(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...

I think you didn't do your homework.

And I suspect that you have not read the thread
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

But
the experimental validation of relativity means you can't just change
postulates willy-nilly to make up new non-relativistic theories with
different predictions and expect it to still match experiment. Even
aether theories still wind up with the Lorentz transformations.

Now I'm certain that you haven't read
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Galilean concepts like a universal time ordering weren't just
abandoned because scientists got bored with it. Maybe a good theory
with a universal time ordering can be made, but that is something to
be demonstrated.

One SR type theory with universal time ordering coming up:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

And after you've made whatever other adjustments are
needed to still match experiment, you might be left with a theory that
not even you like very much.

I speak with understanding. Please see the thread "What is the Expert
Opinion on Special Relativity Trivialities?" and count how many times
Tom Roberts concedes or admits to my interpretation.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...g.goog le.com

Thank you.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR
topology,

That's not an axiom of the theory, it's a conclusion.

Let's see a proof in the simple case of 1 spatial dimension with
topology SxR where the space part of spacetime is just a circle.

Thanks.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
.com...
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message
.com...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR
topology,

That's not an axiom of the theory, it's a conclusion.

Let's see a proof in the simple case of 1 spatial dimension with
topology SxR where the space part of spacetime is just a circle.

Thanks.

Maybe, if you'll tell me what a topology SxR is.


--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
.com...
Perfectly Innocent wrote in message
. com...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR
topology,

That's not an axiom of the theory, it's a conclusion.

Let's see a proof in the simple case of 1 spatial dimension with
topology SxR where the space part of spacetime is just a circle.

Thanks.

Maybe, if you'll tell me what a topology SxR is.

Gregory,

Please forgive my writing in the elaborate language of mathematicians.
I understand that it's not terribly meaningful to most physicists. I
really do mean to write for the largest audience possible.

S is a circle. S^2 is a sphere and S^3 is a hypersphere. R is the real
line.

In mathematics (point set topology) there is a topological product for
topological spaces. The topological product of S and R is SxR, a
cylinder. As a model of spacetime, I specified that S is the space
part of spacetime. The time part is R so every event of the spacetime
SxR is a point (x,t) where x is a point of S and time t is a point of
R. As you can imagine, all of this formalism is really unessential.
Let me get right to the point.

You wrote:

Time-like separated events do
have a definite order. In particular, if two things happen at the
same place, like a traffic light that turns red and then green, no
reference frame will change the order. More generally, relativity of
simultaneity for spacelike separated events is a prediction of the
Lorentz transformations, which at the very least are math, not
semantics, and required by the postulates of special relativity.

I will prove that your argument is unreliable by repeating your logic
in another coordinate system and arriving at directly opposite
conclusions. The riddle is which coordinate system is physically
meaningful and which is spurious. I claim that the Lorentz
transformation does a poor job of coordinatizing all of SxR. The
synchronization scheme that I propose works globally for SxR and means
precisely the same as the Lorentz transformation equations locally if
you reset all local clocks.

According to my coordinates:

x'=Y(v)(x-vt)
t'=t/Y(v)

Y(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now let's repeat your argument in my coordinates. If events E1 (x1,
t1) and E2 (x2, t2) are simultaneous in 1 inertial frame, then t1=t2
and the events are simultaneous in all inertial frames. If event E1
precedes event E2 in 1 inertial frame, then t1t2 and event E1
precedes event E2 in all inertial frames. Consequently, the spacetime
SxR has an absolute time order.

I direct you to http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
and its links for a more complete exposition of the physics of SxR.

Most importantly, I thank for your courteous reply to my opening
remarks.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
.com...
Perfectly Innocent wrote in message
. com...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of
relative simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR
topology,

That's not an axiom of the theory, it's a conclusion.

Let's see a proof in the simple case of 1 spatial dimension with
topology SxR where the space part of spacetime is just a circle.

Thanks.

Maybe, if you'll tell me what a topology SxR is.

