Confession Number 1

I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.

I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:

Thus moving clocks tick at the same rate as stationary clocks and the
mapping: (x,T)--(x',T') defined by the relations x'=x-uT and T'=T is
a change of coordinate map from events in L to events in L'.

I thought that sentence was a relevant milestone in my proof.
Rindler's jaw literally dropped and I felt terribly embarrassed by his
very visible show of obvious misunderstanding. (How could any graduate
student who, only a few years before, seemed competent and rational in
his relativity classes, now be an anti-relativity crackpot?) With a
deep sense of heartfelt humility and apology, I then hastily explained
that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of
reference but not for three simultaneously. That had a calming effect
but it didn't come close to repairing the rift that I had created. My
purpose in using "shock and awe" was to vividly impress the professor
with a very charming and delightful derivation. Instead, I alienated
professor Rindler from his usual kind and friendly regards, as if I
had purposely fooled him with unethical trickery and deception.
Sensing his discomfort that I continue, we exchanged a few irrelevant,
uncomfortable and clumsy words and we ended our conversation with
surprising abruptness. That situation felt so awkward (the worse I've
every experienced) that I haven't had the temerity to speak to
professor Rindler since.

Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

Eugene Shubert

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
Confession Number 1

I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.

I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:

That's the second most insightful way to derive the Lorentz Transformation.
The most insightful way is to do it just like Lorentz did.
Assume that there is an Aether, assume that Einstone is an idiot,
and also assume that Rindler is a German infiltrator, and an Einstein
wannabee, who wouldn't know the difference bewteen a Turing machine
or a rotating black hole or his Newtonian ass.

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:


A few questions:

1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your methods
is located at?
2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at the
same time. No appeal to magic or whatever just a straight answer.
3. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different versions
of SR. The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others? What is wrong with the definition of say syncing two clocks close
together then slowly moving them apart or TWLS? While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?

Thanks
Bill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
Confession Number 1

I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm
responsible for how people understand my words but I suppose that I
am. I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.

I remember the time when I stunned Wolfgang Rindler with my approach
to deriving SR. (I believe that the most insightful path to special
relativity is to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
transformation). I explained to Rindler my definition of time using
two lines L and L' and that, indeed, the formula T=(x-x')/u =T' is an
acceptable definition of time (a Shubertian clock) for two observers
in relative motion. Then, wishing to emphasize the logical fallacy of
the all-too-familiar reliance on simultaneity to explain time
dilation, i.e., the absurdity of the popular phrase "moving clocks run
slow," I pointed to and read this sentence from my first draft:

Thus moving clocks tick at the same rate as stationary clocks

This assertion is proven to be wrong by the GPS. The SR effect between the
GPS clock and the ground clock is 7 us/day running slow by the GPS clock.
You are assuming the existence of an absolute time and that there exists a
universal clock. In that case the rate of passage of absolute time between
two universal clocks would be the same.
Unfortunately, ordinary clocks are not universal clocks.

Ken Seto


and the
mapping: (x,T)--(x',T') defined by the relations x'=x-uT and T'=T is
a change of coordinate map from events in L to events in L'.

I thought that sentence was a relevant milestone in my proof.
Rindler's jaw literally dropped and I felt terribly embarrassed by his
very visible show of obvious misunderstanding. (How could any graduate
student who, only a few years before, seemed competent and rational in
his relativity classes, now be an anti-relativity crackpot?) With a
deep sense of heartfelt humility and apology, I then hastily explained
that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of
reference but not for three simultaneously. That had a calming effect
but it didn't come close to repairing the rift that I had created. My
purpose in using "shock and awe" was to vividly impress the professor
with a very charming and delightful derivation. Instead, I alienated
professor Rindler from his usual kind and friendly regards, as if I
had purposely fooled him with unethical trickery and deception.
Sensing his discomfort that I continue, we exchanged a few irrelevant,
uncomfortable and clumsy words and we ended our conversation with
surprising abruptness. That situation felt so awkward (the worse I've
every experienced) that I haven't had the temerity to speak to
professor Rindler since.

Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

Eugene Shubert

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

A few questions:

1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your methods
is located at?

Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=2091#2091

2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at the
same time.

Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.

3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different versions
of SR.

Not necessarily.

3b. While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?

The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?

The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.

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

3c. What is wrong with the definition of say syncing two clocks close
together then slowly moving them apart or TWLS?

That's a definition of what? If the answer is clock synchronization,
then I'd say you get into big trouble in a universe like S^3xR.

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

Eugene Shubert

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

A few questions:

1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your
methods
is located at?

Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.

Ah, so, in other words, when you said you "stunned Rindler", you lied.


http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=2091#2091

2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the
Galilean
transformation results. How can a quantity be finite and infinite at
the
same time.

Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.

By saying that you derived lorentz transformations from Galilean
transformations - either you mean that, which is what you stated, or you
have misconstrued the meaning of your own words, in which case, a little
more clarification is in order.


3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different
versions
of SR.

Not necessarily.

Where have you been?


3b. While the different
versions of SR found from these definitions are interesting and
entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your definition that makes it
better than others?

The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?

The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.

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

Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.

"Mark Palenik" wrote in message ...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

A few questions:

1. The correspondence or other evidence that Rindler accepted your
methods is located at?

Professor Rindler represents orthodoxy. I believe that the official
position of orthodoxy is to not consider my view because if they were
to condemn it, they would be condemning themselves.

Ah, so, in other words, when you said you "stunned Rindler", you lied.

I'm using the phrase "stunned Wolfgang Rindler" as a synonym for
"Rindler's jaw literally dropped." Is that a misrepresentation to you?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=2091#2091

http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=2091#2091

2. If the c in the 'lorentz transformations' is infinity then the
Galilean transformation results. How can a quantity be finite
and infinite at the same time.

Nowhere do I say that any quantity is finite and infinite at the same
time. Your question is based on primitive thinking because it wants to
condemn what it doesn't understand.

By saying that you derived lorentz transformations from Galilean
transformations - either you mean that, which is what you stated, or you
have misconstrued the meaning of your own words, in which case, a little
more clarification is in order.

I don't know what I need to add to my already short paper
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity ) to assure you that I
haven't misconstrued a thing. I understand the Galilean transformation
in one spatial dimension to be the transformation: x'=x-uT , T'=T.
This transformation plays a central role in my derivation of the
Lorentz transformation. Consequently, technically and as amazingly as
it sounds, I believe that I can truthfully say that I have derived the
Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation. All my words
are true and correct. The problem is, my words don't mean what you
think they mean.

3a. Different definitions of clock synchronizations give different
versions of SR.

Not necessarily.

Where have you been?

Perhaps I was teaching a mathematics class. Sameness and difference
doesn't mean much unless it's defined properly. You may have heard
that a topologist doesn't know the difference between a donut and a
coffee cup. That statement is literally true. But then again, you have
to take a course in topology to understand what topology is and a
course in mathematical logic to understand what "true" is.

3b. While the different versions of SR found from
these definitions are interesting and entertaining
exactly what is the physical relevance of your
definition that makes it better than others?

The question is why do you consider your definition better than
others?

The Shubertian clock yields a superior insight to spacetime and was
the actual device used to construct the first working counterexample
to the popular myth of supposedly required linearity for SR.

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

Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.

Isn't that what graduate school instruction in math is all about?

BTW, there are highly qualified persons who can testify to you that my
derivation of SR is enlightening and enjoyable.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s13.hou.wt.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2....27627%24 sp2
5958%40lakeread04&rnum=1

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

Mark Palenik wrote:
Stop stating your own thoughts as if you're reading them from a textbook.
It gets quite annoying.

Thanks Mark. I have been confronting this bozo for a while now. It was
taking its tool. Recently a number of people such as Bigle and David have
taken him to task. For this I am eternally grateful.

Thanks
Bill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

Perfectly Innocent wrote

I should consider how slow people are to understand new ideas.
etc.

Eugene Shubert

I think that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between
a curriculum, leading to a qualification, and learning, purely
devoted to seeking the objective truth.

A qualification proves only that you have learned what is taught
in the curriculum, and what is taught there may or may not
be true. Yesterday's theory can become defunct today, and
what gained you a qualification yesterday can result in
failure today. But, if you depart from anything in the
curriculum, you can expect to be burned at the stake, as it
were, because current theory is the only standard that
can be used.

I think, however, that there can be too much burning at the
stake of people who launch themselves into some innovation,
whether or not it turns out to be correct. Without freedom of
thought, and the freedom to risk being wrong, even the truth
does not benefit people, because nothing can benefit a person,
or become part of the understanding, without the exercise
of the free will.

Alen

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
Confession Number 1

I have an inclination to say things as pointedly as possible. I always
disappoint myself when I do. It isn't easy to believe that I'm

snip

Here's my complete derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

Eugene Shubert

Eugene,

I looked through your derivation with interest, but I believe that there may
be a small flaw in it. The first part of your derivation states:

"Imagine that the real number line is an infinitely long, super-thin, rigid
material rod with numbers etched into it at regular intervals like a ruler.
If you can imagine one such line, imagine a tight bundle of such lines, ,
where all the lines are perfectly identical, parallel and where the distance
between any two lines is exactly zero."

Unfortunately statements like 'the distance between any two lines is exactly
zero' are not really allowed in mathematics. I believe the correct
statement should be 'the distance between any two lines being some distance
(delta) s where we take lim delta(s) - 0.

I wonder if this might effect your notion of Galilean sychronization? Even
if it makes no difference I suggest you need to modify your derivation to
take this into account..

Sean