Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382196 > unrolled thread

The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 02:00 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-24 19:13 +1000
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 05:08 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-25 12:58 +1000
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-24 11:54 +0200
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-24 20:42 +1000
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-24 13:28 +0200
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-24 11:48 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-25 07:23 +1000
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-24 09:48 -0500
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 08:18 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-24 18:50 -0500
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:40 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-25 13:45 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:35 -0500
              Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:34 -0700
                Imbecile Thomas Smid perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-26 11:31 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-25 17:55 -0400
              Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:30 -0700
                Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 16:18 +0200
                  Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:39 -0700
                    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:55 -0500
                      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 13:38 -0700
                        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:15 -0500
                          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:13 -0700
                            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:46 -0500
                              Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 14:25 -0700
                            Cretin Thomas Smid persists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:27 -0700
                    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 07:37 +0200
                      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 09:36 -0700
                        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-28 09:48 -0700
                    Imbecile Thomas Smid perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-27 22:51 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 01:48 -0700
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 12:52 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-24 22:39 +0200
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-24 18:45 -0500
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:32 -0700
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 13:46 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:59 -0700
              Thomas Smid, autistic imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-25 14:44 -0700
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 15:45 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 17:52 -0500
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 14:35 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-09 17:07 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 23:06 -0700
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 09:50 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-24 11:49 -0700
    The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-24 11:51 -0700
      Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-24 11:55 -0700
      Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-27 10:32 -0500
        Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-27 09:28 -0700
    Exposing Thomas Smid's imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-27 07:49 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-27 12:34 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:16 -0700
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 13:40 -0700
        Cretin Thomas Smid perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:38 -0700
        Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 08:53 -0700
          Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 13:40 -0700
            Imbecile Thomas Smid perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-04 13:42 -0700
            Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 14:59 -0700
    Cretin Thomas Smid is proven wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-28 08:57 -0700
    Cretin Thomas Smid proven wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-28 09:17 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:51 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:56 -0700
      Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-02 18:20 -0700
    Re: The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 17:16 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#382313

El domingo, 24 de abril de 2016, 10:49:02 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 4/24/16 4/24/16   4:00 AM, Thomas wrote:
> > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at
> > the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory
> > of Special Relativity. [...]
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Note also that this is NOT the postulate Einstein used in 1905; his postulate 
> was "Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the 
> determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving 
> body." (In his paper, "stationary" designates an ARBITRARY inertial frame.)
>
I consider opportune to remember you (once more) that the holding good of the
1905R second postulate that you are quoting here is a necessary condition for 
the very successful resolution of the system of Newtonian equations (with 
Euclidean and Cartesian 3 space coordinates separated from the 1905 Einstein's 
defined time) that is taking place continuously since already almost four 
decades in all GPS receptors, a very well established EXPERIMENTAL FACT. 

And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.
 
> TODAY, neither form of this postulate is required to derive the Lorentz 
> transform of SR. The first postulate alone, along with the definition of 
> inertial frame, implies that only three transformation groups are admissible to 
> relate inertial frames to each other: the Euclid (4-D) group, the Galilei group, 
> and the Lorentz group. Of these only the last is in agreement with experiments; 
> the Lorentz group, of course, essentially _IS_ Special Relativity.
> 
> Group theory is essential to this modern derivation. Einstein's first postulate 
> (the PoR) is essentially a symmetry principle, and groups are the mathematical 
> expression of such symmetries. While group theory was known to mathematicians 
> long before 1905, its application to physics was not until later. Today groups 
> are an essential part of theoretical physics.
>
In the Introduction of the June 30 paper, the 1905R PoR says:

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

As does not exist here any symmetry, all what you say in this post supports that 1905R and SR are very different theories; this seems to me very strange, remembering you saying for years exactly the opposite.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382750

On 4/26/16 4/26/16   5:45 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
> introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.

YOU are the one introducing the anachronism, by attempting to limit your
thoughts to a 1905 paper in 2016, and treating it as if it were Holy Writ. That
is OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID, and contrary to the whole concept of science.


> In the Introduction of the June 30 paper, the 1905R PoR says: "the same laws
>  of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
>  which the equations of mechanics hold good".

All you do here is show your personal ignorance about how scientific papers of
the day were organized. That is _NOT_ the PoR, that is merely text from an
INTRODUCTION that paraphrases and describes (in generalities) what will be
shown below.

The ACTUAL PoR, his first postulate, is in section 2 -- just READ the first
paragraph of that section; it SAYS that it defines the PoR:
    1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
       are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to
       the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform
       translatory motion.

	(Also remember the definition of coordinates from section 1.)


> As does not exist here any symmetry,

NONSENSE! The error is YOURS, because you did not actually use the PoR. The PoR
as Einstein actually defined it is EXPLICITLY a symmetry principle (though he
did not use those words).


> all what you say in this post supports that 1905R and SR are very different
> theories; this seems to me very strange, remembering you saying for years
> exactly the opposite.

You are VERY confused. Your mistakes have kept you from understanding what I
said. The theory presented by Einstein in 1905, and what we call SR today, are
EXACTLY THE SAME PHYSICAL THEORIES [#]. But we have, of course, learned quite a
lot about this theory since then, and now know that some of the statements he
made in that paper are wrong (but they do not affect the theory itself).

	[#] Well, their geometrical parts, omitting the electrodynamics which
	today we put in a separate theory called "classical electrodynamics".


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383164

El martes, 3 de mayo de 2016, 18:52:21 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 4/26/16 4/26/16   5:45 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
> > introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.
> 
> YOU are the one introducing the anachronism, by attempting to limit your
> thoughts to a 1905 paper in 2016, and treating it as if it were Holy Writ. That
> is OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID, and contrary to the whole concept of science.
>
YOU are the one introducing the anachronism, putting in Einstein's mind the
"ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept of today SR that does not exist at all yet 
in the 1905 context, what is really contrary to the whole concept of science 
where the presence of any thing before its creation or development moment (an 
anachronism) implies always a never accepted contradiction (a first time can 
never be preceded by another one, it must be always unique).

Your conception of an anachronism as a limitation in the thoughts of the reader
is totally wrong. The limitation is not in the reader, but in the writer 
thoughts, that must remain free of any information with source in his/her 
future. Any reading must be always a unidirectional transmission of information 
from the past (writer) to the future (reader), NEVER in the opposite sense (an 
anachronism).
 
> 
> > In the Introduction of the June 30 paper, the 1905R PoR says: "the same laws
> >  of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
> >  which the equations of mechanics hold good".
> 
> All you do here is show your personal ignorance about how scientific papers of
> the day were organized. That is _NOT_ the PoR, that is merely text from an
> INTRODUCTION that paraphrases and describes (in generalities) what will be
> shown below.
>
After addressing the interaction of a magnet and a conductor in the
Introduction of his June 30 paper, 1905 Einstein continues:

[ Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has 
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which
he equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture, the purport
of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" to the status
of a postulate,  and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of 
the emitting body.  ]

What I see here (and in the rest of the Introduction) is the first mention of
the two postulates from which 1905 Einstein develops his new theory, addressing 
already the relation between  them and the purpose of the theory, with a clear 
initial rejection of the absolute rest concept and its associated "luminiferous 
ether".

The denotation "Principle of Relativity" (with the previous much short text I
quote linking laws of electrodynamics and optics with Newtonian equations) for 
the first postulate is declared used in the rest of the paper.

> The ACTUAL PoR, his first postulate, is in section 2 -- just READ the first
> paragraph of that section; it SAYS that it defines the PoR:
>     1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
>        are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to
>        the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform
>        translatory motion.
>
Yes, ALL physical laws (FIRST mechanics, including electrodynamics and optics
ones) hold good in any stationary system (SS) of coordinates, unique type of 
entity where 1905 Einstein defines a relative time to it, including any 
different SSm where any  uniform moving system IN (or relative to) SS can be 
considered at the relative rest of SSm.
 
> 	(Also remember the definition of coordinates from section 1.)

Yes, the 3-Cartesian coordinates of an Euclidean space.

> 
> 
> > As does not exist here any symmetry,
> 
> NONSENSE! The error is YOURS, because you did not actually use the PoR. The PoR
> as Einstein actually defined it is EXPLICITLY a symmetry principle (though he
> did not use those words).
>
That is only another one of your anachronisms, in the 1905 text does NOT appear
any symmetric principle at all; the Mathematicians Herman Minkowsky and Emily 
Noether works belong to the 1905R future.

Following 1905 Einstein, the moving clock is the one running slower than the
rest one, not at all at the inverse, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since 1977 first GPS 
satellite launching.
 
> 
> > all what you say in this post supports that 1905R and SR are very different
> > theories; this seems to me very strange, remembering you saying for years
> > exactly the opposite.
> 
> You are VERY confused. Your mistakes have kept you from understanding what I
> said. The theory presented by Einstein in 1905, and what we call SR today, are
> EXACTLY THE SAME PHYSICAL THEORIES [#]. But we have, of course, learned quite a
> lot about this theory since then, and now know that some of the statements he
> made in that paper are wrong (but they do not affect the theory itself).
> 
> 	[#] Well, their geometrical parts, omitting the electrodynamics which
> 	today we put in a separate theory called "classical electrodynamics".
> 
You recognize here very clearly that today SR is already no more THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, putting explicitly out from it as a separate 
theory the same laws of ECTRODYNAMICS and optics that 1905 Einstein considers 
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold 
good, not at all as a minor detail, but as a conjecture that he raises (the
purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the 
status of his FIRST postulate.

You are  not only putting out from 1905R (in a totally arbitrary manner) his
FIRST PoR postulate, but also the SECOND that includes the independence of 
vacuum light velocity on the source one, as repeated in Section 2 already 
involving the very important time definition for ONLY stationary system of 
coordinates that appears in the previous Section 1.

And having already a 1905R without no postulates at all, as the result of your
own totally wrong interpretations of the 1905 text (unavoidable consequences of 
your repeated anachronisms), can maintain you yet that 1905R and SR are EXACTLY
THE SAME PHYSICAL THEORIES, saying now that some statements in it are wrong , 
but not affecting the theory itself?
  
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383179

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 2:35:12 PM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El martes, 3 de mayo de 2016, 18:52:21 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > On 4/26/16 4/26/16   5:45 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
> > > introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.
> > 
> > YOU are the one introducing the anachronism, by attempting to limit your
> > thoughts to a 1905 paper in 2016, and treating it as if it were Holy Writ. That
> > is OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID, and contrary to the whole concept of science.
> >
> YOU are the one introducing the anachronism, putting in Einstein's mind the
> "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept of today SR that does not exist at all yet 
> in the 1905 context, what is really contrary to the whole concept of science 
> where the presence of any thing before its creation or development moment (an 
> anachronism) implies always a never accepted contradiction (a first time can 
> never be preceded by another one, it must be always unique).

Imbecile, you don't even understand what "anachronism" means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382808

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:45:37 AM UTC+2, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2016, 10:49:02 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > On 4/24/16 4/24/16   4:00 AM, Thomas wrote:
> > > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at
> > > the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory
> > > of Special Relativity. [...]
> > 
> > Nope.
> > 
> > Note also that this is NOT the postulate Einstein used in 1905; his postulate 
> > was "Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the 
> > determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving 
> > body." (In his paper, "stationary" designates an ARBITRARY inertial frame.)
> >
> I consider opportune to remember you (once more) that the holding good of the
> 1905R second postulate that you are quoting here is a necessary condition for 
> the very successful resolution of the system of Newtonian equations (with 
> Euclidean and Cartesian 3 space coordinates separated from the 1905 Einstein's 
> defined time) that is taking place continuously since already almost four 
> decades in all GPS receptors, a very well established EXPERIMENTAL FACT. 
> 
> And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
> introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.

No, you are incorrect. You are inventing a pet concept which is absent from
Einstein's paper.

> > TODAY, neither form of this postulate is required to derive the Lorentz 
> > transform of SR. The first postulate alone, along with the definition of 
> > inertial frame, implies that only three transformation groups are admissible to 
> > relate inertial frames to each other: the Euclid (4-D) group, the Galilei group, 
> > and the Lorentz group. Of these only the last is in agreement with experiments; 
> > the Lorentz group, of course, essentially _IS_ Special Relativity.
> > 
> > Group theory is essential to this modern derivation. Einstein's first postulate 
> > (the PoR) is essentially a symmetry principle, and groups are the mathematical 
> > expression of such symmetries. While group theory was known to mathematicians 
> > long before 1905, its application to physics was not until later. Today groups 
> > are an essential part of theoretical physics.
> >
> In the Introduction of the June 30 paper, the 1905R PoR says:
> 
> "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

You are being misled by the 1905 scientific writing standards. One such
standard was the relatively common habit of providing no references.
(Today many people confuse it to imply that Einstein
somehow "wanted to make his paper appear totally original" or some such
nonsense.) Another habit of the day was _not_ labelling the initial
informal summary of the paper as such. Today's papers label them explicitly
by writing ABSTRACT or SUMMARY or something similar. This was not so in 1905
(as a quick trip to the nearest physics library will tell you). The section
you are referring to simply summarises informally the results by listing the 
surprising results. The terms used there, like "the speed
of light" are NOT YET DEFINED (because what "speed" actually means has
not been defined yet), they are only LISTED, so the reader can orient himself
in terms of what's to come and how the definitions will be designed to mimic
the corresponding Newtonian concepts for small speeds.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382821

El jueves, 5 de mayo de 2016, 2:06:33 (UTC-4), JanPB  escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:45:37 AM UTC+2, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El domingo, 24 de abril de 2016, 10:49:02 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > > On 4/24/16 4/24/16   4:00 AM, Thomas wrote:
> > > > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at
> > > > the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory
> > > > of Special Relativity. [...]
> > > 
> > > Nope.
> > > 
> > > Note also that this is NOT the postulate Einstein used in 1905; his postulate 
> > > was "Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the 
> > > determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving 
> > > body." (In his paper, "stationary" designates an ARBITRARY inertial frame.)
> > >
> > I consider opportune to remember you (once more) that the holding good of the
> > 1905R second postulate that you are quoting here is a necessary condition for 
> > the very successful resolution of the system of Newtonian equations (with 
> > Euclidean and Cartesian 3 space coordinates separated from the 1905 Einstein's 
> > defined time) that is taking place continuously since already almost four 
> > decades in all GPS receptors, a very well established EXPERIMENTAL FACT. 
> > 
> > And remember also that the "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept that you are
> > introducing here in a 1905 context is only a lamentable anachronism.
> 
> No, you are incorrect. You are inventing a pet concept which is absent from
> Einstein's paper.
>
What "pet concept" are you saying that I am inventing? I am precisely
criticizing the presence of the today SR "ARBITRARY inertial frame" concept 
which is absent from Einstein's paper (he introduces at the beginning of 
Section 1 the "stationary system" of coordinates in which Newtonian equations 
hold good).
 
> > > TODAY, neither form of this postulate is required to derive the Lorentz 
> > > transform of SR. The first postulate alone, along with the definition of 
> > > inertial frame, implies that only three transformation groups are admissible to 
> > > relate inertial frames to each other: the Euclid (4-D) group, the Galilei group, 
> > > and the Lorentz group. Of these only the last is in agreement with experiments; 
> > > the Lorentz group, of course, essentially _IS_ Special Relativity.
> > > 
> > > Group theory is essential to this modern derivation. Einstein's first postulate 
> > > (the PoR) is essentially a symmetry principle, and groups are the mathematical 
> > > expression of such symmetries. While group theory was known to mathematicians 
> > > long before 1905, its application to physics was not until later. Today groups 
> > > are an essential part of theoretical physics.
> > >
> > In the Introduction of the June 30 paper, the 1905R PoR says:
> > 
> > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".
> 
> You are being misled by the 1905 scientific writing standards. One such
> standard was the relatively common habit of providing no references.
> (Today many people confuse it to imply that Einstein
> somehow "wanted to make his paper appear totally original" or some such
> nonsense.) Another habit of the day was _not_ labelling the initial
> informal summary of the paper as such. Today's papers label them explicitly
> by writing ABSTRACT or SUMMARY or something similar. This was not so in 1905
> (as a quick trip to the nearest physics library will tell you). The section
> you are referring to simply summarises informally the results by listing the 
> surprising results. The terms used there, like "the speed
> of light" are NOT YET DEFINED (because what "speed" actually means has
> not been defined yet), they are only LISTED, so the reader can orient himself
> in terms of what's to come and how the definitions will be designed to mimic
> the corresponding Newtonian concepts for small speeds.
>
After addressing the interaction of a magnet and a conductor in the
Introduction of his June 30 paper, 1905 Einstein continues:

[ Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has 
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which 
the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture, the purport
of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" to the status
of a postulate,  and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.  ]

What I see here (and in the rest of the Introduction) is the first mention of
the two postulates from which 1905 Einstein develops his new theory, addressing 
already the relation between  them and the purpose of the theory, with a clear 
initial rejection of the absolute rest concept and its associated "luminiferous 
ether".

The denotation "Principle of Relativity" (with the previous much short text I quote linking laws of electrodynamics and optics with Newtonian equations) for the first postulate is declared used in the rest of the paper.

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

I really do not understand why are you then referring the Introduction as a
simple informal summary listing the surprising results. For me results 
(surprising or not) are just the opposite of the postulates (the starting 
fundamental part of the theory).

By the way, 1905 Einstein takes for granted Newtonian equations, without
defining in any part "speed" (or "velocity") as you seem thinking. The only 
thing he defines (in Section 1) is "time", but only the corresponding relative 
one to some stationary system of coordinates where Newtonian equations hold 
good (the Newtonian center of mass ones corresponding to some body set, as the 
GPS ECI system, Solar system, Galaxy system, etc.).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> --
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382220

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:00:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
>snip cretinisms<

The Thomas Smid imbecile is back. Where have you been all this time? In a lunatic asylum? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382221 — The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382223 — Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:51:39 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote:
> http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

The cretin did get a BSc in Physics. Amazing!

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/thomassmid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382341 — Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid

On 4/24/16 4/24/16 - 1:51 PM, Dono, wrote:
> http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

It is remarkable how wrong-headed that website is.

I only looked at the first two claims -- they are both 100% wrong and display a 
serious lack of understanding on the part of the (anonymous) author.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382348 — Re: The collected imbecilities of Thomas Smid

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 8:32:26 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/24/16 4/24/16 - 1:51 PM, Dono, wrote:
> > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/
> 
> It is remarkable how wrong-headed that website is.
> 
> I only looked at the first two claims -- they are both 100% wrong and display a 
> serious lack of understanding on the part of the (anonymous) author.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Yet, the cretin managed to get a BSc in physics (or so he claims). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382338 — Exposing Thomas Smid's imbecilities

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:00:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
> 
> 
> (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> 

> where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> 
> (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> 

No, imbecile, t1 and t2 in your demented "proof" represent time in two DIFFERENT frames, in motion wrt each other. Time is not absolute, ittransforms according to the rule:

t2=\gamma(V)(t1-V*x1/c^2)


Cretin. Incurable

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382360

W dniu niedziela, 24 kwietnia 2016 11:00:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał:
> I. INTRODUCTION
> 
> The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> 
> 
> II.	PROOF
> 
> 
> Version 1
> 
> We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> 
> (1)  x1=c*t1
> (2)  x2=c*t2
> 
> where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> 
> (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> 
> where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> 
> (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> 
> and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> 
> (5)  x1=c*t
> (6)  x2=c*t
> 
> Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1. Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2. If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> 
> (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> 
> It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> 
> (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> 
> unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Version 2
> 
> In contrast to version 1, we do not take any conventions at all about the time units used in the two reference frames, so we retain the initial equations
> 										
> (9)   x1=c*t1
> (10)  x2=c*t2
> 
> Again, the corresponding detection events in both equations are completely independent of each other (the data in one frame can be obtained without having any knowledge of those obtained in the other frame). This system of equations consists thus of two independent variables (the locations of the detectors x1 and x2) and two dependent variables (the corresponding detection times t1 and  t2). If we would  require that the event (x2,t2) can be represented as a coordinate transformation of the event (x1,t1), we would have the additional constraints
> 
> (11)  x2=x1'=f(x1,t1,v)
> (12)  t2=t1'=g(x1,t1,v)
> 
> where f and g are the transformation functions of the arguments.
> However, (11) would turn the independent variable x2 into a dependent variable, and (12) would, via the inversion of the equation, turn the independent variable x1 into a dependent variable. There would thus be no independent variable left in the system of equations (9) and (10). This would be unacceptable both mathematically and physically.
> 
> 
> III.	DISCUSSION
> 
> As is evident from both of the above considered scenarios, any velocity dependent transformation is inconsistent with the speed of light postulate, Such a transformation is only applicable for material (massive) objects, for which the speed is not invariant in different reference frames. For those, independent measurements in the two reference frames (moving with velocity v  relatively to each other) would instead of (5) and (6) yield
> 
> (13)  x1=u*t
> (14)  x2=(u-v)*t
> 
> i.e. 
> 
> (15)  x2=x1-v*t
> 
> and thus a transformation equation of the form (8) follows naturally.
> In case of a propagating light signal, the problem is of course not the equation (8) but (7) where x1' is assumed to be co-located with x2. If we don't make this assumption, we can without any issues take for instance
>  									
> (16)  x1'=x1-v*t
> 
> as the speed of light postulate is independently satisfied by (5) and (6).
> And this would of course also remove the impossible situation of having a system of equations without any independent variables (as argued in version 2 above).
> 
> A re-evaluation of the special theory of relativity and/or its foundational postulates appears therefore to be advised.
> 
> 
> (an illustrated online version of this article can be found here http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/speed-of-light-postulate.htm )

You waste of time only.

The postulated c = inv, leads directy
to the time correction only:

t' = ... <> t.
r' = c't is relaced by r' = ct' in this pseudotheory.

thus now the t must be transformed,
instead of the speed: c (= c-v).

It's just a stupid math trick - like the famous Ptolemy idiocy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382373

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> I. INTRODUCTION
> 
> The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> 
> 
> II.	PROOF
> 
> 
> Version 1
> 
> We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> 
> (1)  x1=c*t1
> (2)  x2=c*t2
> 
> where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> 
> (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> 
> where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> 
> (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> 
> and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> 
> (5)  x1=c*t
> (6)  x2=c*t

So t1 is measured using one set of units, and t2 uses another set of different units which are then adjusted so they both measure the same value t. Weird, but nothing wrong with your conclusions so far.

> Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1.

This isn't strictly true, because you're making the units different such that they give the same readings to readings that would be different if they were using the same units.

>Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2.

But you've transformed the units between frames to make the readings the same. Effectively you're hiding the data in the units chosen.

>If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> 
> (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> 
> It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> 
> (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> 
> unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).

Einstein used the same units for all frames, and derived the transformation equations between different values, whereas you're transforming units while making all the measurements the same. You could do this for single measurements, but then you'd have to change the units again for all the other measurements.

Conclusion: A moving clock will be measured to tick at a slower rate compared to a stationary one if they both use the same type of clock according to SR. But use a faster ticking moving clock compared to the stationary one as you're doing, and they will indeed be seen to tick at the same rate.

Regards,

Larry Harson

[snipped rest]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382604

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:16:39 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > I. INTRODUCTION
> > 
> > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> > 
> > 
> > II.	PROOF
> > 
> > 
> > Version 1
> > 
> > We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> > 
> > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > (2)  x2=c*t2
> > 
> > where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> > We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> > 
> > (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> > 
> > where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> > 
> > (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> > 
> > and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> > 
> > (5)  x1=c*t
> > (6)  x2=c*t
> 
> So t1 is measured using one set of units, and t2 uses another set of different units which are then adjusted so they both measure the same value t. Weird, but nothing wrong with your conclusions so far.
> 
> > Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1.
> 
> This isn't strictly true, because you're making the units different such that they give the same readings to readings that would be different if they were using the same units.
> 
> >Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2.
> 
> But you've transformed the units between frames to make the readings the same. Effectively you're hiding the data in the units chosen.
> 
> >If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> > 
> > (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> > 
> > It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> > 
> > (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> > 
> > unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).
> 
> Einstein used the same units for all frames, and derived the transformation equations between different values, whereas you're transforming units while making all the measurements the same. You could do this for single measurements, but then you'd have to change the units again for all the other measurements.
> 
> Conclusion: A moving clock will be measured to tick at a slower rate compared to a stationary one if they both use the same type of clock according to SR. But use a faster ticking moving clock compared to the stationary one as you're doing, and they will indeed be seen to tick at the same rate.

With the initial expressions

(1)  x1=c*t1
(2)  x2=c*t2 

I wanted to express the fact that the measurements in the two frames are completely independent (relating to different detector and thus detection events). I could have been even more general by having two different speed of lights c1 and c2 (which you would in general have for arbitrary length and time units). But that would obviously make little sense if you want to verify whether the measured speed if light is the same in each frame. Without knowing and applying the appropriate conversion factor, you could then not compare the measurements. So you may just as well come to a convention regarding the measurements units beforehand, so that speeds are measured the same in each frame. And this requires at least that the length and time units in the two frames are proportional i.e. x1/x2=t1/t2=q . But nothing prevents from going even a bit further with your convention and have q=1, i.e. each frame uses identical rulers and clocks, so

(1)  x1=c*t  (x1/t = speed of light in frame 1)
(2)  x2=c*t  (x2/t = speed of light in frame 2)

Einstein assumed the same measuring units from the outset. But the crucial difference is that he did not allow for an independent measurement of the speed of light in frame 2 (based on separate detection events). His definition for the light postulate is based only on the detection events related to detectors at rest in frame 1

(1a) x1=c*t  (x1/t = speed of light in frame 1)
(2a) x1'=c*t' (x1'/t' = speed of light in frame 1 transformed into frame 2)

where the prime shall indicate that the coordinates of these detection events are evaluated in frame 2 ((1a) and (2a) relate to the same detection events, but (1) and (2) to different detection events)
But if you require that the events (x1,t) and (x2,t) coincide in frame 2 (that is x1'=x2) you get from the above equations 

x1'=x1
t'=t

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382628 — Cretin Thomas Smid perseveres

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 1:40:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
>
> x1'=x1
> t'=t
> 
> Thomas

Cretin. Persistent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382772

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:40:47 PM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:16:39 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > > I. INTRODUCTION
> > > 
> > > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > II.	PROOF
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Version 1
> > > 
> > > We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> > > 
> > > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > > (2)  x2=c*t2
> > > 
> > > where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> > > We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> > > 
> > > (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> > > 
> > > where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> > > 
> > > (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> > > 
> > > and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> > > 
> > > (5)  x1=c*t
> > > (6)  x2=c*t
> > 
> > So t1 is measured using one set of units, and t2 uses another set of different units which are then adjusted so they both measure the same value t. Weird, but nothing wrong with your conclusions so far.
> > 
> > > Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1.
> > 
> > This isn't strictly true, because you're making the units different such that they give the same readings to readings that would be different if they were using the same units.
> > 
> > >Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2.
> > 
> > But you've transformed the units between frames to make the readings the same. Effectively you're hiding the data in the units chosen.
> > 
> > >If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> > > 
> > > (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> > > 
> > > It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> > > 
> > > (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> > > 
> > > unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).
> > 
> > Einstein used the same units for all frames, and derived the transformation equations between different values, whereas you're transforming units while making all the measurements the same. You could do this for single measurements, but then you'd have to change the units again for all the other measurements.
> > 
> > Conclusion: A moving clock will be measured to tick at a slower rate compared to a stationary one if they both use the same type of clock according to SR. But use a faster ticking moving clock compared to the stationary one as you're doing, and they will indeed be seen to tick at the same rate.
> 
> With the initial expressions
> 
> (1)  x1=c*t1
> (2)  x2=c*t2 
> 
> I wanted to express the fact that the measurements in the two frames are completely independent (relating to different detector and thus detection events). I could have been even more general by having two different speed of lights c1 and c2 (which you would in general have for arbitrary length and time units). But that would obviously make little sense if you want to verify whether the measured speed if light is the same in each frame. Without knowing and applying the appropriate conversion factor, you could then not compare the measurements. So you may just as well come to a convention regarding the measurements units beforehand, so that speeds are measured the same in each frame. And this requires at least that the length and time units in the two frames are proportional i.e. x1/x2=t1/t2=q . But nothing prevents from going even a bit further with your convention and have q=1, i.e. each frame uses identical rulers and clocks, so
> 
> (1)  x1=c*t  (x1/t = speed of light in frame 1)
> (2)  x2=c*t  (x2/t = speed of light in frame 2)

You can't set the ratios x1/x2 and t1/t2 independent of one another since they both equal p. Therefore, setting p=1 also means that x1 = x2:

(1) x = c*t
(2) x = c*t

So using identical coordinates, you just end up with identical equations using your strategy.

[snipped rest]

Larry Harson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382789

On Wednesday, 4 May 2016 15:53:24 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:40:47 PM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:16:39 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > > > I. INTRODUCTION
> > > > 
> > > > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > II.	PROOF
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Version 1
> > > > 
> > > > We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> > > > 
> > > > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > > > (2)  x2=c*t2
> > > > 
> > > > where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> > > > We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> > > > 
> > > > (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> > > > 
> > > > where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> > > > 
> > > > (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> > > > 
> > > > and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> > > > 
> > > > (5)  x1=c*t
> > > > (6)  x2=c*t
> > > 
> > > So t1 is measured using one set of units, and t2 uses another set of different units which are then adjusted so they both measure the same value t. Weird, but nothing wrong with your conclusions so far.
> > > 
> > > > Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1.
> > > 
> > > This isn't strictly true, because you're making the units different such that they give the same readings to readings that would be different if they were using the same units.
> > > 
> > > >Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2.
> > > 
> > > But you've transformed the units between frames to make the readings the same. Effectively you're hiding the data in the units chosen.
> > > 
> > > >If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> > > > 
> > > > (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> > > > 
> > > > It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> > > > 
> > > > (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> > > > 
> > > > unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).
> > > 
> > > Einstein used the same units for all frames, and derived the transformation equations between different values, whereas you're transforming units while making all the measurements the same. You could do this for single measurements, but then you'd have to change the units again for all the other measurements.
> > > 
> > > Conclusion: A moving clock will be measured to tick at a slower rate compared to a stationary one if they both use the same type of clock according to SR. But use a faster ticking moving clock compared to the stationary one as you're doing, and they will indeed be seen to tick at the same rate.
> > 
> > With the initial expressions
> > 
> > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > (2)  x2=c*t2 
> > 
> > I wanted to express the fact that the measurements in the two frames are completely independent (relating to different detector and thus detection events). I could have been even more general by having two different speed of lights c1 and c2 (which you would in general have for arbitrary length and time units). But that would obviously make little sense if you want to verify whether the measured speed if light is the same in each frame. Without knowing and applying the appropriate conversion factor, you could then not compare the measurements. So you may just as well come to a convention regarding the measurements units beforehand, so that speeds are measured the same in each frame. And this requires at least that the length and time units in the two frames are proportional i.e. x1/x2=t1/t2=q . But nothing prevents from going even a bit further with your convention and have q=1, i.e. each frame uses identical rulers and clocks, so
> > 
> > (1)  x1=c*t  (x1/t = speed of light in frame 1)
> > (2)  x2=c*t  (x2/t = speed of light in frame 2)
> 
> You can't set the ratios x1/x2 and t1/t2 independent of one another since they both equal p. Therefore, setting p=1 also means that x1 = x2:
> 
> (1) x = c*t
> (2) x = c*t
> 
> So using identical coordinates, you just end up with identical equations using your strategy.

No, obviously you can't do that. You either have the time or the location as independent variable. I could have done it also the other way around (taking x as the independent variable)

(1) t1=x/c
(2) t2=x/c

meaning that both in system 1 and 2 the light signal takes the same proper time to traverse the proper distance x in that frame (regardless of the fact that in frame 1 the light source is at rest but in frame 2 moving).

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382790 — Imbecile Thomas Smid perseveres

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
> 
> (1) t1=x/c
> (2) t2=x/c
> 
Bo, imbecile. Time ans space are not absolute, the correct equations, as I have shown you several times are:

> (1) t1=x1/c
> (2) t2=x2/c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382796

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:40:52 PM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 May 2016 15:53:24 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:40:47 PM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:16:39 UTC, Larry Harson  wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas wrote:
> > > > > I. INTRODUCTION
> > > > > 
> > > > > The invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames lies at the heart of the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and thus the theory of Special Relativity. The derivation typically assumes two given events associated with the propagation of a light signal, and then looks for a linear transformation of the space and time coordinates of these events that would also correspond to the same speed of light c in a different reference frame moving with a velocity v relatively to the first. In the following it is shown that such a transformation can not exist without violating the speed of light postulate applied to an independent measurement of the speed of light in the second reference frame.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > II.	PROOF
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Version 1
> > > > > 
> > > > > We designate the two reference frames with the indices 1 and 2 respectively and assume that in each frame we have a separate stationary array of light detectors. Let a light signal be emitted by a light source at the origin of both reference frames, the light source being at rest in frame 1 but moving with velocity v in frame 2. Assuming the detectors to be equipped with synchronized clocks and the light signal emitted at zero system time in each frame, the detector locations and associated detection times are then given by									
> > > > > 
> > > > > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > > > > (2)  x2=c*t2
> > > > > 
> > > > > where (2) follows from the speed of light postulate.
> > > > > We have formally allowed different time units here, but use of the same numerical value for c implies obviously
> > > > > 
> > > > > (3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 =q
> > > > > 
> > > > > where q is some constant. As the value of q is merely a matter of convention, we can therefore, without loss of generality, choose q=1 and thus set 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (4)  t1 =t2 =t
> > > > > 
> > > > > and instead of (1) and (2) we have then								       
> > > > > 
> > > > > (5)  x1=c*t
> > > > > (6)  x2=c*t
> > > > 
> > > > So t1 is measured using one set of units, and t2 uses another set of different units which are then adjusted so they both measure the same value t. Weird, but nothing wrong with your conclusions so far.
> > > > 
> > > > > Note that these timings, despite being identical here due to the chosen convention, are as such completely independent of each other. Frame 2 obtains its data completely independently of the data obtained in frame 1.
> > > > 
> > > > This isn't strictly true, because you're making the units different such that they give the same readings to readings that would be different if they were using the same units.
> > > > 
> > > > >Equations (5) and (6) define the speed of light postulate therefore without the need of transforming the frame 1 data into frame 2.
> > > > 
> > > > But you've transformed the units between frames to make the readings the same. Effectively you're hiding the data in the units chosen.
> > > > 
> > > > >If we wanted to do the latter in addition, we would require that the coordinate transformed location of x1 coincides with x2, i.e. using (5) and (6) we would get
> > > > > 
> > > > > (7)  x1'=x2=c*t=x1
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is obvious that this does not allow any velocity dependent transformation of the form
> > > > > 
> > > > > (8)  x1'=a*(x1-b*t)
> > > > > 
> > > > > unless  a=1 and  b=0 (note that (7) requires that x1' is reflected about the origin whenever x1 is reflected about the origin.).
> > > > 
> > > > Einstein used the same units for all frames, and derived the transformation equations between different values, whereas you're transforming units while making all the measurements the same. You could do this for single measurements, but then you'd have to change the units again for all the other measurements.
> > > > 
> > > > Conclusion: A moving clock will be measured to tick at a slower rate compared to a stationary one if they both use the same type of clock according to SR. But use a faster ticking moving clock compared to the stationary one as you're doing, and they will indeed be seen to tick at the same rate.
> > > 
> > > With the initial expressions
> > > 
> > > (1)  x1=c*t1
> > > (2)  x2=c*t2 
> > > 
> > > I wanted to express the fact that the measurements in the two frames are completely independent (relating to different detector and thus detection events). I could have been even more general by having two different speed of lights c1 and c2 (which you would in general have for arbitrary length and time units). But that would obviously make little sense if you want to verify whether the measured speed if light is the same in each frame. Without knowing and applying the appropriate conversion factor, you could then not compare the measurements. So you may just as well come to a convention regarding the measurements units beforehand, so that speeds are measured the same in each frame. And this requires at least that the length and time units in the two frames are proportional i.e. x1/x2=t1/t2=q . But nothing prevents from going even a bit further with your convention and have q=1, i.e. each frame uses identical rulers and clocks, so
> > > 
> > > (1)  x1=c*t  (x1/t = speed of light in frame 1)
> > > (2)  x2=c*t  (x2/t = speed of light in frame 2)
> > 
> > You can't set the ratios x1/x2 and t1/t2 independent of one another since they both equal p. Therefore, setting p=1 also means that x1 = x2:
> > 
> > (1) x = c*t
> > (2) x = c*t
> > 
> > So using identical coordinates, you just end up with identical equations using your strategy.
> 
> No, obviously you can't do that. You either have the time or the location as independent variable. I could have done it also the other way around (taking x as the independent variable)
> 
> (1) t1=x/c
> (2) t2=x/c

Yes, you can choose either x or t to be the independent variable, but the ratios x1/x2 and t1/t2 can't be set independently of other another because they both equal q, as defined by your equation (3) right at the top of this post:

(3)  x1/x2 =t1/t2 = q

Therefore, if x1/x2 = 1 then t1/t2 = 1 as well and vice versa, right?

Larry Harson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web