Gregory,

Please forgive my writing in the elaborate language of mathematicians.
I understand that it's not terribly meaningful to most physicists. I
really do mean to write for the largest audience possible.

S is a circle. S^2 is a sphere and S^3 is a hypersphere. R is the real
line.

In mathematics (point set topology) there is a topological product for
topological spaces. The topological product of S and R is SxR, a
cylinder. As a model of spacetime, I specified that S is the space
part of spacetime. The time part is R so every event of the spacetime
SxR is a point (x,t) where x is a point of S and time t is a point of
R. As you can imagine, all of this formalism is really unessential.
Let me get right to the point.

Okay, I still don't get what role it's playing here. Are you deriving
transformations or something from this, or do you mean nothing more
astonishing than, say, a cookie cutter coming down and cutting a circle
out of a sheet of dough?


You wrote:

Time-like separated events do
have a definite order. In particular, if two things happen at the
same place, like a traffic light that turns red and then green, no
reference frame will change the order. More generally, relativity of
simultaneity for spacelike separated events is a prediction of the
Lorentz transformations, which at the very least are math, not
semantics, and required by the postulates of special relativity.

I will prove that your argument is unreliable by repeating your logic
in another coordinate system and arriving at directly opposite
conclusions. The riddle is which coordinate system is physically
meaningful and which is spurious. I claim that the Lorentz
transformation does a poor job of coordinatizing all of SxR. The
synchronization scheme that I propose works globally for SxR and means
precisely the same as the Lorentz transformation equations locally if
you reset all local clocks.

According to my coordinates:

x'=Y(v)(x-vt)
t'=t/Y(v)

Y(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now let's repeat your argument in my coordinates. If events E1 (x1,
t1) and E2 (x2, t2) are simultaneous in 1 inertial frame, then t1=t2
and the events are simultaneous in all inertial frames. If event E1
precedes event E2 in 1 inertial frame, then t1t2 and event E1
precedes event E2 in all inertial frames. Consequently, the spacetime
SxR has an absolute time order.

Well sure, if you use a theory other than special relativity, you're going
to get results other than special relativity. That doesn't say anything
about whether a result of special relativity comes from the postulates of
special relativity. In particular, if you look at the left and right
edges of a circle of radius R layed down simultaneously (the cookie
cutter) in some frame at t=0, in another frame you'll have

t'_right = (vR/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

t'_left = (-vR/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

t'_right t'_left. Go in the other direction,

t'_right = (-vR/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

t'_left = (vR/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

t'_right t'_left. Relativity of simultaneity is a conclusion, not a
postulate.

Your transformations lose the invariance of the speed of light, they lose
the principle of relativity, and I'm not even sure what to say about how
Maxwell's equations transform under them because they take the field
tensor into something that's not a field tensor, something that doesn't
even look like it has a physical interpretation. I think it's worth while
for you to try calculating by them what happens when you stick a magnet in
a coil of wire, and what happens when you move the coil of wire around
the magnet. We know exerimentally that the two cases are equivalent and
give the same result of a certain magnitude, I think your transformations
will say different.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...

I think you didn't do your homework.

And I suspect that you have not read the thread
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

That is correct. I'm starting from nothing.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Looks to me like a case of
http://www.google.com/search?&q=blown+fuse

Thank heaven the knowledgeable people on this site are taking this
person to
task.

I think this person is more 'knowledgeable' in his subject
than I am, but I recognize the symptoms of his condition
when I see them. Sad.

Dirk Vdm

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message . com...

I think you didn't do your homework.

And I suspect that you have not read the thread
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

That is correct. I'm starting from nothing.

Gregory,

My suggestion is that you start from substance, given he
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Thanks.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Gregory,

Please forgive my writing in the elaborate language of mathematicians.
I understand that it's not terribly meaningful to most physicists. I
really do mean to write for the largest audience possible.

S is a circle. S^2 is a sphere and S^3 is a hypersphere. R is the real
line.

