8 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 3, 2004, 5:59:29 AM9/3/04

to

I'm looking for an endorsement so that I can submit an article to

the physics.ed-ph section of arXiv. According to the rules, the

endorsement must come from someone who's registered as an endorser

for the physics.ed-ph (Physics Education) subject class of arXiv.

The paper I wish to submit is titled, "The Time Structure of Special

Relativity".

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/1st-draft.pdf

Also, if anyone would like to recommend easy last minute corrections

that I should make, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

Eugene Shubert

Sep 4, 2004, 3:06:52 AM9/4/04

to

First line:

"The Lorentz transformation group may be interpreted physically as a

universal, everywhere present clock."

Conclusion:

"What we have actually constructed is a colossal, universal,

everywhere present clock. The clock is wondrously intricate. It has an

infinite number of moving parts, but don=92t ask me what they=92re made

of. Each part moves at a unique speed and every possible speed has

been represented.

Anyone considering endorsement should first critically read the

paper. If nothing else, rework by a skilled editor is required.

--

Uncle Al

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/

(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Sep 7, 2004, 3:10:13 PM9/7/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" wrote in message

news:4138...@sys13.hou.wt.net...

One person, who was extremely helpful, made it clear to me that my

paper contained an essential paragraph that was confusing. I have

repaired or otherwise removed the previously defective/misleading

statements. If anyone would like to take a second look and offer a

useful comment, I would greatly appreciate it.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/1st-draft.pdf

Eugene Shubert

Sep 8, 2004, 6:15:16 AM9/8/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <040...@everythingimportant.org> wrote in message news:<4138...@sys13.hou.wt.net>...

You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity

(*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference frames

(*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of

Maxwell's equations unchanged

(*) but by a change of variables ?!?!?!

Explain how this doesn't imply that

(*) Galilean relativity == Special Relativity

(*) You can derive anything from anything provided the proper change

of variables

Sep 8, 2004, 6:15:17 AM9/8/04

to

This has been extensively beaten about in sci.physics. The concept is

fatally flawed and the presentation still needs an editor.

Sep 9, 2004, 3:58:49 PM9/9/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <040...@everythingimportant.org> wrote in message news:<4138...@sys13.hou.wt.net>...

> The paper I wish to submit is titled, "The Time Structure of Special

> Relativity".

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/1st-draft.pdf

> Relativity".

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/1st-draft.pdf

When I looked at this paper it appeared at first sight to be a

derivation Lorentz transformation using one space dimension. As the

standard derivation relies on having a second dimension perpendicular

to that of the velocity, I thought I'd read more. In fact it doesn't

do what I hoped, that is it doesn't derive the Lorentz transformation

based on the constant speed of light. Rather it describes a

coordinate transformation for which infinite velocity in one set of

coordinates corresponds to the velocity of light in the other. However

it doesn't say how this relates to the physics of the situation, so I

don't really think that it would be useful to beginning students.

On the other hand it seems to me that these two coordinate systems

correspond to those of the GR description of the universe (in which

velocity of separation has no limit) and of SR (where velocity is

limited by c). Since people often get these two coordinate systems

confused, it would probably be more useful if you thought along those

lines.

Stephen Lee

www.chronon.org

Sep 9, 2004, 4:06:39 PM9/9/04

to

"chris h fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8dd8e508.04090...@posting.google.com...

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>

> You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity

> (*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference

> frames

> (*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of

> Maxwell's equations unchanged

news:8dd8e508.04090...@posting.google.com...

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>

> You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity

> (*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference

> frames

> (*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of

> Maxwell's equations unchanged

Correct.

> (*) but by a change of variables ?!?!?!

The process does indeed involve resetting clocks and taking a proper

velocity u that was defined physically and then defining an ordinary

velocity v by the equation u=v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). How does this violate

the laws of physics?

> Explain how this doesn't imply that

> (*) Galilean relativity == Special Relativity

Because no relativist at sci.physics.relativity could find a flaw with

any step in my argument, I will reveal my secrets here. In my paper, a

Galilean synchronization between any two frames of reference means

that time in those two frames can be defined in the Shubertian clock

sense as

T= (x-x')/u

T'=(x-x')/u

My critics are unsophisticated dupes. They accuse me of saying that

the difference between Galilean and Ordinary Relativity is just

mathematical trickery and the power of suggestion. The truth is my

derivation of the Lorentz transformation just appears to be magic,

because I do it so easily. The great secret that I've been exploiting

is that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of

reference but not for three simultaneously.

Eugene Shubert

http://www.everythingimportant.org

Sep 12, 2004, 3:22:47 AM9/12/04

to

"chris h fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8dd8e508.04090...@posting.google.com...

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>

news:8dd8e508.04090...@posting.google.com...

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>

> You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity

> (*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference

> frames

> (*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of

> Maxwell's equations unchanged

> (*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference

> frames

> (*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of

> Maxwell's equations unchanged

Correct. But that shouldn't surprise you.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CQ1R9.535927$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net

> (*) but by a change of variables ?!?!?!

The process does indeed involve resetting clocks and taking a proper

velocity u that was defined physically and then defining an ordinary

velocity v by the equation u=v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). How does this violate

the laws of physics?

> Explain how this doesn't imply that

> (*) Galilean relativity == Special Relativity

Because no relativist at sci.physics.relativity could find a flaw with

any step in my argument, I will reveal my secrets here. In my paper, a

Galilean synchronization between any two frames of reference means

that time in those two frames can be defined in the Shubertian clock

sense as

T= (x-x')/u

T'=(x-x')/u

My critics accuse me of saying that the difference between

Sep 12, 2004, 3:24:49 AM9/12/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <"http://www.everythingimportant.org"@sys13.hou.wt.net> wrote in message news:<413f...@sys13.hou.wt.net>...

If all you did was a change of variables then you never did any

Special Relativity at all. You are still in a Euclidean space with a

very ugly set of coordinates. You can't make arbitrary Lorentz

transformations with these fake coordinates, as that would not

preserve Euclidean distances. What's the point?

Sep 15, 2004, 3:52:56 AM9/15/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <040...@everythingimportant.org> wrote in message

news:4140...@sys13.hou.wt.net...

> "chris h fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:8dd8e508.04090...@posting.google.com...

>

> > Explain how this doesn't imply that

> > (*) Galilean relativity == Special Relativity

>

> Because no relativist at sci.physics.relativity could find a flaw with

> any step in my argument, I will reveal my secrets here.

I looked up the thread on sci.physics.relativity, and it seems that Bill

Hobba had the same complaint (it was dated 9/13, so this probably wasn't the

one you were referring to). And although the other respondants didn't

mention any specific flaw, none of them seemed to believe it to be correct,

either. From what I've read of Bill Hobba and Dirk Van de moortel's posts,

they seem to be very competant in physics, and I believe they are probably

two of the best indicators of rational thought on that group.

But even Androcles noticed that you defined gamma to be sqr(1-v^2/c^2),

which isn't really a derivation of the lorentz transform. Why should we

assume it to hold true in this universe. Mathematically you may be able to

show that the Lorentz transform is valid, or even that it can effectively

make some constant c act like infinity when it is applied - the place where

physics comes in is in showing that the Lorentz transform must apply in this

universe, and that no other coordinate transformation fits observed reality.

Sep 16, 2004, 8:09:18 AM9/16/04

to

Mark Palenik wrote:

>

> Mathematically you may be able to

> show that the Lorentz transform is valid, or even that it can effectively

> make some constant c act like infinity when it is applied - the place where

> physics comes in is in showing that the Lorentz transform must apply in this

> universe, and that no other coordinate transformation fits observed reality.

It isn't true that no other coordinate transform fits observed reality.

My Euclidean transform fits reality fine. Please see,

"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"

at

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

--

Dave Rutherford

"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:

"4/3 Problem Resolution"

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf

"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf

"Energy Density Correction"

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf

"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf

Sep 16, 2004, 8:09:20 AM9/16/04

to

"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote

> But even Androcles noticed that you defined gamma to be sqr(1-v^2/c^2),

> which isn't really a derivation of the lorentz transform. Why should we

> assume it to hold true in this universe.

Exactly - in fact the Lorentz transformation comes from a simple

homogeneity and linearity argument where one does not assume t'=t. Any

other derivation must be somehow equivalent to this one at best. Since

it is irreducibly simple, no better argument is needed, and none can

be given.

-drl

Sep 19, 2004, 7:55:57 AM9/19/04

to

"chris h fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8dd8e508.0409...@posting.google.com...

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>

> If all you did was a change of variables then you never did any

> Special Relativity at all.

I did more than just change variables. I legitimately derived the

Lorentz transformation. If my derivation is faulty at any point, I

would like the first error in math or misstep in logic pointed out

to me.

> You are still in a Euclidean space with a

> very ugly set of coordinates.

I started with Euclidean rulers and a straightforward definition

of time and merely reset clocks. The coordinates are beautiful at

every step of the derivation. Distances were not tampered with.

> You can't make arbitrary Lorentz transformations

> with these fake coordinates, as that would not

> preserve Euclidean distances.

Can you prove fakery or that my alleged resetting of clocks somehow

modified Euclidean distances?

> What's the point?

I believe that I've discovered a dazzlingly original approach to

interpreting and deriving the Lorentz transformation. Consequently, I

would like an expert in the field to identify openly on this newsgroup

in clear language the first equation or sentence of

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf that he or

she believes is unclear or incorrect. If no errors can be found and if

every equation and phrase is sufficiently understandable, then I'd

like that qualified individual to say something to the effect that my

paper is good enough for the physics.ed-ph (Physics Education)

subject class of arXiv.

Thanks for your interest.

Eugene Shubert

Sep 19, 2004, 7:55:58 AM9/19/04

to

"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message

news:5pmdnZG-HpU...@wideopenwest.com...

>

> - the place where physics comes in is in showing that the Lorentz

> transform must apply in this universe, and that no other coordinate

> transformation fits observed reality.

There are plenty of coordinate transformations that are physically

indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. It's all a matter

of how you synchronize your clocks. See exercise 1 and 2 of

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm

Eugene Shubert

Sep 20, 2004, 4:38:36 AM9/20/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <GalileoP...@everythingimportant.org> wrote in

message news:9937e29c.04091...@posting.google.com...

>

>

> "chris h fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:8dd8e508.0409...@posting.google.com...

> > "Eugene Shubert" wrote

> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

> >

> > If all you did was a change of variables then you never did any

> > Special Relativity at all.

>

> I did more than just change variables. I legitimately derived the

> Lorentz transformation. If my derivation is faulty at any point, I

> would like the first error in math or misstep in logic pointed out

> to me.

>

> > You are still in a Euclidean space with a

> > very ugly set of coordinates.

>

> I started with Euclidean rulers and a straightforward definition

> of time and merely reset clocks. The coordinates are beautiful at

> every step of the derivation. Distances were not tampered with.

I read the first two pages of your paper very carefully. You didn't derive

the lorentz transformation. You assumed it. You gave no physical reason

that we must multiply -x' by v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) and add x'v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) to

get time. If you haven't already assumed (or proven) the Lorentz

transformation, you would expect T(x,x') to be equal to -x'-x.

In fact, the time your clock measures *isn't* (x - x')*v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2), if

the Lorentz transformation is accurrate. I assume the reference frame is

the unprimed frame, although you never explicitly stated this. First of

all, if one ruler is moving, we need to redraw your picture, so that one

ruler has numbers closer together than the other. To make things easy, lets

say that the two zeros are lined up with eachother. We can then easily see

that x'(x) = x*sqr(1-v^2/c^2). So, If this point in time is T = 0, then

T(x,x') = x'/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) - x, not (x'-x)/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). I can't really

see you using any frame other than either the primed or unprimed frame, or

your definition of coordinates loses its meaning (x and x' are only measured

with respect to eachother).

Note that none of what I've said is a derivation of the Lorentz transform,

but merely a discussion of its implications.

Also, you really need to edit the paper. For example, first you say we're

constructing a clock, and then you say "you could set your clock by it".

Also, I don't think there's really room for sentences (fragments) like "Ok.

We're done." in formal writing.

Sep 24, 2004, 9:09:23 AM9/24/04

to

"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:LY2dnVGqNsZ...@wideopenwest.com...

>

> I read the first two pages of your paper very carefully. You didn't derive

> the lorentz transformation.

>

> I read the first two pages of your paper very carefully. You didn't derive

> the lorentz transformation.

The official derivation of the Lorentz transformation begins on page

four.

> You assumed it.

Are you merely accusing me of having prior knowledge of the Lorentz

transformation before arriving, ultimately, at that expression? If

not, at what step did I assume it?

> You gave no physical reason that we must multiply -x' by

> v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) and add x'v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) to get time.

Nowhere do I multiply -x' by v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). I assume you mean

divide. [-x'/u stands for -x' divided by u]. The equation for clock

time T at x is T=-x'/u + xi(x). Are you telling me you don't believe

that?

The physical meaning of the constant u is that it measures how much

of the moving line L' moves past you each second. You may choose to

measure the constant u in 'moving meters' per second if you like.

Clearly, if I'm driving down the highway at a constant rate of 60

miles per hour, then every mile of road (as marked on the pavement)

translates into one minute of car clock time. It should be easy for

every experimental physicist to set the rate of his car clock by that.

In this instance, x' is a constant and the equation for car clock time

T' is T'=x/u + zeta(x'). That's my definition of u.

Please note that, at this point in my exposition, I've only defined

"proper velocity." A definition of ordinary velocity hasn't been given

yet. Please note this also: for the two coordinate systems (rulers), I

use a capitalized Gamma (the upside-down L, primed and unprimed) in

the online pdf document.

> If you haven't already assumed (or proven) the Lorentz

> transformation, you would expect T(x,x') to be equal to -x'-x.

That would work if L' is moving in L 's positive direction and you

don't care about units but it's best to start with a system of units

such as meters and seconds to keep the experimentalists employed and

happy, thinking about how they're going to measure mu.

> Also, you really need to edit the paper. For example, first you say we're

> constructing a clock, and then you say "you could set your clock by it".

That's a very helpful suggestion. Thank you. I've already made the

necessary adjustment.

> Also, I don't think there's really room for sentences (fragments) like "Ok.

> We're done." in formal writing.

I suppose everyone knows what those fragments mean. When the rest of

the paper achieves that level of clarity, I'd be very happy to receive

instruction on niceties. For the moment, I'd rather focus on defusing

objections to my paper and in happily learning of the first sentence

in it that isn't reasonably clear.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eugene Shubert

Sep 27, 2004, 4:32:02 AM9/27/04

to

"Eugene Shubert" <GalileoP...@everythingimportant.org> wrote in

message news:9937e29c.04092...@posting.google.com...

> "Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message

news:LY2dnVGqNsZ...@wideopenwest.com...

> >

> > I read the first two pages of your paper very carefully. You didn't

derive

> > the lorentz transformation.

>

> The official derivation of the Lorentz transformation begins on page

> four.

>

> > You assumed it.

>

> Are you merely accusing me of having prior knowledge of the Lorentz

> transformation before arriving, ultimately, at that expression? If

> not, at what step did I assume it?

>

> > You gave no physical reason that we must multiply -x' by

> > v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) and add x'v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) to get time.

>

> Nowhere do I multiply -x' by v/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). I assume you mean

> divide. [-x'/u stands for -x' divided by u]. The equation for clock

> time T at x is T=-x'/u + xi(x). Are you telling me you don't believe

> that?

Yes, sorry about that. But either way, it doesn't matter.

If you have two rulers sliding by eachother, why don't you simply assume

that t = +-(x'-x) (depending on direction), or (x'-x)/v, if you care about

units (and the direction corrects itself). If you don't want the point in

time where the two zeros line up to be zero, T = (x'-x)/v + C, where C is an

arbitrary constant. There is no reason to physically assume otherwise,

unless you already know something about the Lorentz transformation, or that

length and time are velocity dependant. But presumably, that's what you've

set out to derive, so it's a little wierd to start out with those

assumptions. If we want to find out what gives the clock an "Einsteinian

synchronization", then T = x'/(v*sqr(1-v^2/c^2)) - x/v + C, and then we can

go on from there to "derive" the Lorentz transform, but by giving anything

an "Einsteinian synchronization" we've already *used* it, so there's no need

to derive it.

>

> The physical meaning of the constant u is that it measures how much

> of the moving line L' moves past you each second. You may choose to

> measure the constant u in 'moving meters' per second if you like.

> Clearly, if I'm driving down the highway at a constant rate of 60

> miles per hour, then every mile of road (as marked on the pavement)

> translates into one minute of car clock time. It should be easy for

> every experimental physicist to set the rate of his car clock by that.

> In this instance, x' is a constant and the equation for car clock time

> T' is T'=x/u + zeta(x'). That's my definition of u.

In the case of your car, T = x/v, there's no need to resort to us or

zeta(x'). Of course, if you want to be relativistic about it,

T' = x*sqr(1-v^2/c^2)/v = x'/v. But in any event, like I said before, the

only reason I could see you using x/u + zeta(x') is if you know something

about the lorentz transform already. Zeta(x') is something that wouldn't

appear in Galilean transformations, and u would simply be v. In your car

example, any added f of x' is extremely unnecissary, since x' is always

zero. You have to give some physical reason that you're using u instead of v

and adding zeta(x'), then *that* becomes your derivation. Once you know

that, it should probably take half a page to get from there to t' =

(t-xv/c^2)/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). I mean, any idiot can see that if you call u

v*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) and zeta(x) (xv/c^2)/sqr(1-v^2/c^2), then you'll end up

with (t-xv/c^2)/sqr(1-v^2/c^2). But T' = x/u + zeta(x') is not a galilean

assumption (unless by "u" you mean "velocity" and by "zeta(x')" you mean

"0"). And you cannot arbitrarily chose values of u and zeta(x') that match

an "Einsteinian synchronization", because then you're not deriving anything,

you've already inserted everything that makes the LT work.

>

> Please note that, at this point in my exposition, I've only defined

> "proper velocity." A definition of ordinary velocity hasn't been given

> yet. Please note this also: for the two coordinate systems (rulers), I

> use a capitalized Gamma (the upside-down L, primed and unprimed) in

> the online pdf document.

>

> > If you haven't already assumed (or proven) the Lorentz

> > transformation, you would expect T(x,x') to be equal to -x'-x.

>

> That would work if L' is moving in L 's positive direction and you

> don't care about units but it's best to start with a system of units

> such as meters and seconds to keep the experimentalists employed and

> happy, thinking about how they're going to measure mu.

You could divide by v, then (x'-x)/v, if you want it in seconds. Not that

it really matters. Sorry about that last equation, though, it should have

been -x' + x, not -x' - x.

>

> > Also, you really need to edit the paper. For example, first you say

we're

> > constructing a clock, and then you say "you could set your clock by it".

>

> That's a very helpful suggestion. Thank you. I've already made the

> necessary adjustment.

>

> > Also, I don't think there's really room for sentences (fragments) like

"Ok.

> > We're done." in formal writing.

>

> I suppose everyone knows what those fragments mean. When the rest of

> the paper achieves that level of clarity, I'd be very happy to receive

> instruction on niceties. For the moment, I'd rather focus on defusing

> objections to my paper and in happily learning of the first sentence

> in it that isn't reasonably clear.

>

Well, I haven't looked too closely for that type of thing, but I would

suggest not saying things like "you're a top notch experimentalist", etc.

Most people reading that would probably just thing "don't tell me what I

am". It's assumed that for thought experiments, you can use an arbitrary

degree of accurracy. There's no need to continually tell people how

accurrately various things can be measured.

Sep 29, 2004, 3:25:52 AM9/29/04

to

> Re: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

> "Eugene Shubert" wrote in message news:9937e29c.04092...@posting.google.com...

> "Mark Palenik" wrote in message news:<ys2dnbWZ2Po...@wideopenwest.com>...

>

> If you have two rulers sliding by eachother, why don't you simply

> assume that t = +-(x'-x) (depending on direction), or (x'-x)/v,

> if you care about units (and the direction corrects itself).

Why must I assume what I have already proven true? T=(x-x')/u is a

perfectly good definition of clock time defined pointwise for every

point x on the line L. If my definition of a Shubertian clock is

faulty, where is the mistake?

> T = (x'-x)/v + C, where C is an arbitrary constant. There is no

> reason to physically assume otherwise, unless you already know

> something about the Lorentz transformation, or that length and

> time are velocity dependant.

T=-x'/u + xi(x) [with xi(x) being an arbitrary function of x] is a

perfectly valid definition of clock time at point x in a Galilean

universe.

> In the case of your car, ... , there's no need to resort to us

> or zeta(x'). Of course, ... like I said before, the only reason

> I could see you using x/u + zeta(x') is if you know something

> about the lorentz transform already.

Let's not limit any of my facts by your naively contrived

misperceptions.

[Moderator's note: Please everybody try to remain polite and objective.

Disagreement on technical issues should be tried to be resolved by technical

arguments or else be taken to private email. -usc]

> Zeta(x') is something that wouldn't appear in Galilean

> transformations, and u would simply be v.

My transformations are obviously more general that the Galilean and

Lorentzian transformations.

> In your car example, any added f of x' is extremely unnecissary,

> since x' is always zero.

Only in your perception of the world, not mine.

> You have to give some physical reason that you're using u instead

> of v and adding zeta(x'), then *that* becomes your derivation.

You're obsessing about the shapes of symbols and are ignoring the

physical meaning to the mathematical question, what is T(x,x')?

> T' = x/u + zeta(x') is not a galilean assumption

> (unless by "u" you mean "velocity" and by "zeta(x')" you mean "0").

It's not even an assumption. It's a perfectly Galilean definition. An

infinite array of clocks, all stationary on line L', is sliding at a

constant Shubertian velocity u over another line L if the clock time

T' (when x' touches x) for the clock at x' is T' = x/u + zeta(x').

> And you cannot arbitrarily chose values of u and zeta(x')

The Shubertian velocity u is a fixed constant. I haven't tampered with

it. I also take it as an axiom that I can reset my infinite array of

clocks if I so desire. That amounts to me selecting any zeta(x') I

want.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eugene Shubert

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu