On Apr 4, 2:55 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:01 pm, Shubee wrote:



On Apr 4, 1:29 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:05 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:26 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized.

I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not.

That is correct.

Now
the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.

I have given you a perfectly good definition of a clock positioned at
each point (x,y,z). You need to understand that to an infinite array
of clocks you can add or subtract a constant amount f(x,y,z) to each
one. I'm assuming that you're a physicist so I had to explain that to
you.

OK, but that doesn't help distinguish a set of clocks from a set of
monotonic random number incrementers. You can always add an offset
f(x,y,z) to all of the clocks to get them to correspond at that
moment, but at the next increment, they are all randomly scattered
again. That means that you have to add an offset that not only varies
by position but by time: f(x,y,z,t). This effectively removes their
value as clocks. Moreover, you have to decide how you are going to
determine what the function f(x,y,z,t) is at every increment.

Put it this way. Suppose you have a set of counters a_i (i=1...n),
which generate a decimal number that looks like this: a_i(j) = j +
ran[0,1]_n.
Thus you might see the following:
a_1(1) = 1.0023 a_1(2) = 2.8374 a_1(3) = 3.3113 ...
a_2(1) = 1.4392 a_2(2) = 2.3048 a_2(3) = 3.0309 ...
a_3(1) = 1.9830 a_3(2) = 2.8471 a_3(3) = 3.7582 ...
...
a_n(1) = 1.2922 a_n(2) = 2.3244 a_n(3) = 3.2485 ...

Now, for any j, you can always find a function f_i(j) that turns all
of the a_i(j) to a'_i(j) = j + 0.5 exactly. That is, a_i(1) = 1.5000
for all i, a_i(2) = 2.5000 for all i, a_i(3) = 3.5000 for all i.

But that doesn't change the fact that your a_i's are still randomly
generated, and you're having to adjust them with an f_i(j) that is
just as complex as the clock readings.

Not useful.

PD

Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. If you want to reset the
clock time, then you can only add or subtract a constant amount to
whatever the arrow is pointing to. If you disagree with that, then you
need to repeat kindergarten.

And if the clock runs slow or fast?
And how do you *check* that the clock runs slow or fast?

I discuss clock speed for mathematical clocks in my paper:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

But let's back up a step.
Say you've got two clocks in two places:
Here There
and you look at the clock Here and at the master clock on the wall,
and you see that you have to adjust the clock Here by adding a
constant amount. Fine, you do that.
But now you have to walk outside and down the street to see if the
clock There needs an adjustment.
So you look at the master clock on the wall, make note of what it
says, and then you walk down the street and find the clock There, and
you see that this clock does not read what you jotted down as what the
master clock said and so you have to adjust it. By how much should you
adjust the clock There? And how can you check whether that is the
right amount?

My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
meaning to clock synchronization.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

On Apr 4, 3:09*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:55 pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 4, 2:01 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:29 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:05 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:26 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized.

I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not.

That is correct.

Now
the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.

I have given you a perfectly good definition of a clock positioned at
each point (x,y,z). You need to understand that to an infinite array
of clocks you can add or subtract a constant amount f(x,y,z) to each
one. I'm assuming that you're a physicist so I had to explain that to
you.

OK, but that doesn't help distinguish a set of clocks from a set of
monotonic random number incrementers. You can always add an offset
f(x,y,z) to all of the clocks to get them to correspond at that
moment, but at the next increment, they are all randomly scattered
again. That means that you have to add an offset that not only varies
by position but by time: f(x,y,z,t). This effectively removes their
value as clocks. Moreover, you have to decide how you are going to
determine what the function f(x,y,z,t) is at every increment.

Put it this way. Suppose you have a set of counters a_i (i=1...n),
which generate a decimal number that looks like this: a_i(j) = j +
ran[0,1]_n.
Thus you might see the following:
a_1(1) = 1.0023 *a_1(2) = 2.8374 *a_1(3) = 3.3113 ...
a_2(1) = 1.4392 *a_2(2) = 2.3048 *a_2(3) = 3.0309 ...
a_3(1) = 1.9830 *a_3(2) = 2.8471 *a_3(3) = 3.7582 ...
...
a_n(1) = 1.2922 *a_n(2) = 2.3244 *a_n(3) = 3.2485 ...

Now, for any j, you can always find a function f_i(j) that turns all
of the a_i(j) to a'_i(j) = j + 0.5 exactly. That is, a_i(1) = 1.5000
for all i, a_i(2) = 2.5000 for all i, a_i(3) = 3.5000 for all i.

But that doesn't change the fact that your a_i's are still randomly
generated, and you're having to adjust them with an f_i(j) that is
just as complex as the clock readings.

Not useful.

PD

Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. If you want to reset the
clock time, then you can only add or subtract a constant amount to
whatever the arrow is pointing to. If you disagree with that, then you
need to repeat kindergarten.

And if the clock runs slow or fast?
And how do you *check* that the clock runs slow or fast?

I discuss clock speed for mathematical clocks in my paper:http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

But let's back up a step.
Say you've got two clocks in two places:
Here * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *There
and you look at the clock Here and at the master clock on the wall,
and you see that you have to adjust the clock Here by adding a
constant amount. Fine, you do that.
But now you have to walk outside and down the street to see if the
clock There needs an adjustment.
So you look at the master clock on the wall, make note of what it
says, and then you walk down the street and find the clock There, and
you see that this clock does not read what you jotted down as what the
master clock said and so you have to adjust it. By how much should you
adjust the clock There? And how can you check whether that is the
right amount?

My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
meaning to clock synchronization.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

I've read your paper, thanks. That's why I'm asking you these
questions. Einstein was thrilled when Planck wrote him to ask a
question about his thinking that wasn't explained well in the paper.
I'm sure Einstein didn't tell Planck, "Just read the paper."

PD

On Apr 4, 3:45 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:09 pm, Shubee wrote:



On Apr 4, 2:55 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:01 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:29 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:05 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:26 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized.

I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not.

On Apr 4, 3:55*pm, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:45 pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 4, 3:09 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:55 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:01 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:29 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:05 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:26 am, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:

Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.

This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized? Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount. Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

I didn't say or imply that any of those clocks are synchronized.

I just asked if they were. I gather you agree that they are not.

That is correct.

Now
the question is whether you think the clock time as recorded on any of
them is worth anything -- and how you would tell. I mean, as opposed
to something that is a monotonic counter that increments a random
amount at intervals -- which I would submit is useless as a clock.

I have given you a perfectly good definition of a clock positioned at
each point (x,y,z). You need to understand that to an infinite array
of clocks you can add or subtract a constant amount f(x,y,z) to each
one. I'm assuming that you're a physicist so I had to explain that to
you.

OK, but that doesn't help distinguish a set of clocks from a set of
monotonic random number incrementers. You can always add an offset
f(x,y,z) to all of the clocks to get them to correspond at that
moment, but at the next increment, they are all randomly scattered
again. That means that you have to add an offset that not only varies
by position but by time: f(x,y,z,t). This effectively removes their
value as clocks. Moreover, you have to decide how you are going to
determine what the function f(x,y,z,t) is at every increment.

Put it this way. Suppose you have a set of counters a_i (i=1....n),
which generate a decimal number that looks like this: a_i(j) = j +
ran[0,1]_n.
Thus you might see the following:
a_1(1) = 1.0023 *a_1(2) = 2.8374 *a_1(3) = 3.3113 ...
a_2(1) = 1.4392 *a_2(2) = 2.3048 *a_2(3) = 3.0309 ...
a_3(1) = 1.9830 *a_3(2) = 2.8471 *a_3(3) = 3.7582 ...
...
a_n(1) = 1.2922 *a_n(2) = 2.3244 *a_n(3) = 3.2485 ...

Now, for any j, you can always find a function f_i(j) that turns all
of the a_i(j) to a'_i(j) = j + 0.5 exactly. That is, a_i(1) = 1.5000
for all i, a_i(2) = 2.5000 for all i, a_i(3) = 3.5000 for all i.

But that doesn't change the fact that your a_i's are still randomly
generated, and you're having to adjust them with an f_i(j) that is
just as complex as the clock readings.

Not useful.

PD

Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. If you want to reset the
clock time, then you can only add or subtract a constant amount to
whatever the arrow is pointing to. If you disagree with that, then you
need to repeat kindergarten.

And if the clock runs slow or fast?
And how do you *check* that the clock runs slow or fast?

I discuss clock speed for mathematical clocks in my paper:http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

But let's back up a step.
Say you've got two clocks in two places:
Here * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *There
and you look at the clock Here and at the master clock on the wall,
and you see that you have to adjust the clock Here by adding a
constant amount. Fine, you do that.
But now you have to walk outside and down the street to see if the
clock There needs an adjustment.
So you look at the master clock on the wall, make note of what it
says, and then you walk down the street and find the clock There, and
you see that this clock does not read what you jotted down as what the
master clock said and so you have to adjust it. By how much should you
adjust the clock There? And how can you check whether that is the
right amount?

My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
meaning to clock synchronization.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

I've read your paper, thanks. That's why I'm asking you these
questions. Einstein was thrilled when Planck wrote him to ask a
question about his thinking that wasn't explained well in the paper.
I'm sure Einstein didn't tell Planck, "Just read the paper."

PD

So you're saying that you don't understand Xi_2. Ok, I'll rewrite that
section today just for you. Can you tell me what you don't understand
about one number line or ruler sliding on another and each point of
both lines being conceptualized as an arrow that is moving along a
continuum of numbers?

Please pay attention to the examples I gave.
In your example, you are assuming you KNOW:
1. That the rulers have equal spacing.
2. That the spacing on each ruler is equidistant.
3. That the rate at which one ruler slides against the other is
constant.

The question is one of *measurement*, not idealization. *How* (in
essential but practical terms) do you verify that any of those things
are in fact the case? The Einstein synchronization scheme is a
practical scheme that accomplishes that verification.


Shubee

On Apr 4, 4:02 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:55 pm, Shubee wrote:

So you're saying that you don't understand Xi_2. Ok, I'll rewrite that
section today just for you. Can you tell me what you don't understand
about one number line or ruler sliding on another and each point of
both lines being conceptualized as an arrow that is moving along a
continuum of numbers?

Please pay attention to the examples I gave.
In your example, you are assuming you KNOW:
1. That the rulers have equal spacing.

Actually I don't assume that the distance scale on one ruler is
comparable and equal to the scale on the other ruler. That's an
unnecessary assumption that I don't use in my derivation. When I
rewrite my section on Xi_2, I'll explicitly mention this property that
Xi_2 possesses, which I call incommensurability.

2. That the spacing on each ruler is equidistant.

That follows trivially from the definition of a Euclidean space.

3. That the rate at which one ruler slides against the other is
constant.

Axiom 1 of my two fundamental axioms assumes that Newton's first law
of motion is correct.

The question is one of *measurement*, not idealization. *How* (in
essential but practical terms) do you verify that any of those things
are in fact the case? The Einstein synchronization scheme is a
practical scheme that accomplishes that verification.

My point is to derive the Lorentz transformation with ideas that
children can conceptualize but many with Ph.D.'s in physics can not.

Shubee

On Apr 4, 11:06*am, Shubee wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:34 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:



Shubee wrote:
Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find
Lorentz invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?

I have not fully digested all of Juan's claims and statements, but this
is just silly.

EVERY ONE of our current fundamental theories of physics is Lorentz
invariant. A modern physicist can easily and trivially "find"
Lorentz-invariant expressions by simply using an appropriate
representation of the Lorentz group. This of course includes the usual
tensors of GR.

In Poincare's day knowledge of group theory was limited to a handful of
mathematicians; today it is fundamental in nearly every field of
physics, and is taught to undergraduates.

Tom Roberts

How many distinct invariants of the Poincaré group can you derive?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...4b9f9a04c035ec

Shubee

Why is there no discussion of the invariants of special relativity in
your paper, shooby?

Shubee wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:28:33 -0700:

How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?

Fail to understant that are you asking for.

Poincaré lists 8 distinct but elementary invariants in his paper. See
the equation numbers 5 and 7 in
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf How many
invariants in special relativity are you aware of?

I have not done a list and it depends of the definition of special
relativiy.

Some authors define special relativity only for kinematics. Others (e.g.
Feynman) include dynamics on external electromagnetic fields.

In the latter case that definition of special relativity contains a four-
potential A^b invariant is not in in the former.

Would include thermal effects? Then you will find new invariant non-
mechanical four quantities.

How many distinct
invariants of the Poincaré group exist?

The group is defined by generators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_group

for the

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Poincar...formation.html

You can built different invariant mathematical objects. Just built one
and check its invariance to inhomogenenous transformation.

Note if object m is an Poincaré group invariant, then km will be also,
where k is a constant.

for physics applications take a look to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_classification


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000:

Shubee wrote:
Lorentz invariance is an extraordinarily beautiful concept in physical
theory. How is it that professional physicists today can't find Lorentz
invariant expressions as easily as Poincaré did in 1905?

I have not fully digested all of Juan's claims and statements, but this
is just silly.

To avoid possible reader confusions, Tom is not saying that Juan did the
above statement, because Juan did not indeed.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Shubee wrote:
My simple definition of clock time produces a natural and acceptable
meaning to clock synchronization.

Shubee wrote this too:
It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

"I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
"saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
"technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
"that.
"Cordially,
G. 't Hooft

On Apr 5, 9:36 am, YBM wrote:

"I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
"saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
"technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
"that.
"Cordially,
G. 't Hooft

It's true that my paper of years ago was impossible to understand. It
was like what my geometry professor, Ted Frankel, said of some of the
works of Élie Cartan. "It cannot be understood by mortals." But the
paper is slowly being rewritten and is becoming understandable. None
of the equations are faulty but there still some difficult language
that needs to be simplified. The last revision is dated April 4, 2008.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee