"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Perfectly innocent wrote:
'If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr Tom
Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order
on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math or physics; it's
just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace
non-order with order. What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the
new axiom?'

Your theory is locally
equivalent to SR but globally it is not. Your transformations break the
symmetry properties of an intertial reference frame by not being linear.

Of course my transformation is linear. You're not even on the right
page: http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Your circular or cylindrical universe or whatever is not a reasonable
generalization of the properties of inertial reference frames as found on
earth.

You just finished saying that my theory is locally equivalent to SR
but not globally. Why is that not a reasonable generalization?

The natural generalization for an inertial reference frame is to
propose it is valid;

My definition of an inertial frame of reference is indistinguishable
from what's assumed in the standard cosmological model.

not that space is circular.

The standard cosmological model is circular.

In fact it breaks the definition of an inertial reference frame as given
by Rindler in his book Introduction to Special Relativity.

Arguing against a relativistic theory that's indistinguishable from SR
locally and which has similarities to the standard cosmological model
globally is totally absurd.

Why not hyperbolic or some other construct?

Anything closed and bounded suits my purposes.

As for your thought experiment on light beams in your universe
has anyone ever detected a light beam returning; just what evidence do you
have for it is beyond me.

Again, you're just opposing the standard cosmological model. Don't cry
to me about that. Cry to Tom Roberts and he will console you. Complain
to him about me upsetting the natural order of things and he will
double his pretense that I'm some sort of unreasonable heretic.

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

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
My definition of an inertial frame of reference is indistinguishable
from what's assumed in the standard cosmological model.

Cosmology does not deal with inertial reference frames or rather it uses GR
in which inertial reference frames are just one possible geometry.

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
The standard cosmological model is circular.

In cosmology we have an expanding universe. That does not imply a priori
your geometry. But that misses the point which is the universe at large is
not the domain of SR it is the domain of GR.

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
Arguing against a relativistic theory that's indistinguishable from SR
locally and which has similarities to the standard cosmological model
globally is totally absurd.

Read carefully what the experts have said - your theory is locally
indistinguishable - there is a big difference. It is globally
distinguishable.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Why not hyperbolic or some other construct?

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
Anything closed and bounded suits my purposes.

Then why not say that.

Bill Hobba wrote:
As for your thought experiment on light beams in your universe
has anyone ever detected a light beam returning; just what evidence do
you
have for it is beyond me.


Perfectly Innocent wrote:
Again, you're just opposing the standard cosmological model. Don't cry
to me about that. Cry to Tom Roberts and he will console you. Complain
to him about me upsetting the natural order of things and he will
double his pretense that I'm some sort of unreasonable heretic.

I am not opposing it at all - by definition SR applies to inertial reference
frames globally. Tom is correct when he points out that SR as a theory
applies to any situation where it is a good model - and I believe he is
correct when he says your theory is locally indistinguishable. But in an
inertial reference frame light does not return to you no matter how long you
wait and space is presumed Euclidian. What I am saying is you can not claim
your theory is a theory of inertial reference frames under the normal
definition of what an inertial reference frame that I have seen. Caveat:
the explanations in more advanced books than I have read may provide an
out - but I doubt it.

Thanks
Bill

Gregory L. Hansen
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.

Problem is you can't catch this guy out that way - we know his circle, as he
will readily admit, is much greater than the size of the earth. Thus any
conceivable experiment you can do here will be in agreement with his theory.
You would need some kind of cosmological experiment. And even that will not
phase him because when I mentioned why it must be a circle he said 'Anything
closed and bounded suits my purposes' thus admitting you can't trap him - he
will simply change his theory to suit his purposes. Now that is what I call
a real scientist.


Thanks
Bill

"tadchem" wrote in message nk.net...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...

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

It's hardly "unanimous", is it?

I assume that you don't recognize a slight bite of sarcasm when you
see it. I am citing the learned opinion of Dr. Tom Roberts and he
professes to speak for all rational relativists. See the complete
thread "What is the Expert Opinion on Special Relativity
Trivialities?" for the exact wording of his pompous pretensions.

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

Sincerely yours,

The arch-heretic Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

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


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?

Just off the top of my head, there would be periodic boundary
conditions. So

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

for some x=a would be equivalent to x=-a if a is made large enough,
and the value repeats at x=a+C for C the length of the universe.

But the universe, to high precision, certainly doesn't look circular.
So we could imagine a transformation identical to the Lorentz
transformations in the small but matching the periodicity in the
large, like

t' = (t - vx/c^2*cos(something))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Do your transformations form a group?

I've seen the argument, but not a proof, that the only transformations
that form a group are Galilean, Lorentz, and Euclidean. That may have
assumed a principle of relativity, I don't know if we have more
freedom of selection without a PoR. Probably the t' I gave above
won't be part of transformations that form a group, I just pulled it
out of my butt.

"tadchem" wrote in message nk.net...
"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,

snip You contradict yourself with a single post.

Where's the contradiction?

Totally aside from your inappropriate use of the religious metaphor, this
alone totally disqualifies you from participating in rational discourse.

What qualifies you to judge statements for which you have no understanding?

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

Eugene Shubert

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

"tadchem" wrote in message nk.net...
"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,

snip You contradict yourself with a single post.

Where's the contradiction?

Totally aside from your inappropriate use of the religious metaphor, this
alone totally disqualifies you from participating in rational discourse.

What qualifies you to judge statements for which you have no understanding?

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

Eugene Shubert

Eugene why don't you just show us your derivation using both your
"alternative" and SR for time dilation for say a GPS satellite with
observed velocity of 3.9 km/s. Unless your "alternative" is smoke
and dung, it should almost trivially predict the time dilation...
lets see the calculation (not just the answer, but the calculation)!

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Gregory L. Hansen
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.

Problem is you can't catch this guy out that way - we know his circle, as he
will readily admit, is much greater than the size of the earth. Thus any
conceivable experiment you can do here will be in agreement with his theory.
You would need some kind of cosmological experiment. And even that will not
phase him because when I mentioned why it must be a circle he said 'Anything
closed and bounded suits my purposes' thus admitting you can't trap him - he
will simply change his theory to suit his purposes. Now that is what I call
a real scientist.

I'm still not so sure about that, when it comes to transforming
electric and magnetic fields. All the terms in the Lorentz
transformations are involveed in that. If you take a term out, will
you still induce the right electrical current when you push a magnet
into a solenoid, and the identical current when you shove the solenoid
around the magnet?

But the nice field tensor probably just isn't valid with these other
transformations since it was derived in the first place by considering
the Lorentz transformations, and I don't have the gumption right now
to try to figure out new transformation rules.

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

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?

snipped anal response

Do your transformations form a group?

You misunderstand the issues. The question you should be asking, based
on http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm , is
how is it possible to avoid the existence of an absolute time order in
a closed and bounded universe.

I've seen the argument, but not a proof, that the only transformations
that form a group are Galilean, Lorentz, and Euclidean. That may have
assumed a principle of relativity, I don't know if we have more
freedom of selection without a PoR.

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

Probably the t' I gave above won't be part of transformations that
form a group, I just pulled it out of my butt.

Perfectly Innocent wrote:


You misunderstand the issues. The question you should be asking, based
on http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm , is
how is it possible to avoid the existence of an absolute time order in
a closed and bounded universe.

The relativity of simulteneity is an observed fact. It just plain is.
That is the way the world is.

Ultimately all science must be based in irreducible rock bottom facts
that are because they are.

Bob Kolker