I suggested that clarity would be best
> acheived if you did refrain from trying to define it and just used what
> was obvious to your intended audience.
I thought it essential to give a practical exercise demonstrating how
a Shubertian clock works.
> Why did you snip that part
Clutter is trash. My paper is clearly addressed to a high school
audience.
> and
> rephrase what I said you shouldn't do as something you have no desire
> to do?
Huh?
> > My aim was to derive relativity.
>
> As the instructor I had for a mathematical methods of physics course
> was fond of saying, "There are lots of wrong way to get the right answer."
And there are plenty of people who can't properly identify mistakes.
> >> Next is your statement:
> >>
> >> "We have proven
> >>
> >> Theorem 1
> >> Any two inertial frames of reference have a Galilean synchronization."
> >>
> >> Which is rather hard to fathom, since the idea of making relativity
> >> conceptually clear would seem to be incompatible with spending effort
> >> trying to prove something that contradicts relativity
> >
> >You didn't prove that Theorem 1 contradicts relativity. You
> >sidestepped the substance. I gave a proof.
>
> You really don't realize that synchronization is different in special
> relativity?
What part of my paper do you fail to understand? I could easily
identify and answer your misunderstanding now if you had asked the
proper questions before. And I would have had plenty of time to answer
if I didn't have to answer diversions and irrelevancies.
> >Up to this point your complaints have been extremely petty. Now you
>
> It's not a complex subject and my complaints are essentially that
> you've lost all sight of the physics and implied some sort of mathematical
> rigor via the jargon.
The physics is that a Shubertian clock measures time in terms of
coordinates. A Galilean transformation is a Shubertian clock. The
Lorentz transformation is a Shubertian clock. You can reset one clock
and get the other. It's very easy to do. Check out the thread called
"The Shubertian Clock (Thesis Defense)". I'll explain it to you with
greater clarity there.
> >are only affirming your loyalty to the ancient traditions because you
> >can't fathom my conclusions or understand my arguments.
>
> Ancient traditions? You mean like never making anything more complicated
> than necessary for the intended audience? I can "fathom" your arguments.
> I just don't think those arguments contain the physics that relativity is
> all about. I also think that a derivation consists of more than manipulating
> some algebra to obtain the result you want from hindsight.
I believe that high school students can understand my paper with only
a bit more explanation from me. You can't fathom my arguments unless
you have the insight to complete the dots. The physics comes from the
Lorentz transformation.
You previously
> stated:
>
> "Most experts are satisfied with being vague and obscure. There is a
> reason for this. There are two opposing forces in the universe. One
> power likes to obfuscate and perplex, the other enlightens. My first
> goal is to not cheapen true science. I believe that my work will
> please those who love and demand clarity in modern physics."
>
>
> I find nothing very clear, and in my opinion, you've obfuscated a
> straight-forward derivation and I don't know whether your inability to see
> that despite numerous comments to that effect are because you really don't
> see that or because you fit your own description of the "Most experts" you
> criticize. If one writes something for someone else's benefit, then
> usually one has to let the audience decide what is clear to them. In this
> case, I don't see anything that motivates your argument, unless your
> argument consists soley of getting from point A to point B because you
> know how to manipulate the equations.
Mathematical proofs often appear as point A to point B. I will
clarify. Check out the thread called "The Shubertian Clock (Thesis
Defense)". I'll explain it to you with greater clarity there.
> Physics is not about manipulating equations. Equations are written in
> particular ways to indicate physical quantities, even if the result isn't
> the simplest fatoring that could be obtained. In special relativity there
> are two important _physical_ concepts that separate it from merely
> deriving the lorentz transforms. If you are trying to "explain" rela-
> tivity, you should understand that difference, since that is why
> einstein got the credit rather than lorentz.
Where do I not use physical quantities?
> The lorentz transforms are
> only a consequence of special relativity. Deriving them from special
> relativity requires making use of the physical principles to motivate
> the derivation. No one would look at einstein's postulates and immediately
> conclude the lorentz transforms were inevitable, unless one is incapable
> of recognizing the benefit from one's own hindsight.
Now I understand your confusion. The only presupposition that I used
from relativity is the assumption that moving clocks DON'T run slow.
Relativity is DISCOVERED in my derivation.
> >I challenged my educated critics to state exactly where I was
> >confused. Your best rebuttal to my many paragraphs is that I arrive at
> >a theorem you can't fathom. That sounds more like an argument that you
> >are confused and not me.
>
> Yes, but what I'm confused about is not your derivation. I'm confused
> about where the physics associated with relativity comes in.
All the physics comes from the Lorentz transformation, which is a
consequence, not a presupposition.
> >> The idea that you can derive lorentz transformations from galilean
> >> synchronization is totally unphysical and is what I would call "blindly
> >> throwing math at a problem and adjusting the physics to fit".
> >
> >As I have defined the terms, it's obvious that the Galilean
> >synchronization is a Shubertian clock.
>
> Don't you think the introduction of jargon like "Shubertian clock"
> sacrifices clarity for self-aggrandizement? I mean really. From the
> number of posts to this newsgroup that you must have read, isn't it
> rather obvious that lots of people have enough difficulty or objections
> to the ordinary clocks they use everyday as being measurements of
> time, without inventing a special one, peculiar to your own idio-
> synchratic derivation?
If those persons can't be made to understand a Shubertian clock, then
no one can help them.
> You don't see how that sort of thing is just
> inviting skepticism over something which is totally unnecessary?
> My guess is that you haven't taught very much. If you had, you'd
> realize that students prefer to tell you how they want something
> explained.
My derivation is exactly how I would have wanted it explained to me.
> Expecting them to know what you are talking about just
> because you think it's clear, doesnt work very well.
>
> >Children know that adults are
> >free to synchronize clocks in whatever way they like during daylight
> >saving time or any time of the year. It takes a lot of brainwashing
> >and a Ph.D. in physics to convince people that anyone who resets a
> >clock is violating the laws of physics.
>
> Except that you forgot that synchronization requires a communication
> at a finite speed between those doing the synchronizing.
Nonsense! It's obvious that you don't understand any Shubertian
clock. Check out the thread called "The Shubertian Clock (Thesis
Defense)". I'll explain it to you with greater clarity there.
> >> About those ? marks. When you write stuff using microsoft software, you
> >> embed all sorts of meaningless octal codes which don't represent anything
> >> except to other microsoft products. There is a standard way to use html
> >> which tells a browser how to embolden a phrase which does not consist of
> >> the octal codes \223 and \224 inserted on either side of the phrase. Even
> >> the character encoding is non-standard, and there is no doctype specified
> >> so that anything other than internet exploder (which assumes ms windows
> >> encoding), has no idea what some of the characters should be, like the
> >> question marks (replacing an octal 222) where apostrophes should be.
> >
> >Thanks for that helpful comment. I trust your knowledge of computer
> >protocol. I made the correction.
>
> The official and complete html specification may be obtained in
> postscript or probably pdf from:
>
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/
>
>
> That's pretty funny. When I was in graduate school, I was not the fisrt,
> nor second person that would have come to anyone's mind when looking for a
> trustworthy opinion on anything having to do with computers, other than
> the kind of things you do when they aren't plugged in. Most people knew
> that I despised programming and went out of my way to avoid it. On the
> other hand, lots of people trusted what I had to say about physics and
> often dropped by my office to ask questions.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Titan Point
[complete crap]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>>news:<slrnb62ing....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>> Eugene Shubert:
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> "Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin,
>> >> rigid material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals
>> >> like a ruler."
>> >
>> >Bilge, I can remember when I wrote this and thinking it was practically
>> >a joke.
>>
>> Maybe you should have stopped at that point.
>
>I couldn't stop. Laughing at physicists is too much fun.
>
>> >My perception is that most physicists believe "that the real number
>> >line is an infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers
>> >etched into it at regular intervals like a ruler."
>>
>> Physicists deal with _physical_ objects. A number-line is meaningless
>> unless it represents something, in which case, you should use what it
>> represents, if you want to convey physics.
>
>I'm guessing that you are a physicist specializing in _physical_
>objects. Is spacetime physical?
objects. Is spacetime physical? Sure. Is it a physical object? No.
Is a temperature physical? Sure. Is a temperature a physical object?
No. Don't conflate something which is physically meaningful in describing
an object with a physical object it describes.
[...]
>> And, as the saying goes, a topologist is someone who can't tell the
>> difference between a doughnut and a coffe cup. You can attach any metric
>> you want to something, but that doesn't mean you've described anything
>> physical.
>
>It's pretty obvious that I described a ruler and that you want to
>argue about what it's made of.
No, my point was that you spent a lot of time making a ruler rather
complex, in order to make your "derivation" appear rigorous. If your
goal was simplicity, then the word "ruler" already contains everything
you need and if your goal was to be rigorous, you didn't succede.
[...]
>>
>> Since you portray your "derivation" as being pedagogically superior
>> to other derivations, style is rather important. On the other hand,
>> since you're supposedly deriving something with physical significance,
>> the derivation should have some physically significant content.
>
>What do you mean? It's all physically significant content.
>
>> You
>> saved that for the last line, where you identify the constant k, but
>> then you never give any physical insight into why one should choose
>> light to be `c'.
>
>I have an unfinished symphony. Are you saying that I couldn't finish
>my paper if I wanted to? My family is famous for unfinished
>symphonies.
As far as special relativity goes, traditionally, the physical content
is contained in two postulates. It's not necessary to refer to the speed
of light, but in being able to synchronize clocks, a signal is required
to synchronize them, even if the speed with which the signal propagates
is arbitrary. In that case, it's still `c', but light has not been singled
out to be assoiated with `c'.
[...]
>> That would have been simpler, shorter and purely a coordinate
>> transformation.
>
>My paper is aimed at the level of high school mathematics.
Then why describe a ruler in several paragraphs? It's the contradiction
between what you've done and the reason you claim to have done it the
way you have that's the issue.
[...]
>>
>> Apparently, you've never seen a kurie plot.
>
>Apparently, you don't realize how irrelevant your comments are.
It is relevant. It relates to your use of a numberline. I can choose
the numbers on a numberline however I like as the above illustrates.
If your goal was to make your derivation _appear_ rigorous to
high school kids, then you've probably succeded. If your goal
was to be rigorous or make the derivation simple, then you
haven't.
[...]
>> Do you really think there's no substantive difference between starting
>> with a function and taking the limit, or starting with the limit and
>> recovering the function?
>
>I meant to say that you seem unable to distinguish between appearance
>and proof.
I have no idea what that means.
>
>> >> You can't define uniform speed in special relativity in any simple
>> >> way which isn't ultimately circular.
>> >
>> > It's clear that I defined uniform speed with respect to something
>> > assumed stationary. An ignorant Aristotelian knows what stationary
>> > means.
>>
>> Then perhaps you can define it for me without using a circular
>> argument. If you don't see the problem, then you haven't really
>> understood why einstein abandoned special relativity to develop the
>> general theory.
>>
>> > Even Ken Seto knows what it means.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>
>The verdict is in. The evidence has been weighed. You have lost
>your case.
That's ok, since I don't consider what kenseto knows to be the
defining criteria for what constitutes valid physics. You may do
so if you wish.
>>
>> And in the part you snipped, I suggested that clarity would be best
>> acheived if you did refrain from trying to define it and just used what
>> was obvious to your intended audience.
>
>I thought it essential to give a practical exercise demonstrating how
>a Shubertian clock works.
Your clock contradicts relativity.
>
>> Why did you snip that part
>
>Clutter is trash. My paper is clearly addressed to a high school
>audience.
>
>> and
>> rephrase what I said you shouldn't do as something you have no desire
>> to do?
>
>Huh?
Since you snipped that to which your "Huh?" applies, I have no way
to answer that, without expending more effort to recover what you
snipped than you spent snipping it.
>> > My aim was to derive relativity.
>>
>> As the instructor I had for a mathematical methods of physics course
>> was fond of saying, "There are lots of wrong way to get the right answer."
>
>And there are plenty of people who can't properly identify mistakes.
Yes, but I'm only referring to you.
[...]
>> It's not a complex subject and my complaints are essentially that
>> you've lost all sight of the physics and implied some sort of mathematical
>> rigor via the jargon.
>
>The physics is that a Shubertian clock measures time in terms of
>coordinates.
Coordinates are meaningless, since they can be anything.
>A Galilean transformation is a Shubertian clock. The
>Lorentz transformation is a Shubertian clock. You can reset one clock
>and get the other. It's very easy to do. Check out the thread called
>"The Shubertian Clock (Thesis Defense)". I'll explain it to you with
>greater clarity there.
For some reason I don't see how a brief tirade against the
establishment followed by a link to what we are now discussing,
followed by a longer tirade about the criticisms of what I
am criticising, explains a whole lot.
[...]
>>
>> Yes, but what I'm confused about is not your derivation. I'm confused
>> about where the physics associated with relativity comes in.
>
>All the physics comes from the Lorentz transformation, which is a
>consequence, not a presupposition.
Physics does not come from a coordinate transformation. Coordinates
and transformations between one's choice of coordinates are defined
by the physics.
[...]
>> Don't you think the introduction of jargon like "Shubertian clock"
>> sacrifices clarity for self-aggrandizement? I mean really. From the
>> number of posts to this newsgroup that you must have read, isn't it
>> rather obvious that lots of people have enough difficulty or objections
>> to the ordinary clocks they use everyday as being measurements of
>> time, without inventing a special one, peculiar to your own idio-
>> synchratic derivation?
>
>If those persons can't be made to understand a Shubertian clock, then
>no one can help them.
If you can make someone understand a shubertian clock, then
you can't help them understand relativity.
Eugene Shubert
> Eugene Shubert:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >>news:<slrnb62ing....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> >> Eugene Shubert:
> >> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> "Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin,
> >> >> rigid material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals
> >> >> like a ruler."
> >> >
> >> >Bilge, I can remember when I wrote this and thinking it was practically
> >> >a joke.
> >>
> >> Maybe you should have stopped at that point.
> >
> >I couldn't stop. Laughing at physicists is too much fun.
>
> And certainly much easier than doing physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity is real physics. You are
the one avoiding the physical content. You complain about everything
but. The physics part of my paper--the essence--you deny and simply
write off as mathematical trickery.
> >It's pretty obvious that I described a ruler and that you want to
> >argue about what it's made of.
>
> No, my point was that you spent a lot of time making a ruler rather
> complex, in order to make your "derivation" appear rigorous. If your
> goal was simplicity, then the word "ruler" already contains everything
> you need and if your goal was to be rigorous, you didn't succede.
Do you realize that you're obsessing over a single sentence?
> >My paper is aimed at the level of high school mathematics.
>
> Then why describe a ruler in several paragraphs? It's the contradiction
> between what you've done and the reason you claim to have done it the
> way you have that's the issue.
Why are you imagining that? Are you hallucinating? I've described a
ruler in one sentence: "Imagine that the real number line is an
infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers etched
into it at regular intervals like a ruler." Every other mention of
sticks and lines (i.e., rulers) is in the context of a Shubertian
clock, which you say contradicts relativity.
> >> Apparently, you've never seen a kurie plot.
> >
> >Apparently, you don't realize how irrelevant your comments are.
>
> It is relevant. It relates to your use of a numberline. I can choose
> the numbers on a numberline however I like as the above illustrates.
I've got great news for you Bilge. The University of Utah has a course
you can take online. It might help you understand what the real number
line is. http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/line
I could never have imagined that a physicist could take my
concatenation of "the real number line" and a "material rod with
numbers etched into it at regular intervals" to mean anything other
than a ruler. Your kurie plot is a plot all right! Page after page of
obfuscation to avoid a trivial relativity paradox that a true
physicist should be willing to investigate, ask questions about and
then confess their surprising ignorance of SR.
I've defined time. I've defined spatial coordinates. I've derived the
Lorentz transformation and you can't recognize a single flaw in my
argument.
Remember the point of this thread. I was accused of being confused. I
asked, where, exactly, on the page I've written
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity am I confused? I do say
that I derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation. But that is a true statement. How does that make me
confused? Did I ever say that Galilean physics is the same as
Einsteinian physics? Absolutely not! What I want you to understand is
that I am a mathematician and a physicist and that you are the one who
doesn't know SR.
> Your clock contradicts relativity.
I can't imagine there being a greater confusion than denying the
existence and elegance of a Shubertian clock. For you to say that my
clock contradicts relativity is the same as confessing total
confusion. I suppose that engaging in diversions and irrelevancies is
easier than confessing bewilderment or madness.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnb66g1h....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>> Eugene Shubert:
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>> >>news:<slrnb62ing....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>> >> Eugene Shubert:
>> >> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin,
>> >> >> rigid material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals
>> >> >> like a ruler."
>> >> >
>> >> >Bilge, I can remember when I wrote this and thinking it was practically
>> >> >a joke.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you should have stopped at that point.
>> >
>> >I couldn't stop. Laughing at physicists is too much fun.
>>
>> And certainly much easier than doing physics.
>
>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity is real physics. You are
>the one avoiding the physical content. You complain about everything
>but. The physics part of my paper--the essence--you deny and simply
>write off as mathematical trickery.
mathematical shuffling to get from A->B without motivating the shuffle.
[...]
>> goal was simplicity, then the word "ruler" already contains everything
>> you need and if your goal was to be rigorous, you didn't succede.
>
>Do you realize that you're obsessing over a single sentence?
As opposed to what? Having you say that I ignored the vast
amount of effort you've spend trying to convince me I was mistaken
about a single sentence?
>> >My paper is aimed at the level of high school mathematics.
>>
>> Then why describe a ruler in several paragraphs? It's the contradiction
>> between what you've done and the reason you claim to have done it the
>> way you have that's the issue.
>
>Why are you imagining that? Are you hallucinating?
Not unless your web site has that effect on people.
>I've described a
>ruler in one sentence: "Imagine that the real number line is an
>infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers etched
>into it at regular intervals like a ruler." Every other mention of
>sticks and lines (i.e., rulers) is in the context of a Shubertian
>clock, which you say contradicts relativity.
It does.
>> >> Apparently, you've never seen a kurie plot.
>> >
>> >Apparently, you don't realize how irrelevant your comments are.
>>
>> It is relevant. It relates to your use of a numberline. I can choose
>> the numbers on a numberline however I like as the above illustrates.
>
>I've got great news for you Bilge. The University of Utah has a course
>you can take online. It might help you understand what the real number
>line is. http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/line
Gee. Will it tell me that I can't lable it with the log of a quantity,
so that I could plot something like sound pressure linearly in terms of dB
because there is something unphysical about it?
>I could never have imagined that a physicist could take my
>concatenation of "the real number line" and a "material rod with
>numbers etched into it at regular intervals" to mean anything other
>than a ruler.
But you happen to be doing this in an attempt to make it appear
a velocity is somehow defined better than it is simply by employing
the common sense of target audience.
>Your kurie plot is a plot all right! Page after page of
>obfuscation to avoid a trivial relativity paradox that a true
>physicist should be willing to investigate, ask questions about and
>then confess their surprising ignorance of SR.
Yes, you've spend the majority of your time saying that sort of
thing rather than try to address what I said.
>I've defined time. I've defined spatial coordinates. I've derived the
>Lorentz transformation and you can't recognize a single flaw in my
>argument.
Sure I can. It's the same flaw that exists in special relativity in
defining those things. You've tried to make it appear like you have
removed whatever you think is deficient about clocks in special
relativity, but only managed to make your replacement unphysical without
addressing any deficiency in special relativity.
>
>Remember the point of this thread. I was accused of being confused.
I'll stipulate to that.
>I asked, where, exactly, on the page I've written
>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity am I confused? I do say
>that I derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
>transformation. But that is a true statement. How does that make me
>confused? Did I ever say that Galilean physics is the same as
>Einsteinian physics? Absolutely not! What I want you to understand is
>that I am a mathematician and a physicist and that you are the one who
>doesn't know SR.
If you think this is a contest of who's is biggest, we could
compare publications in peer reviewd physics journals. Personally,
I try to avoid appealing to that sort of thing as giving any
weight to an argument, but when you put it that way, I'd say
let someone more objective decide.
>> Your clock contradicts relativity.
>
>I can't imagine there being a greater confusion than denying the
>existence and elegance of a Shubertian clock.
Of that, I'm sure. You invented it.
>For you to say that my
>clock contradicts relativity is the same as confessing total
>confusion. I suppose that engaging in diversions and irrelevancies is
>easier than confessing bewilderment or madness.
You adverstised your website on this newsgroup. I told you what
I thought was wrong with it. You never wanted to address any
particular point I made, other than to just deny it and say that
responding to your denials was "obsessing". Well, ok. I'm bewildered,
but I doubt we'd agree about what.
Eugene Shubert
> >the one avoiding the physical content. You complain about everything
> >but. The physics part of my paper--the essence--you deny and simply
> >write off as mathematical trickery.
>
> No. I didn't even consider it mathematical trickery. I considered it
> mathematical shuffling to get from A->B without motivating the shuffle.
How does your lack of understanding or insight prove that I'm
confused? Which steps in my mathematical shuffling are logically
inadmissible?
> >I've described a
> >ruler in one sentence: "Imagine that the real number line is an
> >infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers etched
> >into it at regular intervals like a ruler." Every other mention of
> >sticks and lines (i.e., rulers) is in the context of a Shubertian
> >clock, which you say contradicts relativity.
>
> It does.
Let's see a proof.
> >> >> Apparently, you've never seen a kurie plot.
> >> >
> >> >Apparently, you don't realize how irrelevant your comments are.
