| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
glird
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
 |
|
On Oct 19, 2:18 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
[quote]glirdskrev:
In a later posting, entitled "The missing symbol", I will prove[/quote]
that
the two "calculus" equations are totally defective. Then I will show
how they led to the equations that followed his next two, "delta tau/
delta y, delta tau/delta z". Then I will state the needed symbol and
explain what it physically means.
Finally, I will show WHY E eliminated the needed symbol and thereby
screwed up the rest of his derivation; and how that blocked all
mathematical physicists from understanding the physics imposed by the
rest of the equations in his 1905 paper AND by the LTE - which he
neither understood or derived therein. >>
[quote]So is your point that the Lorentz transform doesn>t follow from
the postulates of SR? :-)
[/quote]
There are three such postulates.
1. the equations of Physics should hod good regardless of the chosen
frame of reference.
2. The speed of light in empty space is a constant, equal to c.
3. If we set clocks of all systems to MEASURE that speed as c, they
will do so
regardless of the state of inertial motion of any such system.
The Lorentz Transformation group is only ONE of the infinite number
of groups that
obey and allow those postulates to hold good.
If you want to see them all, look at Einstein>s group:
tau = phi(v)beta(t - vx/c^2,
xi = phi(v)beta(x - vt)
eta = phi(v)y,
zeta = phi(v)z;
where beta = 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and phi(v) can have any value at
all.
The fact that phi(v) CAN have any value at all proves that this group
is numerically unbounded, thus has an infinite number of
members. :-) = (-:
glird |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
RustyJames
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 20, 12:33 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 2:18 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
glirdskrev:
In a later posting, entitled "The missing symbol", I will prove
that
the two "calculus" equations are totally defective. Then I will show
how they led to the equations that followed his next two, "delta tau/
delta y, delta tau/delta z". Then I will state the needed symbol and
explain what it physically means.
Finally, I will show WHY E eliminated the needed symbol and thereby
screwed up the rest of his derivation; and how that blocked all
mathematical physicists from understanding the physics imposed by the
rest of the equations in his 1905 paper AND by the LTE - which he
neither understood or derived therein.
So is your point that the Lorentz transform doesn>t follow from
the postulates of SR? :-)
There are three such postulates.
1. the equations of Physics should hod good regardless of the chosen
frame of reference.
2. The speed of light in empty space is a constant, equal to c.
3. If we set clocks of all systems to MEASURE that speed as c, they
will do so
regardless of the state of inertial motion of any such system.
The Lorentz Transformation group is only ONE of the infinite number
of groups that
obey and allow those postulates to hold good.
If you want to see them all, look at Einstein>s group:
tau = phi(v)beta(t - vx/c^2,
xi = phi(v)beta(x - vt)
eta = phi(v)y,
zeta = phi(v)z;
where beta = 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and phi(v) can have any value at
all.
The fact that phi(v) CAN have any value at all proves that this group
is numerically unbounded, thus has an infinite number of
members. :-) = (-:
glird
[/quote]
The only way Special Relativity can be proven is by first assuming it
is correct
well three-part 1907 paper by Einstein has the math tailored around
the concept to make it work if your so smart I>m sure you can come up
with the math to fit your theories as well but is that what’s really
happing in our universe on a universal and quantum level I>m always
open for the math that proves or disproves what I believe and have
changed my ways for thinking several times due to innovative in sight
new concepts with the math and physical evidence to substantiate their
claims. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dirk Van de moortel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
glird <glird@aol.com> wrote in message
49d80004-d85e-4305-9b90-7668d5d37f37@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
[quote]On Oct 19, 2:47 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
glird wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
glird wrote:
Are you aware, Dirk, that the "a" in Einstein>s ensuing equation
denotes dtau/dt, not an acceleration?
The equation dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unrelated to any
acceleration.
Are you aware what a painfully ignorant and utterly arrogant
fool you are? Dirk
Evidently ignorant and arrogant Dirk can>t answer the question.
I will therefore repeat the rest of my reply, which he omitted:
Does the rest of that reply explain how -without calculus- to
calculate the quantity dtau/dt for an object with proper
acceleration a for which the proper time is given by
tau(t) = c/a arcsinh(a t/c)
where t is coordinate time in some inertial frame, and then how
to express the object>s velocity v(t) from the equation
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
? Dirk Vdm
Yes, as you saw in the following message you quoted;
"snip"
Regards,
glird
[/quote]
It wasn>t there, imbecile.
Does the rest of that reply explain how -without calculus- to
calculate the quantity dtau/dt for an object with proper
acceleration a for which the proper time is given by
tau(t) = c/a arcsinh(a t/c)
where t is coordinate time in some inertial frame, and then how
to express the object>s velocity v(t) from the equation
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
?
Dirk Vdm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul B. Andersen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
glird skrev:
[quote]On Oct 19, 2:18 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
glirdskrev:
In a later posting, entitled "The missing symbol", I will prove
that
the two "calculus" equations are totally defective. Then I will show
how they led to the equations that followed his next two, "delta tau/
delta y, delta tau/delta z". Then I will state the needed symbol and
explain what it physically means.
Finally, I will show WHY E eliminated the needed symbol and thereby
screwed up the rest of his derivation; and how that blocked all
mathematical physicists from understanding the physics imposed by the
rest of the equations in his 1905 paper AND by the LTE - which he
neither understood or derived therein.
So is your point that the Lorentz transform doesn>t follow from
the postulates of SR? :-)
There are three such postulates.
1. the equations of Physics should hod good regardless of the chosen
frame of reference.
2. The speed of light in empty space is a constant, equal to c.
3. If we set clocks of all systems to MEASURE that speed as c, they
will do so
regardless of the state of inertial motion of any such system.
The Lorentz Transformation group is only ONE of the infinite number
of groups that
obey and allow those postulates to hold good.
If you want to see them all, look at Einstein>s group:
tau = phi(v)beta(t - vx/c^2,
xi = phi(v)beta(x - vt)
eta = phi(v)y,
zeta = phi(v)z;
where beta = 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and phi(v) can have any value at
all.
The fact that phi(v) CAN have any value at all proves that this group
is numerically unbounded, thus has an infinite number of
members. :-) = (-:
glird
[/quote]
So let me rephrase the question:
If we define two coordinate systems like Einstein did in 'electrodynamics',
can then this coordinate transform between these two systems:
tau = beta(t - vx/c^2,
xi = beta(x - vt)
eta = y,
zeta = z;
where beta = 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
be shown to follow from the postulates of SR?
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Strich.9
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
This discussion is continued in the following thread:
The Nature of Physical Reality - Analyzing the Properties of Space-
time
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/89c54bc4ad1f20a4?scoring=d& |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