In mathematics (point set topology) there is a topological product for
topological spaces. The topological product of S and R is SxR, a
cylinder. As a model of spacetime, I specified that S is the space
part of spacetime. The time part is R so every event of the spacetime
SxR is a point (x,t) where x is a point of S and time t is a point of
R. As you can imagine, all of this formalism is really unessential.
Let me get right to the point.

Okay, I still don't get what role it's playing here. Are you deriving
transformations or something from this, or do you mean nothing more
astonishing than, say, a cookie cutter coming down and cutting a circle
out of a sheet of dough?

Gregory,

I derive my transformation equations on the page:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm
which, in fact, borrows one equation from the page:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

I view the page http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
as a simplified approach to the whole theory.

The reason for the fancy language is that I'm attempting a compromise.
I'm trying to show a little professionalism in my writing but I also
want to speak as simply as the subject allows.

I'm certain that writing just to pretend that the subject is beyond
the comprehension of ordinary mortals is a sin and I do realize that
I'm paying a price for wishing to communicate at an elementary level.
I've been advised by a very capable graduate student in physics (in
the thread http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../Soleimani.htm
) that I'm dumbing down my interesting physics too far.

In the thread that I've just cited, Ali Soleimani wrote:

"BTW, I think perhaps you should repost this under a different
title... toss around 'topologies' or 'global symmetry breaking' or
something. Most people I think will assume you've just got some
juvenile crackpot objection to SR and skip it, and this is one of the
most interesting posts I've seen in a long while...."

So to answer your question, I was only describing the shape of space
so to speak (one axiom). I wasn't trying to imply that there is any
special physical content or unusual claim being made. I was only
saying, consider the most reasonable derivation of special relativity
on a circle universe:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm and
what that says about time order.

You wrote:

Time-like separated events do
have a definite order. In particular, if two things happen at the
same place, like a traffic light that turns red and then green, no
reference frame will change the order. More generally, relativity of
simultaneity for spacelike separated events is a prediction of the
Lorentz transformations, which at the very least are math, not
semantics, and required by the postulates of special relativity.

I will prove that your argument is unreliable by repeating your logic
in another coordinate system and arriving at directly opposite
conclusions. The riddle is which coordinate system is physically
meaningful and which is spurious. I claim that the Lorentz
transformation does a poor job of coordinatizing all of SxR. The
synchronization scheme that I propose works globally for SxR and means
precisely the same as the Lorentz transformation equations locally if
you reset all local clocks.

According to my coordinates:

x'=Y(v)(x-vt)
t'=t/Y(v)

Y(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now let's repeat your argument in my coordinates. If events E1 (x1,
t1) and E2 (x2, t2) are simultaneous in 1 inertial frame, then t1=t2
and the events are simultaneous in all inertial frames. If event E1
precedes event E2 in 1 inertial frame, then t1t2 and event E1
precedes event E2 in all inertial frames. Consequently, the spacetime
SxR has an absolute time order.

Well sure, if you use a theory other than special relativity, you're going
to get results other than special relativity.

Ah, but that's just my point. I'm claiming that SxR is virtually
indistinguishable from SR.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Warning, please understand that I'm using cryptic notation. Here's the
clarification:

By SxR, I sometimes mean the SeXieR and more modern version of SR. The
X stands for Modern as in OSX or Windows XP. Obviously, SxR also
represents a cylinder, which again, represents my theory:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Sincerely not X (eXperimental).

That doesn't say anything
about whether a result of special relativity comes from the postulates of
special relativity.

But the second postulate can't possibly work in a circle universe. See

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Relativity of simultaneity is a conclusion, not a postulate.

Again, the question is, how do you make SR work in a circle universe?

Your transformations lose the invariance of the speed of light, they lose
the principle of relativity,

I'm saying that you have no choice. What other SR type theory and
transformation equations do you think can be made to work in a
circular universe?

Eugene Shubert

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...

snip

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology,

snip

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct,

It's hardly "unanimous", is it? You contradict yourself with a single post.
Totally aside from your inappropriate use of the religious metaphor, this
alone totally disqualifies you from participating in rational discourse.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

I think *plonk*


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA