Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity

Post by GSS
Friends,
If you are
either interested in seeing the logical invalidation of SR,
or just curious to know how SR could be invalidated logically,
then please click the link below.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci_physics_fundamental

There's no reason to try to create your own private newsgroup.

This newsgroup is for the purpose of discussion relativity,
so post your theories here. You'll get a lot more readers
anyway.

- Randy

Jon Bell

2005-12-16 19:04:51 UTC

Post by Randy Poe
This newsgroup is for the purpose of discussion relativity,
so post your theories here. You'll get a lot more readers
anyway.

I assume that by "this nesgroup" you mean sci.physics.relativity, not to
the other crossposted groups (sci.physics and sci.physics.particle).

--
Jon Bell <***@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

Sue...

2005-12-15 17:34:54 UTC

Very thoughtful.

See if you find some correlation between:

<<How do we distinguish between Local and Global reference frames?

A global reference frame G is defined for referring N particles
contained within a closed volume V with the origin of G located at the
center of mass of the N particles. A local reference frame L1 is
defined for referring N1 (1<N1<N) particles contained within volume V1
(0<V1<V) with the origin of L1 located at the center of mass of these
N1 particles. Thus the local reference frame L1 can be considered as a

subset of global reference frame G. Further, the local reference frame

L1 is defined to be co-moving with the group of N1 particles in the
global reference frame G. >>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci_physics_fundamental/browse_frm/thread/8374088322d48275/05fea6c5067f90be#05fea6c5067f90be

AND

<< In electromagnetism the Maxwell's equations can be wrote with
multiple integrals to calculate the total magnetic and electric fields.

In the example the electric field produced by a distribution of charges

is obtained by a triple integral of a vector function:>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Are you saying, in another form that the near-field of Maxwell's
is the only place SR has any validity?

The theory has a disclaimer that most of the H.G Wells fans
prefer to ignore:
<< In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however,
we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
magnitude [sqrt -1] >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

I agree it is a bit of sneaky pool to analyze in imaginary space
a postulate formed in Euclidean space. But as at theory
of invariances it has its utility.

You might review your arguments in light of the above
disclaimer to be sure you are arguing against the theory
and not the interpretations of others.

I have no interest in legalistic word parsing so prefer to
simply label SR as confusing as misleading and rely
on more formal expressions.

IWO... it is an informal theory so the sky won't fall with
a formal disproof. :o)

Sue...

Androcles

2005-12-15 17:42:41 UTC

Nah, it's more fun here.

tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

Einstein said
"eta = y,
zeta = z "
and "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

Androcles.

Sam Wormley

2005-12-16 00:56:27 UTC

Suggest you try to find the source of your misunderstanding.

JanPB

2005-12-16 06:05:14 UTC

You should have this work professionally critiqued first. As is, you've
wasted a lot of time for nothing. The text is very sloppily written and
very hard to read because of that. There is no math or physics, mostly
English prose. Your main reference appears to be Einstein's
popularisations of his work, not Einstein's work itself. And so on and
so on.

Bottom line is the usual one: there is no silly error in relativity
since its mathematical structure is that of a certain type of geometry
on linear space which is known to be as self-consistent as Euclidean
geometry. So if your paper was correct, you would invalidate standard
high-school Euclidean geometry as well. Good luck on that one.

This is not to say scientists actually believe relativity is somehow
sacrosanct. Nothing in physics is. It's simply a proven set of
conclusions given certain assumptions. These assumptions can in
principle be contradicted by experiment (that's one reason relativity
is science, not religion) just like anything else in physics.

--
Jan Bielawski

Androcles

2005-12-16 06:58:11 UTC

Post by JanPB
And so on and
so on.
Bottom line is the usual one: You are a dumb idiot.

Professionally critiqued,
You are still an arrogant illiterate innumerate illogical cunt without a
scrap
of logic in you, you whining little toad. You tell others to read what you
yourself
haven't a clue about in the vain hope they'll think you are clever, Mr
SmartArse
who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't even understand "And so
on and
so on."

Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up?

tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

Right or wrong, cretin?

Why did Einstein say
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to change direction?

Fuck off, useless incompetent tord.
Androcles.

GSS

2005-12-16 17:08:04 UTC

Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm

I have studied the special theory of relativity in depth and over a
long period of time. There is nothing wrong in the mathematical
structure of this theory. However I find both postulates of SR to be
fundamentally wrong. Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the
Principle of Relativity at length and logically shown its invalidity.
The second postulate was evolved out of the 'principle of constancy of
velocity of light in vacuo (vacuum), essentially to reconcile it with
the Principle of Relativity. Hence to discuss the invalidity of SR, we
only need to discuss the invalidity of the Principle of Relativity. Of
course the dynamic relations of SR have been shown to be resulting from
the inertial property of all forms of energy and will remain valid even
after the collapse of SR.

Invalidity of the Principle of Relativity

I have developed the main arguments to show the invalidity of the
relativity principle through three introductory articles.

1. Inertial Reference Frames and the ICRS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art2.htm

Here I have compared the fundamental notion of 'Inertial Reference
Frames in relative motion' with the International Celestial Reference
Frame and highlighted the inadequacy of this notion.

2. Validity of Assumptions and Postulates
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art3.htm

Here I have primarily highlighted the necessity of critical examination
and logical scrutiny of the basic postulates rather than treating them
as axiomatic basis of a new theory. Specifically I have highlighted the
point that 'any assumption for any analysis of a system of particles
within a closed volume of space must not violate the conservation of
total momentum and total mass-energy content'.

3. Relative Measurements in Local Reference Frames
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art4.htm

Here I have highlighted the necessity of imposing certain physical
constraints on the choice of valid reference coordinate systems and
also shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements without
reference to a common bigger or global reference frame. e.g.
'Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'

You are now requested to bring out any specific point, which appears to
be not convincing enough, for detailed discussion.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

Joe Fischer

2005-12-16 19:21:04 UTC

Post by GSS
Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm
You are now requested to bring out any specific point, which appears to
be not convincing enough, for detailed discussion.
GSS

I will try to make it not convincing, the web site sucks,
can't you afford a real ISP with a real hosting service?

SR was considered to be invalid by Einstein in the
presence of gravity without certain restrictions, else he
would have never devised General Relativity.

But chances are, he never considered your points,
and chances are you never considered his.

The thing that seems odd to me is that the crackpots
and nuts seem to have more scientific curiosity than the
scientists (who post here).

And the most useless thing thing in the world is
somebody who is egotistical enough to think they know
more about relativistic physics than anyone else.

Is that not convincing enough?

Now I need to run my adware remover to make
sure a geocities ad is not still on the computer, just
to not convince myself that not all web hosters are
not SOBs.

Joe Fischer

JanPB

2005-12-16 21:07:58 UTC

Post by Joe Fischer
Now I need to run my adware remover to make
sure a geocities ad is not still on the computer, just
to not convince myself that not all web hosters are
not SOBs.

I switched to Linux 6 years ago and had zero viruses, worms,
spy/ad-ware, etc. etc. ever since. Never looked back and I consider
Windows the most idiotic, incompetent, program ever written.

--
Jan Bielawski

GSS

2005-12-17 00:36:58 UTC

No, your response is not convincing enough.

In fact you have not brought out even a single point which may appear
to be not convincing.
Well if you cannot bring out any specific point for discussion, why not
give me your response on just one point which I had highlighted in my
previous post. That is -

Here I have highlighted the necessity of imposing certain physical
constraints on the choice of valid reference coordinate systems and
also shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements without
reference to a common bigger or global reference frame. e.g.
'Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'

GSS

Androcles

2005-12-17 06:02:20 UTC

Who am I addressing this remark to?

You don't know?

Then who are you addressing your remarks to, idiot?

Androcles.

2005-12-19 14:46:47 UTC

Post by GSS
No, your response is not convincing enough.

Gee, that sounds familiar....
"I'm not convinced, and therefore it must be wrong."

Post by GSS
In fact you have not brought out even a single point which may appear
to be not convincing.
Well if you cannot bring out any specific point for discussion, why not
give me your response on just one point which I had highlighted in my
previous post. That is -
Here I have highlighted the necessity of imposing certain physical
constraints on the choice of valid reference coordinate systems and
also shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements without
reference to a common bigger or global reference frame. e.g.
'Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.

This is incorrect. Consider a closed volume V with a single electron in
it. A proton sits in the region outside the closed volume V. The
mass-energy content of the electron inside the closed volume V will not
be conserved.

Perhaps you need to redefine what you mean by a "system".

Post by GSS
We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'

That is also incorrect. The *value* of the mass-energy content of a
system is *not* held to be invariant with the choice of coordinate
reference frames. I don't know why you think it would be.

PD

GSS

2005-12-20 06:57:02 UTC

Post by PD
This is incorrect. Consider a closed volume V with a single electron in
it. A proton sits in the region outside the closed volume V. The
mass-energy content of the electron inside the closed volume V will not
be conserved.

Since the electron and proton considered by you are continuously
interacting the volume V enclosing a single electron cannot be
considered a closed volume.

Post by PD
Perhaps you need to redefine what you mean by a "system".

We mean a system of mutually interacting particles which constitute a
group such that the whole group of particles can be considered as
co-moving with their center of mass.

That is also incorrect. The *value* of the mass-energy content of a
system is *not* held to be invariant with the choice of coordinate
reference frames. I don't know why you think it would be.

Conservation of mass-energy content within a closed volume of space is
the most fundamental conservation principle. The mass-energy content
can be transfered from one region to another region through some
physical process or interaction but its total content cannot be
arbitrarily increased or decreased.

GSS

2005-12-20 15:20:42 UTC

Since the electron and proton considered by you are continuously
interacting the volume V enclosing a single electron cannot be
considered a closed volume.

Post by PD
Perhaps you need to redefine what you mean by a "system".

I see that you are reconsidering what you mean by a system. Now I have
the following questions:
1. Considering that there are at least two interactions
(electromagnetic and gravitational) that have infinite range, how are
you going to define a finite, closed volume that does not interact with
any other objects outside the system?
2. Is it important that there be no interaction at all with objects
outside the volume or only no *net* interaction at all with objects
outside the volume?

Post by GSS
We mean a system of mutually interacting particles which constitute a
group such that the whole group of particles can be considered as
co-moving with their center of mass.

Since the center of mass is *defined* as the weighted average of the
masses of the particles in the system, then yes I suppose the center of
mass must move with the group. Note that this does *not* mean that the
particles have the same direction or magnitude of motion as the center
of mass. Consider two billiard balls moving in opposite directions at
the same speed and their center of mass which is motionless. Or
consider two billiard balls moving in opposite directions at different
speeds, so that the center of mass is moving in the same direction as
one of the balls but not the other.

That is also incorrect. The *value* of the mass-energy content of a
system is *not* held to be invariant with the choice of coordinate
reference frames. I don't know why you think it would be.

This conservation principle applies within a single but arbitrarily
chosen inertial frame. It also applies within any other choice of that
inertial frame. That is, what it means is that the total mass-energy
content of the system will be invariant regardless of how the particles
in the system interact. However this does *not* mean that the value of
the mass-energy content is independent of the choice of inertial frame.

Consider a single billiard ball. In a particular reference frame it
will have a velocity of 20 m/s and will have an appropriate amount of
mass-energy. In another reference frame, the *same* ball at the *same*
instant will have a velocity of zero and will have a different amount
of mass-energy. Note this is *classical* mechanics here -- we're not
invoking special relativity at all.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-20 18:15:14 UTC

"PD" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.
You are still a snipping arrogant illiterate innumerate illogical cunt
without a scrap
of logic in you, you whining little toad. You tell others to read what you
yourself
haven't a clue about in the vain hope they'll think you are clever, Mr
SmartArse
who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't have a clue how to
synchronize
his watch to Cassini time.

Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up?

tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

Right or wrong, dumbfuck?

Why did Einstein say
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?

Fuck off, useless incompetent tord!
Androcles.

2005-12-20 18:58:43 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-20 19:14:44 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

jesper pedersen

2005-12-20 19:28:35 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Please, you know better than this. It is a matter of choosing a convenient
coordinate system. Surely you do not believe that the choice of coordinate
system influences the actual physics at work?

Look up "Standard configuration". It is quite simple.

/ Jesper P

jesper pedersen

2005-12-20 20:11:35 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Please, you know better than this. It is a matter of choosing a convenient
coordinate system. Surely you do not believe that the choice of coordinate
system influences the actual physics at work?
Look up "Standard configuration". It is quite simple.
/ Jesper P

And do try at least to get the Lorentz transformations right the next time
you copy+paste this.

/ Jesper P

2005-12-20 20:54:48 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Please, you know better than this. It is a matter of choosing a convenient
coordinate system. Surely you do not believe that the choice of coordinate
system influences the actual physics at work?
Look up "Standard configuration". It is quite simple.
/ Jesper P

And do try at least to get the Lorentz transformations right the next time
you copy+paste this.
/ Jesper P

He's not trying to get them right. He's trying to toss up a strawman to
see if anyone will engage. Not many are willing to do that for long
anymore, for reasons that are apparent.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-20 22:11:11 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Please, you know better than this. It is a matter of choosing a convenient
coordinate system. Surely you do not believe that the choice of coordinate
system influences the actual physics at work?
Look up "Standard configuration". It is quite simple.
/ Jesper P

And do try at least to get the Lorentz transformations right the next time
you copy+paste this.
/ Jesper P

He's not trying to get them right. He's trying to toss up a strawman to
see if anyone will engage. Not many are willing to do that for long
anymore, for reasons that are apparent.

Oh dear, would the poor little phuckwit prefer
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wx/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
which is exactly the same?

Fucking incompetent morons.

Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

2005-12-21 04:00:08 UTC

In sci.physics.relativity, jesper pedersen
<***@me.com>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:11:35 +0100

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

Dear Phuckwit Duck,
As an extremely devoted relativist, would you be so kind as to
explain why the idiot Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Please, you know better than this. It is a matter of choosing a convenient
coordinate system. Surely you do not believe that the choice of coordinate
system influences the actual physics at work?
Look up "Standard configuration". It is quite simple.
/ Jesper P

And do try at least to get the Lorentz transformations right the next time
you copy+paste this.

One can attempt something along the lines of the following:

Let O, A, B, and C be four observers, moving in the following
rather peculiar fashion. A is moving +v_A with respect to O
in the positive X direction. B is moving +v_B with respect to *A*
in the positive Y direction. C is moving +v_C with respect to B
in the positive Z direction. All four observers are coincident
at time 0 (as measured by each clock).

How do O and C relate, coordinate-system wise?

According to the standard Lorentz, where I've set c=1,
g_A = 1/sqrt(1-v_A^2), g_B = 1/sqrt(1-v_B^2),
g_C = 1/sqrt(1-v_C^2) for convenience:

x_A = (x_O - v_A * t_O) * g_A
y_A = y_O
z_A = z_O
t_A = (t_O - v_A * x_O) * g_A

x_B = x_A
y_B = (y_A - v_B * t_A) * g_B
z_B = z_A
t_B = (t_A - v_B * y_A) * g_B

x_C = x_B
y_C = y_B
z_C = (z_B - v_C * t_B) * g_C
t_C = (t_B - v_C * z_B) * g_C

Ergo,

x_C = (x_O - v_A * t_O) * g_A
y_C = x_O * v_A * v_B * g_A * g_B + y_O * g_B - v_B * g_A * g_B * t_O
z_C = x_O * v_A * v_C * g_A * g_B * g_C
+ y_0 * v_B * v_C * g_B * g_C
+ z_0 * g_C - v_C * g_A * g_B * g_C * t_O
t_C = t_O * g_A * g_B * g_C - v_A * g_A * g_B * g_C * x_0
- v_B * g_B * g_C * y_0 - v_C * g_C * z_0

So from a mathematical standpoint, the theory doesn't work all that
well, though neither does the actual problem setup. Of course
having tau equated to three different values verges on the silly.

The best I can do at this point is redo the problem using an
arbitrary vector, attempting to project said vector onto the
coordinate axes. I'd have to rotate the coordinate system,
do the Lorentz, and rotate it back, though. (Yuck.)

And when all is said and done, what really happened? Nothing.
It's a mathematical game, at best, here, though SR has
been generally confirmed using more straightforward methods.

Post by jesper pedersen
/ Jesper P

--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Bilge

2005-12-21 10:37:59 UTC

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
So from a mathematical standpoint, the theory doesn't work all that
well, though neither does the actual problem setup. Of course
having tau equated to three different values verges on the silly.
The best I can do at this point is redo the problem using an
arbitrary vector, attempting to project said vector onto the
coordinate axes. I'd have to rotate the coordinate system,
do the Lorentz, and rotate it back, though. (Yuck.)

Why bother setting up three equations? Since any combination
of lorentz transsforms is also a lorentz transform, just add up
all the velocities.

u = (v_1 + v_2 + v_3)

k^2 = (1/2)[u^2 - (v_1)^2 - (v_2)^2 - (v^3)]

The total boost is:

v' = (u + v_3(v_1.v_2))/(1 + k^2)

Never work hard unless being lazy fails.

The Ghost In The Machine

2005-12-21 14:00:03 UTC

In sci.physics.relativity, Bilge
<***@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:37:59 GMT

Erm...the velocities aren't on the x axis, but in all three directions.

Post by Bilge
v' = (u + v_3(v_1.v_2))/(1 + k^2)
Never work hard unless being lazy fails.

--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Bilge

2005-12-23 06:09:37 UTC

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In sci.physics.relativity, Bilge
on Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:37:59 GMT

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Erm...the velocities aren't on the x axis, but in all three directions.

I did not assume that the velocities were all along one axis. I
assumed something more general than that. (Note the ``dot'' product
in the equation below. Pick the directions however you like. I
simplified the other scalar products to get the sums of the squares
of the velocities with themselves, hence the somewhat odd looking
term defined as k^2:

u = (v_1 + v_2 + v_3)

u^2 = (v_1 + v_2 + v_3) . (v_1 + v_2 + v_3)

= (v_1)^2 + (v_2)^2 + (v^3) + 2 (v_1 . v_2 + v_1 . v_3 + v_2 . v_3)

And since the second term on the rhs appeared in the denominator, I
rewrote it as the term defined as k^2.

Post by Bilge
v' = (u + v_3(v_1.v_2))/(1 + k^2)
Never work hard unless being lazy fails.

2005-12-20 19:50:53 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you), and
it's unlikely anyone can ask him and get a good answer at this point.
However, I can sympathize with his choice. Like many classical physics
problems, the choice of orientation of reference frame is arbitrary and
is chosen for simplicity. For example, good-old-blocks-and-planes
problems can be analyzed with one of the axes being horizontal or with
one of the axes being parallel to the inclined plane, without loss of
generality. I'm therefore grateful that Einstein chose a reference
frame system that made the analysis simpler. The Lorentz transformation
in an arbitary direction is shown in most textbooks that dive into the
topic with anything more than cursory attention. Sadly, it doesn't have
much resemblance to what you wrote above, which is wrong.

PD

Post by Androcles
I know it is extremely stupid to believe
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
but I also know how committed you are to spreading your stupid
views.
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
Androcles.

Androcles

2005-12-20 21:44:00 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),

Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

and
it's unlikely anyone can ask him and get a good answer at this point.
However, I can sympathize with his choice. Like many classical physics
problems, the choice of orientation of reference frame is arbitrary and
is chosen for simplicity. For example, good-old-blocks-and-planes
problems can be analyzed with one of the axes being horizontal or with
one of the axes being parallel to the inclined plane, without loss of
generality.

Loss of generality, Phuckwit Duck? You think that in general a line is a
cube,
do you?
I live in a universe with three spatial dimensions, one mass dimension and
one time dimension, which universe are you from?

I'm therefore grateful that Einstein chose a reference
frame system that made the analysis simpler. The Lorentz transformation
in an arbitary direction is shown in most textbooks that dive into the
topic with anything more than cursory attention. Sadly, it doesn't have
much resemblance to what you wrote above, which is wrong.

Wrong, PhuckwitDuck? You mean it isn't possible to move sideways or up
in your universe?
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?

We do that all the time in my universe, Phuckwit Duck.
We have streets, avenues and elevators. You should visit a
large city sometime instead of hiding in duck blinds, you may see
something.
Androcles.

PD

Randy Poe

2005-12-20 22:13:30 UTC

Post by PD
I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

Elsewhere I have commented that I find it irritating that you
copy people's text without any quoting. This is an example
of what I'm talking about. "PD"s comment and yours appear
at exactly the same indentation level (none, in your original).
As if your confused rants weren't hard enough to read,
this kind of thing just makes it harder.

- Randy

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-20 22:22:22 UTC

Post by Randy Poe

Post by PD
I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

The harder, the more he likes it.
And the more people complain, the more he will do it.
Standard Village Idiot Behaviour.

Dirk Vdm

Bilge

2005-12-21 10:43:13 UTC

Post by Randy Poe

Post by PD
I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

The harder, the more he likes it.
And the more people complain, the more he will do it.
Standard Village Idiot Behaviour.

It's almost new year's. I nominate androsleaze for Standard Villiage Idiot
of 2005.

brian a m stuckless

2005-12-22 15:47:35 UTC

$ Bilge SCOREs the "Villiage" TWO (2) booby PRiZE.!!
Considering ..especially, your NEXT post, i'm sorry, Bilge, but
you REALLY are THiS GROUP's STANDARD ViLLAGE iDiOT, My FLUFFY.!!
[ Everyone else seems COY ..or, AT LEAST, know the difference. ]

But you can't even spell ViLLAGE iDiOT, UN-fluff-i-ly, can you?

Brian A M Stuckless

<> >><> >><> >><> >><> ^

Bilge wrote: > > Dirk Van de moortel: > > > >"Randy Poe"

Post by Randy Poe

Post by PD
I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

The harder, the more he likes it.
And the more people complain, the more he will do it.
Standard Village Idiot Behaviour.

It's almost new year's. I nominate androsleaze for Standard
Villiage Idiot of 2005.

insert ..see top of PAGE, My FLUFFY.

But, again..
$ Bilge SCOREs the "Villiage" TWO (2) booby PRiZE.!!
Considering ..especially, your NEXT post, i'm sorry, Bilge, but
you REALLY are THiS GROUP's STANDARD ViLLAGE iDiOT, My FLUFFY.!!
[ Everyone else seems COY ..or, AT LEAST, know the difference. ]

But you can't even spell ViLLAGE iDiOT, UN-fluff-i-ly, can you?

Brian A M Stuckless

<> >><> >><> >><> >><> ^.

2005-12-21 12:07:43 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

Your newsreader is acting up again, screwing up attribution marks. This
is one reason our conversation is likely to be short. If you want to
race cars, then get a car and ditch the lawnmower you're riding.

I don't have to respond to this remark about Einstein's motives. It's
sufficient to let your own just sit there and speak for itself.

Post by PD
and
it's unlikely anyone can ask him and get a good answer at this point.
However, I can sympathize with his choice. Like many classical physics
problems, the choice of orientation of reference frame is arbitrary and
is chosen for simplicity. For example, good-old-blocks-and-planes
problems can be analyzed with one of the axes being horizontal or with
one of the axes being parallel to the inclined plane, without loss of
generality.
Loss of generality, Phuckwit Duck? You think that in general a line is a
cube,
do you?
I live in a universe with three spatial dimensions, one mass dimension and
one time dimension, which universe are you from?

I suppose, Androcles, that this causes you no end of grief. I suppose
it worries the hell out of you when a cricket drive goes flying not
along the base line, but somewhere off that line. "Bloody hell!"
Androcles cries, "If it had gone along the base line, it would be a
trajectory in two dimensions, but since he pulled it, it's now a
trajectory in *three* dimensions. That makes the physics *much* harder.
Curse those wretched physics books that talk about projectile motion as
though it were a 2D problem!"

Post by PD
I'm therefore grateful that Einstein chose a reference
frame system that made the analysis simpler. The Lorentz transformation
in an arbitary direction is shown in most textbooks that dive into the
topic with anything more than cursory attention. Sadly, it doesn't have
much resemblance to what you wrote above, which is wrong.
Wrong, PhuckwitDuck? You mean it isn't possible to move sideways or up
in your universe?
Do you not know how to move sideways or up, Phuckwit Duck?
We do that all the time in my universe, Phuckwit Duck.
We have streets, avenues and elevators. You should visit a
large city sometime instead of hiding in duck blinds, you may see
something.
Androcles.

These conversations get shorter and shorter because you make
increasingly ridiculous statements, and it takes less time for you to
realize the inanity you're spouting.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-21 13:15:26 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

2005-12-21 15:02:29 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

Your newsreader is acting up again, screwing up attribution marks. This
is one reason our conversation is likely to be short. If you want to
race cars, then get a car and ditch the lawnmower you're riding.
I don't have to respond to this remark about Einstein's motives. It's
sufficient to let your own just sit there and speak for itself.
Androcles.

Well done, Androcles. That has to be one of our shortest conversations
yet.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-21 16:27:25 UTC

Post by Androcles
Phuckwit Duck, go back to answering the questions posed to you in other
threads
instead of fleeing and spiking another thread.

You already know this, but I very rarely answer any questions from
Androcles, not only because of his extremely poor manners, but because
he is so firmly committed to his stupidity.
PD

I have no idea *why* he wrote what he did (and neither do you),
Oh, I know. He was like you, he wanted to appear clever.

Your newsreader is acting up again, screwing up attribution marks. This
is one reason our conversation is likely to be short. If you want to
race cars, then get a car and ditch the lawnmower you're riding.
I don't have to respond to this remark about Einstein's motives. It's
sufficient to let your own just sit there and speak for itself.
Androcles.

Well done, Androcles. That has to be one of our shortest conversations
yet.

I don't have to respond to this remark about your motives. It's
sufficient to let your own just sit there and speak for itself.

Androcles.

Randy Poe

2005-12-21 16:33:49 UTC

Post by PD
Well done, Androcles. That has to be one of our shortest conversations
yet.
I don't have to respond to this remark about your motives. It's
sufficient to let your own just sit there and speak for itself.

Talking to yourself? Gone all they way round the bend now?

- Randy

GSS

2005-12-22 03:56:03 UTC

Post by PD
I see that you are reconsidering what you mean by a system.
1. Considering that there are at least two interactions
(electromagnetic and gravitational) that have infinite range, how are
you going to define a finite, closed volume that does not interact with
any other objects outside the system?
2. Is it important that there be no interaction at all with objects
outside the volume or only no *net* interaction at all with objects
outside the volume?

A finite closed volume V is defined for the present analysis to be such
that during the period of time under consideration, there is no net
gain or loss of total mass-energy content within the closed volume.
That is to say there is no net transfer of mass-energy content across
the boundary surface of the closed volume V.

Post by GSS
We mean a system of mutually interacting particles which constitute
a group such that the whole group of particles can be considered as
co-moving with their center of mass.

Since the center of mass is *defined* as the weighted average of the
masses of the particles in the system, then yes I suppose the center of mass must
move with the group. Note that this does *not* mean that the particles have the same
direction or magnitude of motion as the center of mass. Consider two billiard balls
moving in opposite directions at the same speed and their center of mass which is
motionless. Or consider two billiard balls moving in opposite directions at different
speeds, so that the center of mass is moving in the same direction as one of the
balls but not the other.

Yes, the main feature of the center of mass reference coordinate frame
is that the total momentum of all particles in it is zero.

Post by GSS
Conservation of mass-energy content within a closed volume of space
is the most fundamental conservation principle. The mass-energy
content can be transfered from one region to another region through
some physical process or interaction but its total content cannot be
arbitrarily increased or decreased.

Yes, this is the most crucial point and needs to be elaborated.

Let us consider a large group of mutually interacting particles
enclosed within an infinitely large closed volume V, say enclosing our
solar system or say enclosing our galaxy, or say enclosing our
universe. Let us assume that we do not use any reference coordinate
frame to quantify the relative positions of these particles. In spite
of the fact that there is no reference coordinate frame, there will be
certain finite number of matter particles, certain finite distribution
of pressure and temperature, certain finite field energy distribution
and certain finite distribution of radiation energy within this closed
volume. In short the total mass-energy content within this closed
volume V exists independent of the fact whether we have chosen any
reference coordinate frame or not. This fact is as simple and as
straight forward as another simple fact that you as a human being
possess certain finite mass-energy content even if you are not referred
to any reference coordinate frame. Now the principle of conservation of
total mass-energy content within a closed volume V will require that
when we introduce an appropriate reference coordinate frame to quantify
the relative positions of all particles, it should not alter the total
mass-energy content within V.

Let us for a moment digress from this point. In tensor analysis there
is a notion of admissible coordinate transformations that ensure the
invariance of the line element ds and hence the invariance of space
points in general. On similar lines we can have the notion of
admissible choice of reference coordinate frames that will ensure the
conservation of total mass-energy content within a closed volume V.
Such an admissible choice consists of a reference coordinate frame with
its origin either located at the center of mass of all particles
contained within V or is at rest with respect to that center of mass.
Such an admissible reference coordinate frame can be considered as a
preferred reference frame for that closed volume V. If we consider the
closed volume V to enclose the entire universe than this preferred
reference frame will be known as the Universal or Absolute Reference
Frame. If we consider the closed volume V to enclose the entire solar
system than this preferred reference frame will be the one with its
origin either located at the barycenter of the solar system or at rest
with respect to the barycenter. Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame
is such a preferred reference frame for our solar system. Hence the
total mass-energy content of the solar system will be conserved in all
such reference coordinate frames which are at rest with respect to the
BCRF. In general for any closed volume V, all non-rotating reference
coordinate frames that are at rest with respect to the center of mass
of all particles contained in V, can be termed as global or preferred
or admissible frames for that closed volume.

Post by PD
Consider a single billiard ball. In a particular reference frame it
will have a velocity of 20 m/s and will have an appropriate amount of
mass-energy. In another reference frame, the *same* ball at the *same*
instant will have a velocity of zero and will have a different amount
of mass-energy. Note this is *classical* mechanics here -- we're not
invoking special relativity at all.
PD

If the particular reference frame under consideration is the global or
preferred reference frame for the region of space contained within a
closed volume V then the observed velocity can be considered as true
velocity and the total mass-energy content will be conserved within the
closed volume V. If on the other hand the particular reference frame
under consideration is only a local reference frame then the observed
velocity will be the relative or apparent velocity and not the true
velocity.
Mass-energy content computed from such apparent velocity will only be
an apparent mass-energy content. For example the angular velocity w of
a particular star traversing the sky may be taken as 2.pi radians per
day. If R is the distance of that star from the earth then 2.pi.R can
be taken as the instantaneous apparent or relative velocity of that
star moving in the sky. We cannot use this apparent velocity for
computing the true mass-energy content of that star.
Therefore if we wish to be extremely precise and accurate we must refer
all motion of particles or groups of particles with in a closed volume
of space to the preferred or global reference coordinate system for
that closed volume. Within the solar system BCRF is the preferred or
global reference frame.
In *classical* mechanics we do not enunciate new special theories based
on relative or apparent velocities of particles.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci_physics_fundamental

2005-12-22 15:21:36 UTC

Post by GSS
We mean a system of mutually interacting particles which constitute
a group such that the whole group of particles can be considered as
co-moving with their center of mass.

Since the center of mass is *defined* as the weighted average of the
masses of the particles in the system, then yes I suppose the center of mass must
move with the group. Note that this does *not* mean that the particles have the same
direction or magnitude of motion as the center of mass. Consider two billiard balls
moving in opposite directions at the same speed and their center of mass which is
motionless. Or consider two billiard balls moving in opposite directions at different
speeds, so that the center of mass is moving in the same direction as one of the
balls but not the other.

Yes, the main feature of the center of mass reference coordinate frame
is that the total momentum of all particles in it is zero.

Yes, this is the most crucial point and needs to be elaborated.
Let us consider a large group of mutually interacting particles
enclosed within an infinitely large closed volume V, say enclosing our
solar system or say enclosing our galaxy, or say enclosing our
universe. Let us assume that we do not use any reference coordinate
frame to quantify the relative positions of these particles. In spite
of the fact that there is no reference coordinate frame, there will be
certain finite number of matter particles, certain finite distribution
of pressure and temperature, certain finite field energy distribution
and certain finite distribution of radiation energy within this closed
volume. In short the total mass-energy content within this closed
volume V exists independent of the fact whether we have chosen any
reference coordinate frame or not. This fact is as simple and as
straight forward as another simple fact that you as a human being
possess certain finite mass-energy content even if you are not referred
to any reference coordinate frame. Now the principle of conservation of
total mass-energy content within a closed volume V will require that
when we introduce an appropriate reference coordinate frame to quantify
the relative positions of all particles, it should not alter the total
mass-energy content within V.
Let us for a moment digress from this point. In tensor analysis there
is a notion of admissible coordinate transformations that ensure the
invariance of the line element ds and hence the invariance of space
points in general. On similar lines we can have the notion of
admissible choice of reference coordinate frames that will ensure the
conservation of total mass-energy content within a closed volume V.
Such an admissible choice consists of a reference coordinate frame with
its origin either located at the center of mass of all particles
contained within V or is at rest with respect to that center of mass.
Such an admissible reference coordinate frame can be considered as a
preferred reference frame for that closed volume V. If we consider the
closed volume V to enclose the entire universe than this preferred
reference frame will be known as the Universal or Absolute Reference
Frame. If we consider the closed volume V to enclose the entire solar
system than this preferred reference frame will be the one with its
origin either located at the barycenter of the solar system or at rest
with respect to the barycenter. Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame
is such a preferred reference frame for our solar system. Hence the
total mass-energy content of the solar system will be conserved in all
such reference coordinate frames which are at rest with respect to the
BCRF. In general for any closed volume V, all non-rotating reference
coordinate frames that are at rest with respect to the center of mass
of all particles contained in V, can be termed as global or preferred
or admissible frames for that closed volume.

And now your arguments and definitions have gotten a little circular:
1. Mass-energy is conserved inside a closed volume, which is defined to
be a volume such that mass-energy is conserved.
2. Mass-energy has the same numerical value for all reference frames,
but only the mass-energy that is measured in the global reference frame
is the true value, and other mass-energy measurements in other
reference frames are only apparent values and not true values.

Thanks, I've learned all I need to about your model.

PD

Androcles

2005-12-16 21:01:54 UTC

Of course there is something wrong.
This is what is wrong:
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

In agreement with experience and without any assumption at all,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0.

Post by GSS
However I find both postulates of SR to be
fundamentally wrong.

Halfwit! Only one is wrong, the stupidity of light velocity being
independent of its source.

Post by GSS
Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the
Principle of Relativity at length and logically shown its invalidity.

You don't even know that the PoR is or what logic is, you halfwit.
(Notice I'm calling you a halfwit and not a dimwit, nitwit or phuckwit...)

"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet.
Examples of this sort--- yada yada yada--- will hereafter be called the
"Principle of Relativity'' ---"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If you don't think the conductor meets the magnet when the magnet meets the
conductor, then you don't think at all.

Go away and come back with at least one more neuron.

Androcles.

jesper pedersen

2005-12-17 13:00:01 UTC

Of course there is something wrong.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption at all,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0.

You first assume that the distance AB is different from the distance BA, yet
you then equate the two in order to obtain a link between your final
equation and the one for the speed of light. How can you not see the problem
in this?

/ Jesper P

Androcles

2005-12-17 22:59:42 UTC

I ADDED AB to BA, I certainly did not equate AB to BA.
Only a fool would say -1 = 1.
How can you not see how stupid you are in challenging this?

Androcles.

Post by jesper pedersen
/ Jesper P

JanPB

2005-12-16 21:17:12 UTC

Post by GSS
Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm
I have studied the special theory of relativity in depth and over a
long period of time.

Again, I recommend a series of face to face discussions with a pro. It
might not be easy to find a willing expert but it will save you years
of wasted time. (Self-delusion doesn't matter as long as you find it
entertaining and rewarding.)

One thing that became obvious to me after being on this bboard since
its inception is that this type of environment is singularly unsuited
for real scientific debate (few exceptions do exist). Exchanges that in
direct personal communication take 30 minutes, on a board like this
stretch to literally *years* during which nobody remembers anymore what
it is they are arguing about.

--
Jan Bielawski

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-17 10:13:30 UTC

Have a look at these:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/WhatItTakes.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/JustFine.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/OffTrack.html

Dirk Vdm

GSS

2005-12-18 03:50:54 UTC

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/WhatItTakes.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/JustFine.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/OffTrack.html
Dirk Vdm

Yes, I had a look at these. These articles are quite well written.
I am fully aware of the prevailing environment. Kindly go through my
first article on the state of Fundamental Research in Physics at
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/funda_article.htm

Not only we must have an open mind, we must be able to judge and
evaluate new suggestions and ideas on logical grounds. We cannot afford
to shut our eyes and mind to any new suggestion or viewpoint.

I therefore request you to kindly confirm if you have understood my
viewpoint. If not kindly go through the following and then we shall
discuss the specific points of our disagreement if any.

Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm

I have studied the special theory of relativity in depth and over a
long period of time. There is nothing wrong in the mathematical
structure of this theory. However I find both postulates of SR to be
fundamentally wrong. Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the
Principle of Relativity at length and logically shown its invalidity.
The second postulate was evolved out of the 'principle of constancy of
velocity of light in vacuo (vacuum), essentially to reconcile it with
the Principle of Relativity. Hence to discuss the invalidity of SR, we
only need to discuss the invalidity of the Principle of Relativity. Of
course the dynamic relations of SR have been shown to be resulting from
the inertial property of all forms of energy and will remain valid even
after the collapse of SR.

Invalidity of the Principle of Relativity

I have developed the main arguments to show the invalidity of the
relativity principle through three introductory articles.

1. Inertial Reference Frames and the ICRS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art2.htm

Here I have compared the fundamental notion of 'Inertial Reference
Frames in relative motion' with the International Celestial Reference
Frame and highlighted the inadequacy of this notion.

2. Validity of Assumptions and Postulates
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art3.htm

Here I have primarily highlighted the necessity of critical examination
and logical scrutiny of the basic postulates rather than treating them
as axiomatic basis of a new theory. Specifically I have highlighted the
point that 'any assumption for any analysis of a system of particles
within a closed volume of space must not violate the conservation of
total momentum and total mass-energy content'.

3. Relative Measurements in Local Reference Frames
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art4.htm

Here I have highlighted the necessity of imposing certain physical
constraints on the choice of valid reference coordinate systems and
also shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements without
reference to a common bigger or global reference frame. e.g.
'Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'

You are now requested to bring out any specific point, which appears to
be not convincing enough, for detailed discussion.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

Sam Wormley

2005-12-18 04:18:10 UTC

Post by GSS
Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm
I have studied the special theory of relativity in depth and over a
long period of time. There is nothing wrong in the mathematical
structure of this theory. However I find both postulates of SR to be
fundamentally wrong. Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the
Principle of Relativity at length and logically shown its invalidity.
The second postulate was evolved out of the 'principle of constancy of
velocity of light in vacuo (vacuum), essentially to reconcile it with
the Principle of Relativity. Hence to discuss the invalidity of SR, we
only need to discuss the invalidity of the Principle of Relativity. Of
course the dynamic relations of SR have been shown to be resulting from
the inertial property of all forms of energy and will remain valid even
after the collapse of SR.
Invalidity of the Principle of Relativity
I have developed the main arguments to show the invalidity of the
relativity principle through three introductory articles.
1. Inertial Reference Frames and the ICRS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art2.htm
Here I have compared the fundamental notion of 'Inertial Reference
Frames in relative motion' with the International Celestial Reference
Frame and highlighted the inadequacy of this notion.
2. Validity of Assumptions and Postulates
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art3.htm
Here I have primarily highlighted the necessity of critical examination
and logical scrutiny of the basic postulates rather than treating them
as axiomatic basis of a new theory. Specifically I have highlighted the
point that 'any assumption for any analysis of a system of particles
within a closed volume of space must not violate the conservation of
total momentum and total mass-energy content'.
3. Relative Measurements in Local Reference Frames
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art4.htm
Here I have highlighted the necessity of imposing certain physical
constraints on the choice of valid reference coordinate systems and
also shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements without
reference to a common bigger or global reference frame. e.g.
'Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'
You are now requested to bring out any specific point, which appears to
be not convincing enough, for detailed discussion.
GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

There has *not* be a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an
observation.

Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-25 04:21:53 UTC

Post by Sam Wormley
There has *not* be a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an
observation.

Does SR predict GR? Does SR predict QM? Why don't you answer my
"Lorentzian accurate?" message?

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

2005-12-18 04:30:00 UTC

Dear GSS:

"GSS" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...

Post by GSS
I am fully aware of the prevailing environment. Kindly go
through my first article on the state of Fundamental
Research in Physics at
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/funda_article.htm

<QUOTE>
But the meaning of Unification, in this context, is the search
for some grand mathematical structure, which could link the
mathematical description of all separate phenomena.
<END QUOTE>

Unification isn't a "grand mathematical structure" devoid of
theory. The mathematics *follows* theory.

<QUOTE>
We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that
due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand
deeper meaning, deeper understanding and mental visualization of
the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world.
<END QUOTE>

Nature provides the illusion of a continuous world, for our
"common sense" to be trained in. Concentrating on the fundmental
"deeper reality" that the quantum realm represents, strips away
"indoctrination" and "complexity". Writing a web page such as
you have done doesn't make it clearer for anyone. EinsteinHoax
does that too.

<QUOTE>
A close scrutiny of scientific discussions in Physics forums
during the past one decade or so shows that our overall thinking
or collective 'Human Thought', concerning fundamental Physics
issues, is badly fractured.
<END QUOTE>

Physics forums are where kooks, cranks, and trolls go for their
emotional fix. Occasionally some actual physics does get
discussed. Have you looked at the archives where peer reviewed
literature is published? You judge the "business community" by
talk you have overheard at the local "coffee shop".

<QUOTE>
Although a divided opinion during the evolution of a new thought
may be regarded as a normal phenomenon, yet a divided opinion
lingering on for decades or centuries must be a cause for concern
or even worry for the pioneering Human Spirit.
<END QUOTE>

Mistakes are made when all are of the same mind. A structure is
strongest when the members are not all facing the same direction.
Science is *built* on trying to tear down current theory, as
*well* as extending it into new dark places.

If you find that your tiny little feelings are hurt when someone
disagrees with you, you shouldn't be in science. Form 1905 on,
Einstein had physicists all over the world trying to tear at his
theory. But that is what science is about.

...

Post by GSS
Invalidity of SR
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm

...

Post by GSS
However I find both postulates of SR to be
fundamentally wrong.

Only the first postulate is required. "The laws of physics are
the same for all inertial systems". From that postulate,
Maxwell's relations provide the same value for c for all inertial
observers. The second postulate is redundant.

Post by GSS
Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the
Principle of Relativity at length and logically
shown its invalidity.

You have made the most fundamental of mistakes. You define a
"Barycentric Celestial Reference System", and you talk about
"center of mass of the Solar System" and "planetary motion" What
is it about "in the absence of mass" that you did not understand?
Special Relativity is defined for situations where gravity is
negligible. You struggle over postulates that *require* no
gravity, that is why it is called "special". You have not shown
anything "invalid", except your understanding of relativity.

... <rest snipped, unread>

Post by GSS
You are now requested to bring out any specific point,
which appears to be not convincing enough, for
detailed discussion.

Done.

David A. Smith

brian a m stuckless

2005-12-18 09:58:07 UTC

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > <[WEB]QUOTE>

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
But the meaning of Unification, in this context, is the search
for some grand mathematical structure, which could link the
mathematical description of all separate phenomena.
We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that
due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand
deeper meaning, deeper understanding and mental visualization of
the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world. <END [WEB]QUOTE>
...
Only the first postulate is required. "The laws of physics are
the same for all [flat, non-centro-symmetric] inertial systems".
From that postulate, Maxwell's relations provide the same value
for c for all inertial observers [..between flat plates, dooOP].
The second postulate is redundant. [The square brackets ..Mine].

Exodus 3:14; "IAM hath BROUGHT Me unto you.!!" And, Ezekiel 39:22;
"IAM isRAELis and know THAT IAM LORD your GOD, Dis-day forward.!!"

$ Brian A M Stuckless

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Closing: ^
RESTmass*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
My GUESS iSS STANDARD
< The STANDARD Set. >
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$ By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Re: THAT IAM circumcising the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
My BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He and No more is more.
Done. > > David A. Smith

Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity.

hanson

2005-12-18 14:41:14 UTC

Post by brian a m stuckless
"IAM isRAELis and know THAT IAM LORD your GOD, Dis-day forward.!!"
$ Brian A M Stuckless
IAM circumcising the FORESKiNs

Hey Smitty, that brian guy is jewish and yells at you
demanding pre-payment to mutilate your peepee.
Bad Merry Xmas prospects, huh...
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Androcles

2005-12-18 17:15:01 UTC

Post by hanson

Post by brian a m stuckless
"IAM isRAELis and know THAT IAM LORD your GOD, Dis-day forward.!!"
$ Brian A M Stuckless
IAM circumcising the FORESKiNs

Hey Smitty, that brian guy is jewish and yells at you
demanding pre-payment to mutilate your peepee.
Bad Merry Xmas prospects, huh...
ahahaha... ahahahanson

It'll be a very unhappy Xmas with a chopped up peepee.
No myrr-t-h in that, or frankly sense.

Androcles.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

2005-12-18 18:43:25 UTC

Post by hanson

Post by brian a m stuckless
"IAM isRAELis and know THAT IAM LORD your GOD,
Dis-day forward.!!"
$ Brian A M Stuckless
IAM circumcising the FORESKiNs

Hey Smitty, that brian guy is jewish and yells at you
demanding pre-payment to mutilate your peepee.
Bad Merry Xmas prospects, huh...

He is too late. Foreskin is long gone. Still have scrotum, so
I'll keep One-Eye tucked away until after the holidays are over.

Post by hanson
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here until Thursday... ;>)

Have a good holiday yourself, if I don't speak to you until
later.

David A. Smith

GSS

2005-12-20 07:13:30 UTC

Dear David,
Thanks for your critical response.
Let me respond to your observations.

<QUOTE>
We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due
to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper
meaning, deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic
phenomena in quantum mechanical world.
<END QUOTE>

Nature provides the illusion of a continuous world, for our "common sense" to be
trained in.

This statement is a plain assumption which is elevated to the state of
a doctrine because of the general indoctrination I referred to. Why
don't we simply admit that our understanding of the Nature as yet is
too imperfect?

Concentrating on the fundmental "deeper reality" that the quantum realm represents, >strips away "indoctrination" and "complexity". Writing a web page such as you have >done doesn't make it clearer for anyone. EinsteinHoax does that too.

Wrong. The indoctrination is an induced mental state which cannot be
stripped away by quantum realm.
I do not know the writer of EinsteinHoax. I read his article about
three years back and was quite impressed by it. Even though he is a
little too blunt, he represents millions of those scientists and
engineers who are intuitively convinced that there is something
seriously wrong with the Relativity Theories but cannot pinpoint
exactly what is wrong.

<QUOTE>
A close scrutiny of scientific discussions in Physics forums during the
past one decade or so shows that our overall thinking or collective
'Human Thought', concerning fundamental Physics issues, is badly
fractured.
<END QUOTE>

Physics forums are where kooks, cranks, and trolls go for their emotional fix. >Occasionally some actual physics does get discussed. Have you looked at the >archives where peer reviewed literature is published? You judge the "business >community" by talk you have overheard at the local "coffee shop".

I disagree. Because of the indoctrination in the mainstream, all
dissenting voice is stifled. This in turn has stifled our progress in
fundamental physics.

<QUOTE>
Although a divided opinion during the evolution of a new thought may be
regarded as a normal phenomenon, yet a divided opinion lingering on for
decades or centuries must be a cause for concern or even worry for the
pioneering Human Spirit.
<END QUOTE>

Mistakes are made when all are of the same mind. A structure is strongest when the >members are not all facing the same direction. Science is *built* on trying to tear down >current theory, as *well* as extending it into new dark places.

I agree. Let us therefore cooperate in tearing down the ill founded
Relativity Theories.

However I find both postulates of SR to be fundamentally wrong.

Only the first postulate is required. "The laws of physics are the same for all inertial >systems". From that postulate, Maxwell's relations provide the same value for c for all >inertial observers. The second postulate is redundant.

Wrong. Maxwell's relations provide the same value for c only for the
vacuo or vacuum. Essentially to reconcile the notions of the principle
of relativity with the requirement of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuum, the second postulate had to be introduced. Under the
second postulate the requirement of constancy of velocity of light in
vacuum was changed over to the requirement of constancy of the velocity
of light in each of the infinitely many inertial reference frames by
sacrificing the absolute nature of space and time coordinates.

Out of these two postulates, I have discussed the Principle of Relativity at length and >>logically shown its invalidity.

You have made the most fundamental of mistakes. You define a "Barycentric
Celestial Reference System", and you talk about "center of mass of the Solar System" >and "planetary motion"

Dear Sir, I have not defined "Barycentric Celestial Reference System",
it is the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service
(IERS) who have defined it. Kindly look at the following links,
http://www.iers.org/iers/about/tor/
http://www.iers.org/iers/publications/tn/tn29/tn29_031.pdf
http://www.iers.org/iers/earth/icrs/icrs.html
I talk about the "center of mass of the Solar System" because by its
very definition the Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar
system.

Regarding the mention of "planetary motion" let me quote from an
article on "Comparison of "Old" and "New"
Concepts: Reference Systems" by Jean Kovalevsky in IERS Technical Note
No. 29.
"5 Further Remarks
1. The motion of the barycenter of the solar system is not linear in
its orbit about the center of the Galaxy. There is therefore a
Coriolis-like acceleration, which gives rise to a galactic geodesic
precession. It is not included in the definition of the ICRS. This
means that one should either distinguish between a natural barycentric
system from the BCRS, or to apply, in the dynamical representations of
the motion of planets in the BCRS, the corresponding acceleration. "

I had referred to these remarks just to show that even BCRS is not a
truly inertial reference frame.

What is it about "in the absence of mass" that you did not

understand?

I sincerely hope that you understand the basic fact that "in the
absence of mass" there is no barycenter, no solar system, no galaxy and
no universe.

Special Relativity is defined for situations where gravity is negligible. You struggle
over postulates that *require* no gravity, that is why it is called "special".

Kindly make it clear that as per your understanding whether the SR is
defined within our Solar system.
Kindly also make it clear that as per your understanding where exactly
the two postulates of SR that *require* no gravity are valid. Are they
valid anywhere in our universe?

However, let me clarify that in all my arguments justifying the
invalidity of SR, I have not used the term 'gravity' or 'gravitation'
anywhere. Just for illustration, consider the following argument which
does not depend upon the existence or otherwise of gravity.

'Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N
particles of matter in all possible physical states. We consider the
closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass
or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed
particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from
outside this volume. Let point S be the center of mass of these N
particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame with its origin located at point S. In this reference frame G,
let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function
of time (x^i(t), y^i(t), z^i(t)), provided they remain bounded within
the closed volume V. Since G is a reference frame with origin at the
center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of
its domain particles is zero.

Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'

With this it is impossible to consider all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion to be equivalent.
Once a particular inertial reference frame say L1, is defined to be in
relative uniform motion with respect to the given reference frame say
BCRF, their equivalence becomes invalid on the grounds of
non-conservation of total momentum and total mass-energy content of the
solar system.

Further I have shown the inadequacy of purely relative measurements
which are in no way dependent on the existence or otherwise of gravity.

You have not shown anything "invalid", except your understanding of relativity.

... <rest snipped, unread>

This is a clear sign of indoctrination.
How can you see the invalidity of SR if you snip the argument as
unread!!

You are now requested to bring out any specific point,
which appears to be not convincing enough, for
detailed discussion.

Done.
David A. Smith

Not done. Kindly make an effort to understand my point of view first
and then bring out any specific point which appears to be not
convincing enough.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm

GSS

Bilge

2005-12-21 12:56:32 UTC

Seriously? I've always considered him to be a complete kook
and newsgroup spammer. On the other hand, my opinion was based
on the lack of content, indifference to logic, and plodding rhetoric
and rigid style of his articles, so maybe my criteria was too
restrictive to find something positive, but I'm not sure what
could possibly offset those handicaps.

Post by GSS
Even though he is a
little too blunt, he represents millions of those scientists and
engineers who are intuitively convinced that there is something
seriously wrong with the Relativity Theories but cannot pinpoint
exactly what is wrong.

That's odd. I'm a physicist and have never encountered one of
those millions of scientists and engineers. What do you figure
the odds on that are? I'd guess close to a bazillion to one against.

[...]

Post by GSS
I disagree. Because of the indoctrination in the mainstream, all
dissenting voice is stifled. This in turn has stifled our progress in
fundamental physics.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the last half century,
physics has made more progress than in the histpry of science prior to
that time. Withing the last century, physicists have discovered two
forces not not known to exist before the turn of the 20th century,
and in that time, explained them and unified with them electromagnetism.
The physical theories we have now are the most precise theories ever
created in the history science. All of those theories are based on
relativity and quantum field theory.

Perhaps your expectations were a bit high, given the incredible
successes of the theories developed through the 20th century. But,
if not, precisely what is being stifled and precisely which dissenting
voice is going chirp up and establish some credibility with a calculation
for simple, well known, physical result before demanding a reasearh
program to solve the hard stuff?

[...]

Post by GSS
I agree. Let us therefore cooperate in tearing down the ill founded
Relativity Theories.

Let is first see if (1) you even know why you are objecting to relativity,
(2) if you have an alternative that explains more. This should be rather
simple, however not as simple as a cliche about clocks and rulers. How
about simething for which I haven't yet seen in the form of a slogan,
like an e+/e- scattering cross section, or the electron magnetic moment?

Only the first postulate is required. "The laws of physics are >the
same for all inertial systems". From that postulate, Maxwell's
relations provide the same value for c for all inertial observers. The
second postulate is redundant.

Wrong.

Don't be naive. I can derive special relativity from the first
postulate alone and I've posted such a derivation several times
on this newsgroup, so I know it can be done no matter how many tme
you say that it can't. I can also derive maxwell's equations
without ever assuming the existence of a charged particle, (which
I've also posted on this newsgroup).

[...]

Post by GSS
of light in each of the infinitely many inertial reference frames by
sacrificing the absolute nature of space and time coordinates

The speed of light is irrelevant to relativity. In fact, the speed of
light is only constant if charge is conserved, and it makes no difference
to relativity either way.

[...]

Post by GSS
Kindly make it clear that as per your understanding whether the SR is
defined within our Solar system.

Sure. Special relativity is valid anywhere that gravitational fields
are of no interest, which just about everywhere for any purpose other
than studying the behaviour of large objects on a cosmological scale.
Most physicists find it useful to gauge their choice of approximations
by the physical content of what is being calculated. Not only does
that indicate a grasp of the physics but it saves a great deal of
unnecessary labor. But that is just a personal preference for thinking
before throwing math at anything.

Post by GSS
Kindly also make it clear that as per your understanding where exactly
the two postulates of SR that *require* no gravity are valid. Are they
valid anywhere in our universe?

Let me see if I can summarize this concisely. Are you interested
in gravitational effects? [Yes/No] If Yes, then you need to use
general relativity. If No, then you can still use general relativity
if you aren't deterred by the thought of making something as hard as
possible for no particular reason. On the other hand, if you have
better things to do than spend a few extra days doing quality control
for the BIC pen corporation, you can skip general relativty and stick
with special relativity, or even plain old newtonian mechanics if
special relativity is overkill.

Post by GSS
However, let me clarify that in all my arguments justifying the
invalidity of SR, I have not used the term 'gravity' or 'gravitation'
anywhere. Just for illustration, consider the following argument which
does not depend upon the existence or otherwise of gravity.
'Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N
particles of matter in all possible physical states. We consider the
closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass
or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed
particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from
outside this volume. Let point S be the center of mass of these N
particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame with its origin located at point S. In this reference frame G,
let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function
of time (x^i(t), y^i(t), z^i(t)), provided they remain bounded within
the closed volume V. Since G is a reference frame with origin at the
center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of
its domain particles is zero.

Uh, that doesn't follow. In relativity, you must use the center
of momentum. Center of mass is a classical concept. However, you will
be happy to know that center of momentum coordinates are so useful
that accelerator labs throught the world endorse them for the simplicity
they offer.

Post by GSS
Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.

Let me state that precisely: If the p1^u, p2^u, ... pn^u are
four momenta, then, in the center of momentum frame and the total
four mometum is P^u, then since P^u P_u = M^2 is true in _any_
frame,

(p1 + p2 + ... + pn)^u (p1 + p2 + ... + pn)_u = M^2

where M^2 is _not_ the sum of the masses, but sum of the square
of the four momenta. Since that expression is an invariant, you
may pick any frame you wish, including the one in which
the sum of the three momenta is zero. You can also choose a
frame that is as unintuitive as you like or anything inbetween.

OK, see above expression for an invariant expression.

Post by GSS
With this it is impossible to consider all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion to be equivalent.

That is an odd thing to say, since I just wrote down an expression
which is valid in any frame.

[...]

You have not shown anything "invalid", except your understanding

of relativity.
This is a clear sign of indoctrination.

This is a clear sign of a kook argument which attempts to substitute
slogans in place of knowledge. It's also blatant hypocrisy, since I'll bet
you have decided you simply dislike relativity without knowing anything
about it. So far, all of your objections are bsed on your personal
caricature of relativity. However, if you can post something that actually
resembles relativity as the theory is known to the physicists who have
studied it, go ahead.

Post by GSS
How can you see the invalidity of SR if you snip the argument as
unread!!

Well, for starters, nothing you've posted really resembles the actual
theory of relativity and there are only so many strawman arguments one can
read before deciding the next 100+ lines aren't going to break a trend. If
you had an actual argument, putting it first and placing the strawman
arguments further down would be a better strategy. An even better strategy
would be to not even include the straman arguments, since it tends to give
the impression that you don't understand the subject. That will also make
your posts shorter and more concise.

[...]

Post by GSS
Not done. Kindly make an effort to understand my point of view first
and then bring out any specific point which appears to be not
convincing enough.

First, you're going to have to post something that looks like an
argument against relativity and that means relativity as it it is
understood by physicists, not caricatures and strawman arguments collected
from a google search for kooky slogans. If you don't know what a
four-vector is or you continue to insist that light has some relevance to
deriving the lorentz transformations, the best you can expect is that I'll
agree that you have proven your understanding of relativity is wrong.
If you want to be considered an expert, you'll need the expertise expected
of an expert.

GSS

2005-12-23 16:38:49 UTC

Bilge wrote:
[....]

Post by GSS
'Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N
particles of matter in all possible physical states. We consider the
closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass
or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed
particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from
outside this volume. Let point S be the center of mass of these N
particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame with its origin located at point S. In this reference frame G,
let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function
of time (x^i(t), y^i(t), z^i(t)), provided they remain bounded within
the closed volume V. Since G is a reference frame with origin at the
center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of
its domain particles is zero.

Uh, that doesn't follow.

It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

Post by Bilge
In relativity, you must use the center of momentum. Center of mass
is a classical concept.

Center of mass coordinate reference frame is also known as center of
momentum reference frame since the total momentum is zero in it.
Even the spatial component of the 'total four momenta' is also zero in
the CoM frame.

Post by GSS
Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.

Let me state that precisely: If the p1^u, p2^u, ... pn^u are
four momenta, then, in the center of momentum frame and the total
four mometum is P^u, then since P^u P_u = M^2 is true in _any_
frame,
(p1 + p2 + ... + pn)^u (p1 + p2 + ... + pn)_u = M^2
where M^2 is _not_ the sum of the masses, but sum of the square
of the four momenta. Since that expression is an invariant, you
may pick any frame you wish, including the one in which
the sum of the three momenta is zero. You can also choose a
frame that is as unintuitive as you like or anything inbetween.

OK, see above expression for an invariant expression.

The invariance of that expression signifies that *during* particle
interactions total energy and total momentum is *conserved* in all
reference frames. What I am referring to is the total value of
mass-energy content within a closed volume V of space. Let us consider
the closed volume V to enclose the solar system with BCRF as the CoM
reference frame. Let Ms be the total mass-energy content of the solar
system in this frame with zero total momentum. This mass-energy content
as well as the total momentum will be conserved (will be same value) in

all reference frames which are at rest in BCRF but not the same in all
other reference frames that are moving with uniform velocity with
respect to BCRF. Now consider a cosmic particle P approaching the solar
system with relative uniform velocity of 0.9c . Let us mount a
reference coordinate frame L on this particle. The BCRF and L will
constitute a group of inertial reference frames in relative uniform
motion. As observed from the reference frame L, the total energy and
momentum of the solar system will be abnormally high (apparent value).

The SR requires that we should treat both these inertial reference
frames to be equivalent and no one of these can be considered as a
preferred reference frame. The international community of scientists
recognises BCRF as a preferred reference frame for actual use within
our solar system. I don't think we can afford to accept the reference
frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with respect to
BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF.

Do you agree?

Post by GSS
With this it is impossible to consider all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion to be equivalent.

[...]

GSS

Tom Roberts

2005-12-23 21:46:19 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

This is _NOT_ true in SR. Except for a collection of objects of equal mass.

In SR, the center-of-mass frame is essentially useless; it is the
center-of-momentum frame that is useful (c.f. Noether's theorem applied
to a position-independent Lagrangian).

In GR, neither "frame" is very useful, in general.

That said, it is true that in casual speech people sometimes mix them up
and call the center of momentum frame "center of mass"; careful people
do not do that.

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Androcles

2005-12-23 23:48:23 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

This is _NOT_ true in SR. Except for a collection of objects of equal mass.
In SR, the center-of-mass frame is essentially useless; it is the
center-of-momentum frame that is useful (c.f. Noether's theorem applied
to a position-independent Lagrangian).
In GR, neither "frame" is very useful, in general.
That said, it is true that in casual speech people sometimes mix them up
and call the center of momentum frame "center of mass"; careful people
do not do that.

Derivation of the cuckoo transformations:
Velocity should be used since that has both direction and
magnitude and is a vector. Speed is a scalar.
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

"Hence if x' be taken infinitessimally small:- " <<<

(attempt to differentiate at a discontinuity, dtau/dx', undefined
inverted
velocity)
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Discontinuity.html

½[1/(v-c) + 1/(v+c)] * dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) * dtau/dt
dtau/dx' + v/(c²-v²) * dtau/dt = 0
tau = a * ( t - (vx' / (c²-v²)))
Show a= 1
tau = (t-vx/c²) / sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein was incompetent as a mathematician, his disciples
are likewise incompetent. He was extremely good as a huckster.

As a consequence, there exist paradoxes.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Newton would have made breakfast of Einstein on toast.
Androcles.

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-25 04:43:29 UTC

Post by Androcles
Einstein was incompetent as a mathematician, his disciples

mathematician;

Post by Androcles
are likewise incompetent. He was extremely good as a huckster.
As a consequence, there exist paradoxes.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Newton would have made breakfast of Einstein on toast.

You haven't shown any mistakes other than your own.

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-25 04:46:02 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

This is _NOT_ true in SR. Except for a collection of objects of equal mass.
That said, it is true that in casual speech people sometimes mix them up
and call the center of momentum frame "center of mass"; careful people
do not do that.

and for a shut sustem?

Tom Roberts

2005-12-25 05:36:02 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

and for a shut sustem?

I assume you are asking about a closed system (one with no external
interactions).

In SR for a system of pointlike particles, the center-of-momentum frame
satisfies the following condition, where the sum is over all of the
particles:
Sum_i gamma_i m_i v_i = 0
here m_i is the i-th particle's mass, v_i is its 3-velocity (relative to
this coordinate frame), and gamma_i = 1/sqrt(1-v_i^2/c^2). All
quantities are taken simultaneously in this frame. The center-of-mass
frame, on the other hand, satisfies:
Sum_i m_i r_i = 0
where r_i is the 3-vector position of the ith particle (relative to this
coordinate system). Differentiating with respect to the time coordinate
turns the r_i into v_i giving an equation similar to the first, but the
lack of gamma_i implies that these two conditions cannot in general be
satisfied by the same coordinate frame.

This does not depend on the system being either open or closed; nor does
it depend on the type of interaction among the particles, if any -- this
is pure kinematics. Note, however, that if there are external
interactions then these "frames" may not be inertial and energy/momentum
may not be conserved for the set of particles.

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Mike

2005-12-26 15:02:43 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

and for a shut sustem?

This is not correct. If relativistic conditions are present, r_1 is in
general not known. If one tries to measure it with a ruler (remember
that according to relativists all the theory deals with is rulers and
clocks) then one needs to account for length contraction, which brings
gamma_i into the picture.

This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

Post by Tom Roberts
This does not depend on the system being either open or closed; nor does
it depend on the type of interaction among the particles, if any -- this
is pure kinematics. Note, however, that if there are external
interactions then these "frames" may not be inertial and energy/momentum
may not be conserved for the set of particles.

Crank it up....

Mike

Bilge

2005-12-26 23:58:14 UTC

Post by Mike
This is not correct. If relativistic conditions are present, r_1 is in
general not known. If one tries to measure it with a ruler (remember
that according to relativists all the theory deals with is rulers and
clocks) then one needs to account for length contraction, which brings
gamma_i into the picture.
This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

Congratulations. You've just proven that either euclidean geometry must
be inconsistent or that you're an idiot. If you found an inconsistency
in hyperbolic geometry, then the same contradiction exists in euclidean
geometry (beltrami, klein, etc.). Take your pick.

Mike

2005-12-27 21:48:10 UTC

The crank strikes again. Relativity is not just a pure formal system.
Relativity makes claims about physical reality. The combination of the
two leads to several inconsistencies. One that comes to mind right away

is the twin paradox.

But you play with words and you think somebody will be impressed by
your misconceptions of what Klein and Beltrami proved or did not prove.

Mike

Tom Roberts

2005-12-27 15:16:22 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
In SR for a system of pointlike particles, the center-of-momentum frame
satisfies the following condition, where the sum is over all of the
Sum_i gamma_i m_i v_i = 0
here m_i is the i-th particle's mass, v_i is its 3-velocity (relative to
this coordinate frame), and gamma_i = 1/sqrt(1-v_i^2/c^2). All
quantities are taken simultaneously in this frame. The center-of-mass
Sum_i m_i r_i = 0
where r_i is the 3-vector position of the ith particle (relative to this
coordinate system). Differentiating with respect to the time coordinate
turns the r_i into v_i giving an equation similar to the first, but the
lack of gamma_i implies that these two conditions cannot in general be
satisfied by the same coordinate frame.

You are confused.

I was discussing quantities measured in the specified frame. That is
done using rulers at rest in that frame, and the length contraction you
suppose does not apply.

Post by Mike
This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

It is your personal MISunderstandings about relativity that carry an
internal conflict. Not relativity itself.

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Mike

2005-12-27 21:32:42 UTC

You are confused.

Let us see...

Post by Tom Roberts
I was discussing quantities measured in the specified frame. That is
done using rulers at rest in that frame, and the length contraction you
suppose does not apply.

Roberts will measure the distance between to moving objects at
relativistic speeds using rulers at rest in a globally inertial
reference frame he does not even know how to define.

Congratulations to you and to all others in your crank school of
thought.

Mike

Post by Mike
This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

It is your personal MISunderstandings about relativity that carry an
internal conflict. Not relativity itself.

Eric Gisse

2005-12-27 23:28:38 UTC

You are confused.

Let us see...

Post by Tom Roberts
I was discussing quantities measured in the specified frame. That is
done using rulers at rest in that frame, and the length contraction you
suppose does not apply.

Roberts will measure the distance between to moving objects at
relativistic speeds using rulers at rest in a globally inertial
reference frame he does not even know how to define.

Local is not global.

Post by Mike
Congratulations to you and to all others in your crank school of
thought.
Mike

Post by Mike
This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

It is your personal MISunderstandings about relativity that carry an
internal conflict. Not relativity itself.

Mike

2005-12-28 16:32:21 UTC

Post by Eric Gisse

You are confused.

Let us see...

Post by Tom Roberts
I was discussing quantities measured in the specified frame. That is
done using rulers at rest in that frame, and the length contraction you
suppose does not apply.

Roberts will measure the distance between to moving objects at
relativistic speeds using rulers at rest in a globally inertial
reference frame he does not even know how to define.

Local is not global.

You, wouldn't know the difference even if it was in front of you.:)

Mike

Post by Eric Gisse

Post by Mike
Congratulations to you and to all others in your crank school of
thought.
Mike

Post by Mike
This is obviously another indication, out of very many, that Relativity
carries an internal confict (or inconsistency even) of theory and
measurement.

It is your personal MISunderstandings about relativity that carry an
internal conflict. Not relativity itself.

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-28 15:26:45 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
coordinate system). Differentiating with respect to the time coordinate
turns the r_i into v_i giving an equation similar to the first, but the
lack of gamma_i implies that these two conditions cannot in general be
satisfied by the same coordinate frame.

This looks like a false dilemma. Why shouldn't there be g in the first
expression for the barucentre?

The barucentre should not be nonrelativistic; to presume so means that
nothing is moving. An open sustem is one whose mass is nonconstant.
With respect to the still sustem, the moving one is open.

-Aut

Tom Roberts

2005-12-28 20:53:44 UTC

This looks like a false dilemma. Why shouldn't there be g in the first
expression for the barucentre?

Because there isn't.

There is a terminology ambiguity, because some people
use the bare word 'mass' when they mean "relativistic
mass". But that doesn't work either -- as I said before,
if one puts a factor of gamma into the equation for
center-of-mass (i.e. center-of-"relativistic-mass"),
then when one differentiates as discussed above, the
gamma is a function of time and gives additional
terms which prevent center-of-"relativistic-mass"
from being the same as center-of-momentum.

[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

Post by Tom Roberts
BTW nobody who knows much about modern physics would do that (because
"relativistic mass" is a bastard quantity, neither scalar nor vector,
and it is not _intrinsic_ to the object)....

It's a scalar, duh.

No, "relativistic mass" is _NOT_ a scalar. A scalar is independent of
corodinates, and "relativistic mass" depends _explicitly_ on the
coordinates used.

Nature clearly uses no coordinates, so any valid theory of physics must
be coordinate independent. that's at base why "relativistic mass" has
fallen into disuse, except for old textbooks and popularizations of SR.

Post by Autymn D. C.
energy
and force and velocity aren't intrinsic to an object either;

Right. But 4-velocity, 4-momentum, and mass are indeed intrinsic to an
object. That's why they are more fundamental -- the equations of motion
can be written in a manifestly coordinate-independent way using them.
That cannot be done using "force", "velocity", or "relativistic mass".

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

brian a m stuckless

2005-12-28 22:03:14 UTC

$ Duh...
The FiNAL THEORY of EVERYTHiNG, arithmetically speaking, can have
only ONE SET of DiMENSiONs; There's ONLY one set of REAL NUMBERs.
[We're NOT going to have ALL you Dimwits EACH with your OWN set].

Light hasN'T been observed OUTside a propagating medium. ```Brian.

$ The LiGHT ..on the way:
All UNABSORBED light is "iN-TRANSiT"; All the rest is mass.
By "AEther", do you mean ALL the *iN-TRANSiT* light, Tom.?!
(What about all that "iN-TRANSiT" light, going everywhere?)

The ONLY UN-absorbed light is, of course, still on the way there.!!

SPACE where particles ARE is discrete; ALL the REST is continous.!!

You are very very backward, in the MOST FUNDAMENTAL physics, Tom.!!

CLOSE: Brian A M Stuckless
^
GUESS RESTmass*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
My GUESS iSS STANDARD
< The STANDARD set. >
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$ By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$ :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$ ____ _ _ _ _
$ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
$ | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
$ My _EMORMOUS_ | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
$ |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

$ :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!

This looks like a false dilemma. Why shouldn't there be g in the first
expression for the barucentre?

Because there isn't.
There is a terminology ambiguity, because some people
use the bare word 'mass' when they mean "relativistic
mass". But that doesn't work either -- as I said before,
if one puts a factor of gamma into the equation for
center-of-mass (i.e. center-of-"relativistic-mass"),
then when one differentiates as discussed above, the
gamma is a function of time and gives additional
terms which prevent center-of-"relativistic-mass"
from being the same as center-of-momentum.
[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

It's a scalar, duh.

No, "relativistic mass" is _NOT_ a scalar. A scalar is independent of
corodinates, and "relativistic mass" depends _explicitly_ on the
coordinates used.
Nature clearly uses no coordinates, so any valid theory of physics must
be coordinate independent. that's at base why "relativistic mass" has
fallen into disuse, except for old textbooks and popularizations of SR.

Post by Autymn D. C.
energy
and force and velocity aren't intrinsic to an object either;

Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity.

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-29 14:00:03 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
There is a terminology ambiguity, because some people
use the bare word 'mass' when they mean "relativistic
mass". But that doesn't work either -- as I said before,
if one puts a factor of gamma into the equation for
center-of-mass (i.e. center-of-"relativistic-mass"),
then when one differentiates as discussed above, the
gamma is a function of time and gives additional
terms which prevent center-of-"relativistic-mass"
from being the same as center-of-momentum.

Do it for space also then.

Post by Tom Roberts
[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

Energy includes mass as a factor, as does momentum. If you don't know
the difference between energy and mass, you shouldn't be an anticritic.

Post by Tom Roberts
No, "relativistic mass" is _NOT_ a scalar. A scalar is independent of
corodinates, and "relativistic mass" depends _explicitly_ on the
coordinates used.
Nature clearly uses no coordinates, so any valid theory of physics must
be coordinate independent. that's at base why "relativistic mass" has
fallen into disuse, except for old textbooks and popularizations of SR.

Nature uses positions and their functions; there is no difference. If
relativistic mass is a chimera, so be it.

Post by GSS
energy
and force and velocity aren't intrinsic to an object either;

No they aren't. They need extensive measurements. Treating them as
intrinsic is worthles as printing your own money that no one buys. How
about taking the outside universe away and see if your properties mean
anything?

-Aut?

Tom Roberts

2005-12-30 01:11:26 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

Energy includes mass as a factor, as does momentum. If you don't know
the difference between energy and mass, you shouldn't be an anticritic.

It is not I who confuses mass and energy, it is the concept of
"relativistic mass" that does so. Note it was christened in 1906 or so,
when the subtleties were not known; modern users of that phrase have no
such excuse.

Post by Tom Roberts
Right. But 4-velocity, 4-momentum, and mass are indeed intrinsic to an
object.

No they aren't. They need extensive measurements.

No measurements at all are required to ascribe a 4-velocity and
4-momentum to an object: its 4-velocity is simply the tangent 4-vector
to its worldline; its mass is "the amount of stuff", and 4-momentum is
simply the product of the two.

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-12-30 16:25:52 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

Energy includes mass as a factor, as does momentum. If you don't know
the difference between energy and mass, you shouldn't be an anticritic.

I have to wonder whether anyone would still remember the concept today if
the transverse and longitudinal masses weren't explored in the 19th
century in connection to electrodynamics. That set an historical context,
a bit of physics culture, for the special theory to click in to.

Relativistic mass relates to the transverse mass, and is the quantity to
use in quasi-Newtonian treatments of transverse acceleration, like
cyclotron motion. Longitudinal mass is the one to use for accelerations
that increase or decrease energy. So you can't really just plug m_r into
F=ma and run with it.

--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959

brian a m stuckless

2005-12-29 14:27:16 UTC

$ Duh...
The FiNAL THEORY of EVERYTHiNG, arithmetically speaking, can have
only ONE SET of DiMENSiONs; There's ONLY one set of REAL NUMBERs.
[We're NOT going to have ALL you Dimwits EACH with your OWN set].

Light hasN'T been observed OUTside a propagating medium. ```Brian.

$ The LiGHT ..on the way:
All UNABSORBED light is "iN-TRANSiT"; All the rest is mass.
By "AEther", do you mean ALL the *iN-TRANSiT* light, Tom.?!
(What about all that "iN-TRANSiT" light, going everywhere?)

The ONLY UN-absorbed light is, of course, still on the way there.!!

SPACE where particles ARE is discrete; ALL the REST is continous.!!

You are very very backward, in the MOST FUNDAMENTAL physics, Tom.!!

CLOSE: Brian A M Stuckless Dec29/05.
^
GUESS RESTmass*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
My GUESS iSS STANDARD
< The STANDARD set. >
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$ By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$ :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$ ____ _ _ _ _
$ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
$ | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
$ My _ENORMOUS_ | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
$ |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
$
$ :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!

This looks like a false dilemma. Why shouldn't there be g in the first
expression for the barucentre?

Because there isn't.
There is a terminology ambiguity, because some people
use the bare word 'mass' when they mean "relativistic
mass". But that doesn't work either -- as I said before,
if one puts a factor of gamma into the equation for
center-of-mass (i.e. center-of-"relativistic-mass"),
then when one differentiates as discussed above, the
gamma is a function of time and gives additional
terms which prevent center-of-"relativistic-mass"
from being the same as center-of-momentum.
[I put quotes around "relativistic mass" because it isn't really mass at
all, it is _energy_.]

It's a scalar, duh.

No, "relativistic mass" is _NOT_ a scalar. A scalar is independent of
corodinates, and "relativistic mass" depends _explicitly_ on the
coordinates used.
Nature clearly uses no coordinates, so any valid theory of physics must
be coordinate independent. that's at base why "relativistic mass" has
fallen into disuse, except for old textbooks and popularizations of SR.

Post by Autymn D. C.
energy
and force and velocity aren't intrinsic to an object either;

Re: Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity.

Bilge

2005-12-25 19:57:13 UTC

Post by GSS
[....]

Uh, that doesn't follow.

It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

Try a textbook with facts that are aimed at less elementary readers.

Post by Bilge
In relativity, you must use the center of momentum. Center of mass
is a classical concept.

Center of mass coordinate reference frame is also known as center of
momentum reference frame since the total momentum is zero in it.

Pardon me. For some reason, I had the distinct impression you
were talkining about relativity (as one might guess from the
word ``relativity'' in my reply).

Post by GSS
Even the spatial component of the 'total four momenta' is also zero in
the CoM frame.

The ``four-momentumm'' is a relativistic quantity, so you shouldn't
attempt to use it for newtonian physics.

Post by GSS
Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.

Let me state that precisely: If the p1^u, p2^u, ... pn^u are
four momenta, then, in the center of momentum frame and the total
four mometum is P^u, then since P^u P_u = M^2 is true in _any_
frame,
(p1 + p2 + ... + pn)^u (p1 + p2 + ... + pn)_u = M^2
where M^2 is _not_ the sum of the masses, but sum of the square
of the four momenta. Since that expression is an invariant, you
may pick any frame you wish, including the one in which
the sum of the three momenta is zero. You can also choose a
frame that is as unintuitive as you like or anything inbetween.

OK, see above expression for an invariant expression.

The invariance of that expression signifies that *during* particle
interactions total energy and total momentum is *conserved* in all
reference frames.

That expression is only significant in relativity, and since
you are discussing center of mass coordinates, we can't be discussing
relativity.

[...]

Post by GSS
all reference frames which are at rest in BCRF but not the same in all
other reference frames that are moving with uniform velocity with
respect to BCRF. Now consider a cosmic particle P approaching the solar
system with relative uniform velocity of 0.9c . Let us mount a
reference coordinate frame L on this particle. The BCRF and L will
constitute a group of inertial reference frames in relative uniform
motion. As observed from the reference frame L, the total energy and
momentum of the solar system will be abnormally high (apparent value).
The SR requires that we should treat both these inertial reference
frames to be equivalent and no one of these can be considered as a
preferred reference frame. The international community of scientists
recognises BCRF as a preferred reference frame for actual use within
our solar system. I don't think we can afford to accept the reference
frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with respect to
BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF.
Do you agree?

No. I tend to think relativity is correct since it predicts the
correct results. In addition, relativity has the advantage of
being conceptually simple and physically intuitive.

GSS

2005-12-27 05:47:01 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

Try a textbook with facts that are aimed at less elementary readers.

As Tom Roberts has already pointed out, in CoM reference frame by the
very definition of center of mass,
Sum_i[m_i.r_i]=0
where m_i is the (rest) mass of i th particle and r_i is the position
vector of that particle. Differentiating the above relation with
respect to time we get,
Sum_i[m_i.v_i]=Total momentum =0

Post by GSS
Center of mass coordinate reference frame is also known as center of
momentum reference frame since the total momentum is zero in it.

Pardon me. For some reason, I had the distinct impression you
were talkining about relativity

As Tom Roberts has already pointed out, in situations where particle
velocities are extremely high such that particle mass can no longer be
treated as constant, then we have to use dynamic mass in place of rest
mass. Accordingly gama factor is included in the above relations and
that distinguishes the center of momentum frame from the center of mass
frame. But such cases of extreme velocities are encountered only in
particle accelerators and not in the general case of a large closed
volume under discussion.

Post by GSS
Even the spatial component of the 'total four momenta' is also zero in
the CoM frame.

The ``four-momentumm'' is a relativistic quantity, so you shouldn't
attempt to use it for newtonian physics.

This was just to clear your concepts.

[...]

Post by GSS
Now consider a cosmic particle P approaching the solar system
with relative uniform velocity of 0.9c . Let us mount a
reference coordinate frame L on this particle. The BCRF and L will
constitute a group of inertial reference frames in relative uniform
motion. As observed from the reference frame L, the total energy and
momentum of the solar system will be abnormally high (apparent value).
The SR requires that we should treat both these inertial reference
frames to be equivalent and no one of these can be considered as a
preferred reference frame. The international community of scientists
recognises BCRF as a preferred reference frame for actual use within
our solar system. I don't think we can afford to accept the reference
frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with respect to
BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF.
Do you agree?

No. I tend to think relativity is correct since it predicts the
correct results. In addition, relativity has the advantage of
being conceptually simple and physically intuitive.

As I have already pointed out there is nothing wrong in the
mathematical structure of relativity. What is wrong is the founding
postulates or assumptioms of relativity which had never been subjected
to critical scrutiny so far. Further I have also conceded that due to
the inertial property of all forms of energy, the dynamic relations of
SR involving mass momentum and energy remain valid even without the
founding postulates of relativity. It is only these dynamic relations
which have the widest practical applications. There is no dispute on
that.

But how can you accept the reference frame L moving at a uniform
relative velocity 0.9c with respect to BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF?

GSS

d***@hotmail.com

2005-12-27 12:04:10 UTC

"Invalidity of Special Theory of Relativity"

**************************************************

And I've always heard that it's pretty well proven.

Tom Roberts

2005-12-27 15:30:33 UTC

Post by GSS
[...]
Sum_i[m_i.v_i]=Total momentum =0

That is not momentum in SR.

Yes, in Newtonian mechanics it is true that the center-of-mass and
center-of-momentum frames are the same. But not in SR.

Post by GSS
As Tom Roberts has already pointed out, in situations where particle
velocities are extremely high such that particle mass can no longer be
treated as constant, then we have to use dynamic mass in place of rest
mass.

That is normally called "relativistic mass". It doesn't work -- if one
claims that "center-of-mass" refers to the center-of-"relativistic"-mass
frame, then one must include the gamma inside the time derivative, and
again that frame is in general different from the center-of-momentum frame.

BTW nobody who knows much about modern physics would do that (because
"relativistic mass" is a bastard quantity, neither scalar nor vector,
and it is not _intrinsic_ to the object)....

Post by GSS
Accordingly gama factor is included in the above relations and
that distinguishes the center of momentum frame from the center of mass
frame. But such cases of extreme velocities are encountered only in
particle accelerators and not in the general case of a large closed
volume under discussion.

The question is: are you using SR or Newtonian mechanics? If the former,
then the center-of-mass frame is not the same as the center-of-momentum
frame (except in certain highly-symmetric situations).

Post by GSS
As I have already pointed out there is nothing wrong in the
mathematical structure of relativity. What is wrong is the founding
postulates or assumptioms of relativity which had never been subjected
to critical scrutiny so far.

That is just plain not true. SR and GR agree with the experimental
record within their domains of applicability. That involves the most
exhaustive "critical scrutiny" possible for a physical theory --
confrontation with experiment.

Post by GSS
But how can you accept the reference frame L moving at a uniform
relative velocity 0.9c with respect to BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF?

"Equivalent" is not "the same". The _LAWS_OF_PHYSICS_ are the same in
the two frames, and that is what is meant by their equivalence. The fact
that the components of the solar system have very different velocities
relative to these two frames is simply one aspect of their not being
"the same".

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Autymn D. C.

2005-12-28 15:42:46 UTC

Post by Tom Roberts
That is normally called "relativistic mass". It doesn't work -- if one
claims that "center-of-mass" refers to the center-of-"relativistic"-mass
frame, then one must include the gamma inside the time derivative, and
again that frame is in general different from the center-of-momentum frame.

No, the frames are the same because everything's moving already!

It's a scalar, duh. Like lengths and stints are bastards? Oh, energy
and force and velocity aren't intrinsic to an object either; it takes
two objects to determine those.

-Aut

GSS

2005-12-29 17:12:38 UTC

So far I have not referred to the 'experimental record' of SR or GR.
I have specifically pointed out that the founding postulates or
assumptions of Relativity have not been subjected to critical scrutiny.
Any comments on this?

Post by GSS
But how can you accept the reference frame L moving at a uniform
relative velocity 0.9c with respect to BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF?

No, the _LAWS_OF_PHYSICS_ are not the same in the two frames.
Firstly the mass-energy content of all material bodies, like aircraft,
satellites, planets etc will appear to be highly distorted in the
reference frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with
respect to BCRF.
Secondly if we compute the dynamic trajectories of all such bodies
with distorted mass-energy content, they will all be highly distorted.

These two reference frames can never be equivalent. If you are still
not convinced kindly consult the International Earth Rotation and
Reference System Service (IERS) for further advice.

GSS

Tom Roberts

2005-12-29 20:40:05 UTC

Post by GSS
So far I have not referred to the 'experimental record' of SR or GR.

That's probably why your supposed experiment is inconsistent with many
of them. You should educate yourself before proposing experiments that
are doomed from the start....

Post by GSS
I have specifically pointed out that the founding postulates or
assumptions of Relativity have not been subjected to critical scrutiny.
Any comments on this?

The _ONLY_ important type of "critical scrutiny" in physics is
comparison to experiments. SR has had more such scrutiny than most
theories, and has passed in all cases so far (for tests within its
domain of applicability).

Post by Tom Roberts
"Equivalent" is not "the same". The _LAWS_OF_PHYSICS_ are the same in
the two frames, and that is what is meant by their equivalence. The fact
that the components of the solar system have very different velocities
relative to these two frames is simply one aspect of their not being
"the same".

No, the _LAWS_OF_PHYSICS_ are not the same in the two frames.

Sure they are. By "laws of physics" we mean equations like:
F = dP/d\tau
and not the happenstance of which objects are at rest in a given frame
(those are initial conditions, not laws).

Post by GSS
Firstly the mass-energy content of all material bodies, like aircraft,
satellites, planets etc will appear to be highly distorted in the
reference frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with
respect to BCRF.

You are confused. See above.

The use of the pejorative word "distorted" is inappropriate; these are
merely differences. And your example is just plain wrong at several
levels: an object has mass content, and that is independent of reference
frame. No object has any "energy content" except for its intrinsic mass;
energy is _NOT_ intrinsic to an object, it is a _relationship_ between
the object and a reference frame -- the energy of an object does indeed
depend on reference frame.

Post by GSS
These two reference frames can never be equivalent.

They indeed _ARE_ equivalent in the manner of interest: the laws of
physics are the same in both.

That is, one can apply F=dP/d\tau in either frame and
find it is satisfied. For a given physical situation
the values for the components of F and P will be
different, but the _relationship_ of that equation
will hold in each frame.

Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Bilge

2005-12-27 18:43:24 UTC

Post by GSS
It is a most elementary fact that the total momentum in center of mass
coordinate frame is zero.

Try a textbook with facts that are aimed at less elementary readers.

You are being blatantly dishonest by deliberately leaving out
the part where tom states those two conditions cannot, in general,
be satisfied simultaneously. So, what is your point? That you
were wrong or just confused?

Post by GSS
Center of mass coordinate reference frame is also known as center of
momentum reference frame since the total momentum is zero in it.

Pardon me. For some reason, I had the distinct impression you
were talkining about relativity

As Tom Roberts has already pointed out, in situations where particle
velocities are extremely high such that particle mass can no longer be
treated as constant,

The mass is an invariant in special relativity.

[...]

Post by Bilge
The ``four-momentumm'' is a relativistic quantity, so you shouldn't
attempt to use it for newtonian physics.

This was just to clear your concepts.

I was already certain that you didn't understand relativity, but
thanks for your concern.

Post by GSS
[...]

Post by GSS
recognises BCRF as a preferred reference frame for actual use within
our solar system. I don't think we can afford to accept the reference
frame L moving at a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with respect to
BCRF, to be equivalent to BCRF.
Do you agree?

No. I tend to think relativity is correct since it predicts the
correct results. In addition, relativity has the advantage of
being conceptually simple and physically intuitive.

As I have already pointed out there is nothing wrong in the
mathematical structure of relativity.

Apparently, you do think something is wrong with the mathematical
structure, since the mathematical structure doesn't permit the
definition of a preferred frame.

Post by GSS
What is wrong is the founding postulates or assumptioms of relativity
which had never been subjected to critical scrutiny so far.

You suffer from two delusions: (1) You think relativity is complicated
enough that no one would have scrutinized relativity critically over
a period of one century, (2) You were the first person smart enough
for the task.

All you've shown is that by not understanding it, you can turn
something simple into a convoluted mess of inconsistencies. Special
relativity is nothing more than a four-dimensional affine space
equipped with an indefinite metric of signature 2. Since conservation
of energy, momentum, charge, etc., hinges on invariance under
spacetime and phase displacements, there can be no preferred frame,
since by definition, a preferred frame differs from frames which are
not preferred and therefore breaks the invariance.

2005-12-21 15:01:09 UTC

Post by GSS
Wrong. The indoctrination is an induced mental state which cannot be
stripped away by quantum realm.
I do not know the writer of EinsteinHoax. I read his article about
three years back and was quite impressed by it. Even though he is a
little too blunt, he represents millions of those scientists and
engineers who are intuitively convinced that there is something
seriously wrong with the Relativity Theories but cannot pinpoint
exactly what is wrong.

And this is what marks the difference between a scientist and a crank.

A scientist will look at a theory that appears strange and say, "Well,
*that* theory certainly looks peculiar. Let's find out if it's right,"
and then will design an experiment to test whether the predictions of
the theory are right or wrong. If several such experiments indicate
that the theory is right, then the scientist will say, "Well, nature
certainly behaves in peculiar ways, but it does appear that it behaves
this way."

A crank will get stuck on the "Well, *that* theory certainly looks
peculiar" stage and will never check whether nature really does behave
that way, peculiar or not. In so doing, the crank will insist that
nature must be as simple as he has preconceived it, and not
particularly care whether nature is really that way or not.

PD

Sam Wormley

2005-12-21 15:07:14 UTC

And this is what marks the difference between a scientist and a crank.
A scientist will look at a theory that appears strange and say, "Well,
*that* theory certainly looks peculiar. Let's find out if it's right,"
and then will design an experiment to test whether the predictions of
the theory are right or wrong. If several such experiments indicate
that the theory is right, then the scientist will say, "Well, nature
certainly behaves in peculiar ways, but it does appear that it behaves
this way."
A crank will get stuck on the "Well, *that* theory certainly looks
peculiar" stage and will never check whether nature really does behave
that way, peculiar or not. In so doing, the crank will insist that
nature must be as simple as he has preconceived it, and not
particularly care whether nature is really that way or not.
PD

Then there are non scientists like Greenfield or Seto... that either
fail to understand what the theory says, or they just plain *don't like*
what the theory says... and claim it is wrong without any justification!

The loss is theirs.

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-21 15:14:44 UTC

Post by Sam Wormley

And this is what marks the difference between a scientist and a crank.
A scientist will look at a theory that appears strange and say, "Well,
*that* theory certainly looks peculiar. Let's find out if it's right,"
and then will design an experiment to test whether the predictions of
the theory are right or wrong. If several such experiments indicate
that the theory is right, then the scientist will say, "Well, nature
certainly behaves in peculiar ways, but it does appear that it behaves
this way."
A crank will get stuck on the "Well, *that* theory certainly looks
peculiar" stage and will never check whether nature really does behave
that way, peculiar or not. In so doing, the crank will insist that
nature must be as simple as he has preconceived it, and not
particularly care whether nature is really that way or not.
PD

Not only don't they understand or like it... they don't even
hear it. They aren't even aware *that* the theory says something.
That is the reason why everything bounces on them.

Post by Sam Wormley
The loss is theirs.

and the fun is ours :-)

Dirk Vdm

Androcles

2005-12-26 12:38:25 UTC

Post by PD
A crank will get stuck on the "Well, *that* theory certainly looks
peculiar" stage and will never check whether nature really does behave
that way, peculiar or not. In so doing, the crank will insist that
nature must be as simple as he has preconceived it, and not
particularly care whether nature is really that way or not.
PD

You must be referring to the crank Einstein again, crank.
Androcles

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-21 15:12:01 UTC

Post by GSS
Dear David,
Thanks for your critical response.
Let me respond to your observations.
<QUOTE>
We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due
to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper
meaning, deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic
phenomena in quantum mechanical world.
<END QUOTE>

Nature provides the illusion of a continuous world, for our "common sense" to be
trained in.

Concentrating on the fundmental "deeper reality" that the quantum realm represents, >strips away "indoctrination" and

"complexity". Writing a web page such as you have >done doesn't make it clearer for anyone. EinsteinHoax does that too.

Most scientists and engineers can exactly pinpoint what is
so terribly wrong with the following quote from Wittke's postings.
Can you pinpoint it as well?
This is an interesting exercise for you.

| "It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the
| Lorentz Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between
| reference frames having a relative velocity. What is too
| often not recognized that, in so doing, it provides the
| transformations for all other physical quantities! These
| remaining transformations may be determined by applying the
| conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
| equations.
|
| Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time
| required to traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation
| for Velocity must equal the Lorentz Transformation for
| Length [1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
| Transformation for Time [(1-c^2/c^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz
| Transformation for Velocity is therefore equal to
| 1/(1-c^2/c^2). (As incredible as it may seem, the writer has
| received a communication from an individual who asserts that
| a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined
| by dividing the Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by
| the Lorentz Transformation for Time even though velocity is
| defined as length divided by time! I suspect that this
| individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining
| the intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in
| the wrong line of work, I understand that Walmart is
| hiring.)"

Dirk Vdm

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-12-21 16:00:45 UTC

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

Piggybacking on Dirk's reply...

Nature provides the illusion of a continuous world, for our "common

sense" to be

trained in.

Concentrating on the fundmental "deeper reality" that the quantum

realm represents, >strips away "indoctrination" and
"complexity". Writing a web page such as you have >done doesn't make it
clearer for anyone. EinsteinHoax does that too.

From what I've managed to get through of his postings, he starts out fine.
He takes himself seriously enough that he writes as if an authority, as if
authoring a textbook or lecturing to those more ignorant than himself.
And then he just goes horribly wrong.

But that should be expected the moment one starts reading of things like
"indoctrination", or scientists not demanding "deeper understanding". The
former, the plea of "Why is everyone stupid except for me?", is about the
surest sign of a crackpot-- if he disagrees with extant theory that
doesn't make him a crackpot, if he have a theory of his own that
doesn't make him a crackpot, but if he can't even understand why it
seemed like a good idea and caught on and has such staying power, then he
doesn't understand it well enough to presume to lecture about it. Failing
to understand, he assumes it must be the result of character flaws among a
worldwide community that makes it their job to study these things. As The
Bible says, the fool calls everything foolish.

For the latter, that scientists don't demand a "deeper understanding", I
can only presume he's completely ignorant of the hundred and one ways that
scientists have tried to interpret quantum mechanics-- Copenhagan, many
worlds, the transactional interpretation, pilot waves, and so on. The
sci.physics FAQ says more about that. As well as the reformulations of
quantum theory-- geometrically, complex probabilities, from gauge
transformations, exploring its relation to classical physics, and so on.
Buckets of ink have been consumed over these "deeper understanding"
issues, which could only have been missed if he'd never looked.

But no, he promotes himself as the lone voice in the wilderness who dares
to question conventional wisdom. He's not alone, and he's not very good
at it.

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Most scientists and engineers can exactly pinpoint what is
so terribly wrong with the following quote from Wittke's postings.
Can you pinpoint it as well?
This is an interesting exercise for you.
| "It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the
| Lorentz Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between
| reference frames having a relative velocity. What is too
| often not recognized that, in so doing, it provides the
| transformations for all other physical quantities! These
| remaining transformations may be determined by applying the
| conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
| equations.
|
| Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time
| required to traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation
| for Velocity must equal the Lorentz Transformation for
| Length [1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
| Transformation for Time [(1-c^2/c^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz
| Transformation for Velocity is therefore equal to
| 1/(1-c^2/c^2). (As incredible as it may seem, the writer has
| received a communication from an individual who asserts that

Yeah. As incredible as it may seem, these are not the Lorentz
transformations for length or time. But finding the transformation for
velocities by dividing the transformation for length by the transformation
for time is something that's done in every single undergraduate textbook
on special relativity, and in one of the last chapters of most freshman
physics texts. They also show how to transform accelerations and forces.

So how unrecognized is that? He took a standard exercise and claimed it
as his own innovation, something those poor, deluded PhDs had never
thought of doing... and then he got the wrong answer.

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
| a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined
| by dividing the Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by
| the Lorentz Transformation for Time even though velocity is
| defined as length divided by time! I suspect that this
| individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining
| the intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in
| the wrong line of work, I understand that Walmart is
| hiring.)"

Yes, if this individual said something silly it can only be that he's a
PhD with a vested interest in maintaining the intellectual status quo.
"Why is everyone stupid except for me?"

--
Irony: "Small businesses want relief from the flood of spam clogging their
in-boxes, but they fear a proposed national 'Do Not Spam' registry will
make it impossible to use e-mail as a marketing tool."
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/10/newscolumn6.html

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-21 16:45:15 UTC

"Gregory L. Hansen" <***@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:dobu7d$h3c$***@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

[ snip backed piggy :-P ]

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Most scientists and engineers can exactly pinpoint what is
so terribly wrong with the following quote from Wittke's postings.
Can you pinpoint it as well?
This is an interesting exercise for you.
| "It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the
| Lorentz Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between
| reference frames having a relative velocity. What is too
| often not recognized that, in so doing, it provides the
| transformations for all other physical quantities! These
| remaining transformations may be determined by applying the
| conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
| equations.
|
| Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time
| required to traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation
| for Velocity must equal the Lorentz Transformation for
| Length [1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
| Transformation for Time [(1-c^2/c^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz
| Transformation for Velocity is therefore equal to
| 1/(1-c^2/c^2). (As incredible as it may seem, the writer has
| received a communication from an individual who asserts that

I must pick a nit here.
I wouldn't call that "dividing the transformations", but "applying
the chain rule". With the Leibniz notation, this merely *looks*
like dividing. Perhaps that is another thing that physics students
should get thoroughly explained.

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
So how unrecognized is that? He took a standard exercise and claimed it
as his own innovation, something those poor, deluded PhDs had never
thought of doing... and then he got the wrong answer.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
| a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined
| by dividing the Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by
| the Lorentz Transformation for Time even though velocity is
| defined as length divided by time! I suspect that this
| individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining
| the intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in
| the wrong line of work, I understand that Walmart is
| hiring.)"

Yes, if this individual said something silly it can only be that he's a
PhD with a vested interest in maintaining the intellectual status quo.
"Why is everyone stupid except for me?"

Perhaps that particular PhD was also a good mathematician ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-12-21 18:05:18 UTC

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[ snip backed piggy :-P ]

I don't really see the chain rule involved at all. Strictly speaking, the
transformed velocity, u', by definition is

u' = dx'/dt'

= ((dx + v dt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) / ((dt + v dx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

But if you like finite ratios as much as Don does, you could also write

u' = delta x' / delta t'

= ((delta x + v delta t)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

/ ((delta t + v delta x / c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-21 18:32:11 UTC

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[ snip backed piggy :-P ]

I don't really see the chain rule involved at all. Strictly speaking, the
transformed velocity, u', by definition is
u' = dx'/dt'
= ((dx + v dt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) / ((dt + v dx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

Yes, but that's not a division :-)
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt' <== chain rule
= dx'/dt / dt'dt <== derivative of inverse
= d[g (x+v t) ] / dt / ( d[g (t + v dx)] / dt )
= g ( dx/dt + v ) / ( g (1 + v dx/dt) )
= ( dx/dt + v ) / ( 1 + v dx/dt )
= (u+v) / (1 + u v)

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
But if you like finite ratios as much as Don does, you could also write
u' = delta x' / delta t'
= ((delta x + v delta t)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
/ ((delta t + v delta x / c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Yes, then it's a division, but only valid for constant
or average velocities. You still must take a limit then...
But it was just a nit...

There's still the exercise (for GSS!), why is Wittke wrong?

Dirk Vdm

Mike

2005-12-26 20:13:35 UTC

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[ snip backed piggy :-P ]

Inetial reference frames (actually globally inertial) - error 1

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
| What is too often not recognized that, in so doing, it provides the
| transformations for all other physical quantities! These
| remaining transformations may be determined by applying the
| conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
| equations.

I woukd also call the use of "conventional" an error but ok.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
|
| Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time
| required to traverse that length,

This is the definition of units for velocity [L]/[T]. v = ds/dt is the
correct definition. - error 2

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
|the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity must equal the Lorentz Transformation for
| Length [1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
| Transformation for Time [(1-c^2/c^2)^0.5].

Due to error 2, this accounts to elementary error 3.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
| The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity is therefore equal to
| 1/(1-c^2/c^2). (As incredible as it may seem, the writer has
| received a communication from an individual who asserts that

Mr Hansen does not know the chain rule. He is the perfect support for
Wittke.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
I must pick a nit here.

Yeah, pick a nit. If it were someone else you would've assign him to a
primonent place in imoortal fumbles.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
I wouldn't call that "dividing the transformations", but "applying
the chain rule". With the Leibniz notation, this merely *looks*
like dividing. Perhaps that is another thing that physics students
should get thoroughly explained.

I see you made it past the square root Dork.

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
I don't really see the chain rule involved at all. Strictly speaking, the
transformed velocity, u', by definition is
u' = dx'/dt'
= ((dx + v dt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) / ((dt + v dx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

Gee, I wonder if Hansen and Wittke are the same person. Wouaoua.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Yes, then it's a division, but only valid for constant
or average velocities. You still must take a limit then...
But it was just a nit...
There's still the exercise (for GSS!), why is Wittke wrong?

is GSS an air carrier? hahahahahahahahaha

Mike

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-26 21:41:54 UTC

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[ snip backed piggy :-P ]

Inetial reference frames (actually globally inertial) - error 1

Irrelevant nitpick.

I woukd also call the use of "conventional" an error but ok.

You woukd?

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
|
| Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time
| required to traverse that length,

This is the definition of units for velocity [L]/[T]. v = ds/dt is the
correct definition. - error 2

That sentence is correct.
There is no error anywhere near.

Due to error 2, this accounts to elementary error 3.

There was no error 2.
This is wrong for reasons you can't even begin to imagine.
Don't even think about trying to imagine them.

Mr Hansen does not know the chain rule. He is the perfect support for
Wittke.

No, Greg was working with constant or average speeds.
Wittke is just stupid - it's hard to explain, but if you
look inside with an open mind, you might understand.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
I must pick a nit here.

Yeah, pick a nit. If it were someone else you would've
assign him to a primonent place in imoortal fumbles.

You still haven't understood the idea of my little list.
It takes ignorance and arrogance to find your way to it:
| "Imbecile, retarded, moron, psychotic Dirt of the Motel, I
| gave just one answer and whether it is right or wrong I
| stock with it. You already have given three answers stupid,
| idiot, psychotic, paranoid, physicist wannabe."
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html

hm, forget that look inside. It won't work.

Dirk Vdm

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-12-27 03:45:00 UTC

Yes, but that's not a division :-)
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt' <== chain rule

But why would you do that? That's relating quantities in different
frames-- you don't know what dx'/dt or dt/dt' are unless you have the
transformations. But if you have them, you can calculate dx'/dt'
directly.

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
= dx'/dt / dt'dt <== derivative of inverse
= d[g (x+v t) ] / dt / ( d[g (t + v dx)] / dt )
= g ( dx/dt + v ) / ( g (1 + v dx/dt) )
= ( dx/dt + v ) / ( 1 + v dx/dt )
= (u+v) / (1 + u v)

--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-27 12:49:09 UTC

Yes, but that's not a division :-)
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt' <== chain rule

But indeed we already *have* the transformations of the
coordinate differentials, and we have them in both directions.
We are now looking for the transformation of the derivative of
some function x'(t') of the coordinates.
You just used one of the transformations yourself in the above
expression :-)

The idea is to calculate what happens with the coordinates of
a set of events (world line) given by some function x'(t'),
where we already know the derivative u(t) of the function x(t),
and where we know how the differentials dt' and dx' transform
as functions of the dt and dx.

Physicists and engineers always (and mathematicians sometimes)
leave out the function arguments and identify the function names
with the arguments. To do it properly we should write x' as
X'(T(t')), or even better, as [X'oT](t'). Bringing the function names
and arguments back in and using "correct" notation, using the
derivative operators d/dt and d/dt' [*] and writing them as d/dt[F]
as opposed to df/dt, we should apply the chain rule as follows:
u'(t') = d/dt'[X'oT] (t')
= d/dt[X'] (T(t')) * d/dt'[T] (t')
This is usually symbolically written as
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt'
where the arguments of the functions are left out as well.

The next step
dt/dt' = 1 / dt'/dt
which, using [I] and [1] for resp. the identity and the constant
function to 1, and T' for the inverse of T, can be properly
written down (and derived) as follows:
1 = [1] (t')
= d/dt'[I] (t')
= d/dt'[T'oT] (t')
= d/dt[T'] (T(t')) * d/dt'[T] (t')
from which
d/dt'[T] (t') = 1 / ( d/dt[T'] (T(t')) )
and symbolically, leaving out the argument t'
dt/dt' = 1 / dt'/dt

[*] Note: The letters t and t' in the operator symbols d/dt and
d/dt' are not argument letters. Writing the operators as D and D'
would be even more appropriate.

Dirk Vdm

--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"

Gregory L. Hansen

2005-12-27 15:39:51 UTC

Yes, but that's not a division :-)
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt' <== chain rule

We could also write u'(t')=d/dt'(x'(x(x',t'),t(x',t')) or

d/dt'(x'(x(x'(x,t),t'(x,t)),t(x'(x,t),t'(x,t)))

or continue that as far as you like. But the velocity in the primed frame
is the derivative of position in the primed frame with respect to time in
the primed frame, u'=dx'/dt'. If we have dx' and dt' in terms of x and t,
then there's nothing left to do except to plug them in. If we had x(q,r)
and t(q,r) and wanted to express u' in terms of q and r, that would be
different. But as the problem is stated, x and t are parameters, not
functions. You don't take the derivatives of parameters, you just plug
them in.

Using the chain rule gives you the right answer, as you've shown. It just
seems like an extra step that doesn't lend physical insight. dx'/dt is
mixing measurements across frames. I don't look at that and say "Aha!"

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
The next step
dt/dt' = 1 / dt'/dt
which, using [I] and [1] for resp. the identity and the constant
function to 1, and T' for the inverse of T, can be properly
1 = [1] (t')
= d/dt'[I] (t')
= d/dt'[T'oT] (t')
= d/dt[T'] (T(t')) * d/dt'[T] (t')
from which
d/dt'[T] (t') = 1 / ( d/dt[T'] (T(t')) )
and symbolically, leaving out the argument t'
dt/dt' = 1 / dt'/dt
[*] Note: The letters t and t' in the operator symbols d/dt and
d/dt' are not argument letters. Writing the operators as D and D'
would be even more appropriate.
Dirk Vdm

--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"

--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-27 17:37:37 UTC

Yes, but that's not a division :-)
u' = dx'/dt'
= dx'/dt * dt/dt' <== chain rule

But that is the entire point I am trying to make :-)
When you want to describe the motion of a particle, you *do*
model an object's location x as a mathematical *function* of time t.
I introduced capital letters to prevent confusing the functions
with the arguments (coordinates), because all the coordinates
are all functions of one another, in one case as the world line
of an object, in another case through the transformation
equations.
We have for example the world line
X: R --> R: t --> X(t)
which is symbolically written as
x(t)
and, likewise a transformation function
T': RxX --> R: (t,x) --> T'(t,x) = g (t+ v x)
symbolically written as
t' = g (t+ v x)
etc...

As long as we are just working with coordinates, the 'short'
equations are perfectly okay and usable, but as soon as we
are going to calculate derivatives of world lines, it's good
to know what exactly we are doing.

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
You don't take the derivatives of parameters, you just plug
them in.

Indeed, we don't take the derivative of parameters.
We take the derivative of functions.
That's the point I am trying to make.

Post by Gregory L. Hansen
Using the chain rule gives you the right answer, as you've shown. It just
seems like an extra step that doesn't lend physical insight. dx'/dt is
mixing measurements across frames. I don't look at that and say "Aha!"

Well, actually dx'/dt is describing the position in the primed
frame as a function of the time in the unprimed frame. There
is nothing wrong with that, since each point has 4 numbers
associated with it x, t, x', and t'. In fact, it is essential part of
the derivation.

Dirk Vdm

--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"

--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.

Dirk Van de moortel

2005-12-18 11:14:37 UTC

Yes, I had a look at these.

Excellent.
Now have another look at them and try to imagine that they
were written specifically with you in mind.

Dirk Vdm

Androcles

2005-12-18 15:41:07 UTC