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 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#382196 — The Light Speed Postulate and its Interpretation in Derivations of the Lorentz Transformation

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 )

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#382197

On 24/04/2016 7:00 PM, 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
>
> 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

There is no such requirement. You've introduced it out of thin air. Your 
proof falls apart here.

Sylvia.

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

#382202

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 09:13:14 UTC, Sylvia Else  wrote:

> 
> There is no such requirement. You've introduced it out of thin air. Your 
> proof falls apart here.
> 
> Sylvia.

Einstein requires that x2 is the coordinate transform of x1 i.e. x2=x1'. That's the essence of his derivation.

Thomas

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

#382241

On 24/04/2016 10:08 PM, Thomas wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 09:13:14 UTC, Sylvia Else  wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no such requirement. You've introduced it out of thin air. Your
>> proof falls apart here.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Einstein requires that x2 is the coordinate transform of x1 i.e. x2=x1'. That's the essence of his derivation.
>
> Thomas
>

No, he doesn't. You've misunderstood.

Sylvia.

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

#382199

Op 24-apr-2016 om 11:00 schreef Thomas:
> 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

See also:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html
That's 11 years.

Dirk Vdm

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

#382200

On 24/04/2016 7:54 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 24-apr-2016 om 11:00 schreef Thomas:
>> 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
>
> See also:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html
> That's 11 years.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Oh, so he's one of those. Should have guessed.

Sylvia.

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

#382201

Op 24-apr-2016 om 12:42 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 24/04/2016 7:54 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 24-apr-2016 om 11:00 schreef Thomas:
>>> 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
>>
>> See also:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html
>> That's 11 years.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Oh, so he's one of those. Should have guessed.
>
> Sylvia.

Just a few days ago I was wondering when there would be another idiot
coming here with a bunch of simple equations "Proving Einstein Wrong",
only because they miserably fail to understand the meanings of the
variables.
There was a time when we had a full time job debunking them here.
And Somehow it seemed they had all left. Or died.
But it looks like Smith is still somewhat alive.

Dirk Vdm

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

#382219

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 4:28:43 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
> But it looks like Smith is still somewhat alive.
> 
This is the (Thomas) Smid imbecile, not Smith. He's been around for ages. 

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

#382231

On 25/04/16 04:48, Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 4:28:43 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> But it looks like Smith is still somewhat alive.
>>
> This is the (Thomas) Smid imbecile, not Smith. He's been around for ages.

..and the Dirk Van de moortel imbecile, who has also been around for ages.

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

#382208

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.)

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.


Tom Roberts

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

#382209

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 14:49:02 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:

> 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." 

Yes, that's how you can interpret the equations (1) and (2) above

(In his paper, "stationary" designates an ARBITRARY inertial frame.)
> 
> 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.

This is not correct. If you don't require the invariance of the speed of light from the outset, you have to instead make the ad-hoc assumption that there is a terminal speed c for all objects.

In any case, I am discussing the original derivation based on the speed of light postulate (the validity of which you are surely not questioning).

Thomas

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

#382236

On 4/24/16 4/24/16   10:18 AM, Thomas wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 14:49:02 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is not correct.

Yes, it is. YOU just don't understand it.

	Understanding requires facility in using group theory, which
	I strongly suspect you do not have. (If you did, you would
	not make all the elementary mistakes you do make.)


> If you don't require the invariance of the speed of
> light from the outset, you have to instead make the ad-hoc assumption that
> there is a terminal speed c for all objects.

Not true. One finds FROM THE DERIVATION that the speed of light in vacuum is 
isotropically c in every inertial frame (i.e. it's invariant). And it also turns 
out that c is the limiting speed for all ordinary, massive objects.


Tom Roberts

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

#382259

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 23:50:21 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:

> 
> 	Understanding requires facility in using group theory, which
> 	I strongly suspect you do not have. (If you did, you would
> 	not make all the elementary mistakes you do make.)

My facility in group theory does not stand for discussion here. If you can't point out a mistake in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.

Thomas

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

#382260

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 1:40:07 PM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 23:50:21 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	Understanding requires facility in using group theory, which
> > 	I strongly suspect you do not have. (If you did, you would
> > 	not make all the elementary mistakes you do make.)
> 
> My facility in group theory does not stand for discussion here. If you can't point out a mistake in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.
> 
> Thomas

Cretin. Incurable. 

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

#382266

On 4/25/2016 3:40 PM, Thomas wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 23:50:21 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:
>
>>
>> 	Understanding requires facility in using group theory, which
>> 	I strongly suspect you do not have. (If you did, you would
>> 	not make all the elementary mistakes you do make.)
>
> My facility in group theory does not stand for discussion here. If you can't point out a mistake
> in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.

Sorry, Thomas, that won't fly here. What you're saying is, "I don't need 
to be conversant in the basics. You owe me an explanation of my 
mistakes, thereby educating me in the basics." No. Nobody is going to 
educate you on the basics. That is up to you to do.

>
> Thomas
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#382290

On Monday, 25 April 2016 21:35:09 UTC, Odd Bodkin  wrote:

> Sorry, Thomas, that won't fly here. What you're saying is, "I don't need 
> to be conversant in the basics. You owe me an explanation of my 
> mistakes, thereby educating me in the basics." No. Nobody is going to 
> educate you on the basics. That is up to you to do.

In case you have not noticed it yet, I am addressing the basics, not some fancy illuminations of it (that some people here apparently prefer to indulge in).

Thomas

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

#382294 — Imbecile Thomas Smid perseveres

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-7, Thomas wrote:
>
> In case you have not noticed it yet, I am addressing the basics, not some fancy illuminations of it (that some people here apparently prefer to indulge in).
> 
> Thomas

But you are TOO STUPID to understand the basics. 

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

#382268

On 4/25/16 4/25/16   4:40 PM, Thomas wrote:
> If you can't
> point out a mistake in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.

You REALLY need to learn basic logic. You did not prove your basic claim at all, 
and asking to point out "a mistake in the proof I gave above" is silly.

	It's like claiming that all routes from San Francisco to New York
	go through New Orleans, because the route you just took did so.

There are many paths to deriving the Lorentz transform, and not all of them 
require any light postulate. Indeed in the modern viewpoint, SR is a theory of 
spacetime and its symmetries, not electrodynamics, and light has no place in it 
at all.


Tom Roberts

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

#382289

On Monday, 25 April 2016 21:55:27 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:
> On 4/25/16 4/25/16   4:40 PM, Thomas wrote:
> > If you can't
> > point out a mistake in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.
> 
> You REALLY need to learn basic logic. You did not prove your basic claim at all, 
> and asking to point out "a mistake in the proof I gave above" is silly.

Maybe it is silly to ask because there is no mistake in logic? Or are you just too lazy to address the alleged flaws in my logic?

> SR is a theory of 
> spacetime and its symmetries, not electrodynamics, and light has no place in > it  at all.

OK, then let's just test your command of logic: you are claiming then that the speed of light is not necessarily invariant?

Thomas

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

#382336

Dne 26/04/2016 v 19:30 Thomas napsal(a):
> On Monday, 25 April 2016 21:55:27 UTC, tjrob137  wrote:
>> On 4/25/16 4/25/16   4:40 PM, Thomas wrote:
>>> If you can't
>>> point out a mistake in the proof I gave above, then I rest my case.
>>
>> You REALLY need to learn basic logic. You did not prove your basic claim at all, 
>> and asking to point out "a mistake in the proof I gave above" is silly.
> 
> Maybe it is silly to ask because there is no mistake in logic? Or are you just too lazy to address the alleged flaws in my logic?

Determination of your mistakes is primarily your responsibility.
You may kindly and politely ask others to help you to find them.
It is not their duty, but yours.

A principle "I am right until you prove I am wrong."
does not apply in science.

>> SR is a theory of 
>> spacetime and its symmetries, not electrodynamics, and light has no place in > it  at all.
> 
> OK, then let's just test your command of logic: you are claiming then that the speed of light is not necessarily invariant?
> 

Light speed invariance in the original 2nd postulate
is implication of more general symmetry requirements
of later SR formulations, as SR is theory of space-time symmetry.

If you are an expert in SR, you would know it.
If you are not, wait with criticism until you are.

I am not, but I do not claim I am.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web