> >>
> >> It is relevant. It relates to your use of a numberline. I can choose
> >> the numbers on a numberline however I like as the above illustrates.
> >
> >I've got great news for you Bilge. The University of Utah has a course
> >you can take online. It might help you understand what the real number
> >line is. http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/line
>
> Gee. Will it tell me that I can't lable it with the log of a quantity,
> so that I could plot something like sound pressure linearly in terms of dB
> because there is something unphysical about it?
Children can see your childishness. The distance between any two
points x, y on the line is defined as | x-y |. It's obvious that that
is my meaning also.
> If you think this is a contest of who's is biggest, we could
> compare publications in peer reviewd physics journals. Personally,
> I try to avoid appealing to that sort of thing as giving any
> weight to an argument, but when you put it that way, I'd say
> let someone more objective decide.
Nothing would make me happier. Where is Steve Carlip, Tom Roberts, and
John Anderson and why are they hiding? What makes you so confident
that if they could muster the courage to speak (a very big IF), that
they would agree with you?
> >> Your clock contradicts relativity.
As far as I know, only you think so.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Bilge
>> >the one avoiding the physical content. You complain about everything
>> >but. The physics part of my paper--the essence--you deny and simply
>> >write off as mathematical trickery.
>>
>> No. I didn't even consider it mathematical trickery. I considered it
>> mathematical shuffling to get from A->B without motivating the shuffle.
>
>How does your lack of understanding or insight prove that I'm
>confused? Which steps in my mathematical shuffling are logically
>inadmissible?
>
>> >I've described a
>> >ruler in one sentence: "Imagine that the real number line is an
>> >infinitely long, super-thin, rigid material rod with numbers etched
>> >into it at regular intervals like a ruler." Every other mention of
>> >sticks and lines (i.e., rulers) is in the context of a Shubertian
>> >clock, which you say contradicts relativity.
>>
>> It does.
>
>Let's see a proof.
"The Galilean transformation:
T'=T
is a Shubertian clock."
Special relativity is not a galilean transformation. Your other option
is that a shubertian clock is meaningless rather than simply wrong.
[...]
>> >I've got great news for you Bilge. The University of Utah has a course
>> >you can take online. It might help you understand what the real number
>> >line is. http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/line
>>
>> Gee. Will it tell me that I can't lable it with the log of a quantity,
>> so that I could plot something like sound pressure linearly in terms of dB
>> because there is something unphysical about it?
>
>Children can see your childishness.
Apparently you can't see my point, however.
>The distance between any two points x, y on the line is defined
>as | x-y |. It's obvious that that is my meaning also.
No. The |x-y| is a number. It has no connection to distance until
you attach it to something physical. Rather than actually address
what I've said regarding what you claim is your intent (simplicity)
vs. what you've done, you have basically argued about about how
simple it is (as opposed to just saying ruler), told me I can't
understand a number line and then called me childish and obsessive,
for responding to what you've said. You've intentionally misrepresented
my point in order to do that. What you mean may be obvious, but it
certainly is not the simplest, which contradicts your stated goal of
simplicity, and it is certainly no better than just saying "ruler".
The more you argue, the more obvious it becomes that your goal is
to make the derivation "look authorative" and be novel, rather
than addressing your stated target audience.
>
>> If you think this is a contest of who's is biggest, we could
>> compare publications in peer reviewd physics journals. Personally,
>> I try to avoid appealing to that sort of thing as giving any
>> weight to an argument, but when you put it that way, I'd say
>> let someone more objective decide.
>
>Nothing would make me happier. Where is Steve Carlip, Tom Roberts, and
>John Anderson and why are they hiding?
What do they have to do with this? They can respond if they wish, but
what I wrote applied to what you had written and snipped:
"What I want you to understand is that I am a mathematician and
a physicist and that you are the one who doesn't know SR."
What have you published as a mathematician and/or physicist? You seem
to have ignored that part about letting someone objective decide regarding
your inference regarding my competence.
>What makes you so confident that if they could muster the courage to
>speak (a very big IF), that they would agree with you?
I'm not asking them to speak for me. I can speak for myself. I make
no supposition about whether or not they would agree, disagree or whatever.
I don't presume to think for them, nor do I ask for them to validate
my position on anything. I went to school to learn enough to think for
myself.
>
>> >> Your clock contradicts relativity.
>
>As far as I know, only you think so.
Since it is galilean invariant, I say that it has a strike against
it from the start.