On Jun 13, 8:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:09 am, Shubee wrote:

The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.

Larry, Curly, and Moe thank you for noticing their contributions.

Einstein the nitwit, Einstein the plagiarist, and Einstein the liar.
shrug

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

The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
dramatic and unpleasant.

That's because they are all in your head. You have taken a simple
geometric theory and **** all over it. There is nothing in there that
is actually special relativity. Your "derivation" of the Lorentz
transformation is predicated on several assumptions that have no basis
other than "it gets me the answer I want".

The nitwit Einstein’s 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform is
totally garbage. However, the plagiarist Einstein he was able to
produce the answer the liar Einstein wanted. shrug

In addition your theory is
physically meaningless [sliding rulers? the hell?], does not
generalize, does not contain any possible description of the
kinematics that actually make SR useful, and finally is simply ugly.

The Lorentz transform is only useful that it degenerates into the
Galilean transform. Other than that, it will give erroneous result.
shrug

The consequences are severe in that the whole
edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
which requires more work.

"If you think the problem is bad now, wait until I've fixed it!"

A multi-year super senior is bragging about able to fix mathematics.
shrug

How the **** did you graduate with that mathematics degree when you
write things like this?

Don’t mind others. Mind yourself first. I have counter you being at
least 3 super seniors already. shrug

SR isn't anything near a tautology - its a
theory of PHYSICS.

SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform. shrug

It has to pass experimental test. That's what it
means to be a physical theory.

Why bother to pass any experimental test if the conjecture is faulty
right from the very start? The Lorentz transform manifests the twin’s
paradox. shrug

The theory states that all the laws of
physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
may be laws that aren't.

It actually states something else. Review the postulates of special
relativity - the actual theory, not your arcane contraption - and
answer the question at your leisure.

SR remains merely a conjecture --- an absurd one actually. shrug

On Jun 13, 9:03*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 13, 4:09 am, Shubee wrote:

The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.

Larry, Curly, and Moe thank you for noticing their contributions.

Einstein the nitwit, Einstein the plagiarist, and Einstein the liar.
shrug


[snip whatever]

You sure like to talk about Einstein a lot. Have you finished the
altar yet?

[...]

On Jun 13, 5:09 am, Shubee wrote:

The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.

Actually, I have counted only one --- Galileo about 400 yeas ago.
shrug

Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that
would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.
Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental
equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus
accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth
through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.

Lorentz’s interpretation of the Lorentz transform is more absurd than
SR. shrug

Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
gravity.

You are wrong here. Larmor was the first to come up with the Lorentz
transform. It was done only after Voigt modified the Galilean
transform and came up with the Voigt transform to explain the null
results of the MMX. shrug

Poincare merely did the analysis on the Lorentz transform. The most
important concept is the relative simultaneity (combination of time
dilation and the principle of relativity). However, he failed to
notice a paradox in relative simultaneity.

If you look back through Voigt’s work, I am not surprised that you
will find Voigt already had derived the Lorentz transform but
discarded it in favor of the Voigt transform because of the twin’s
paradox.

Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
the same footing. He also simplified relativity by eliminating the
ether and by declaring two previously accepted results were
fundamental postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the
Lorentz transformation.

Poincare did not derive any transform or come up with any theories,
nor did Einstein. They just interpreted the Lorentz transform which
is already symmetric because it satisfies the principle of
relativity. shrug

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
using Einstein's first or second postulate.

Knowing what the Lorentz transform is, anyone can follow Einstein’s
footsteps to fudge the derivation of the Lorentz transform. shrug

The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of
physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are
physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
may be laws that aren't.

Any conjecture based on the Lorentz transform is another
interpretation as SR, LET, and others. After all, the Lorentz
transform is garbage because it manifests the twin’s paradox. shrug

Shubee wrote:

The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that
involved three major players and their critical reactions to the
electrodynamics of moving bodies.

Lorentz made a key step
[snip]

Hey stooopid:

1) Newton mathematized all then-known physics by 1687. Mercury's
orbit was off by an RCH.
2) Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism by 1867. Maxwell and
Newton were incompatible.
3) Einstein redrived all Newton less gravitation according to
Maxwell by 1916 - Special Relativity
4) Einstein postulated the Equivalence Principle from his elevator
Gedankenexperiment, presented spacetime as a geometry, and was
airtight except for quantum mechanics - General Relativity. Mercury's
orbit and falling light were predicted then observed to spec. GPS
works to spec.

There are
physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
may be laws that aren't.

Name one that isn't.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Shubee wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:09:12 -0700:

The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that involved
three major players and their critical reactions to the electrodynamics
of moving bodies.

Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that would
obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations. Lorentz
exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental equations for the
interaction between electrons and fields, and thus accounted for the
absence of effects of the motion of the earth through the ether, but
only to a certain approximation.

Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated
the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the
Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group
properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these
transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the
electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of
gravity.

Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly the
same footing.

But this was done before by Poincaré, as Lorentz also recognized.

Note also that was Poincaré the first who introduced the invariant

s^2 = c^2 t^2 - x^2

which naturally implies that space and time may be in same footing.

He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether and
by declaring two previously accepted results were fundamental
postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz
transformation.

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

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
using Einstein's first or second postulate.

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

The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of physics
may be divided into two distinct categories. There are physical laws
that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws that
aren't.

You do not give a definition for "same", therefore I have a doubt about
that you really mean.

Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On Jun 14, 5:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Shubee wrote on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:09:12 -0700:

Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly the
same footing.

But this was done before by Poincaré, as Lorentz also recognized.

Note also that was Poincaré the first who introduced the invariant

s^2 = c^2 t^2 - x^2

which naturally implies that space and time may be in same footing.

Juan,

I need to correct my paragraph. "Einstein made Poincaré's theory
completely symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial
systems on exactly the same footing." That's what I meant.

Poincaré assumed an unobservable absolute frame of reference. That
makes all the distance measures and clock readings in different
inertial frames of reference fundamentally different. Poincaré's
theory was already fully mathematically symmetric and that's all one
needs for real physics. However, Einstein really did originate the
unobservable symmetry where the meaning of time and distance flip-
flops back and forth, depending on the observer. That simply doesn't
happen with the assumption of an unobservable absolute frame of
reference. In this sense, I strongly believe that Einstein complicated
Poincaré's theory by insisting on the unobservable.

The innovation in my approach is that I'm really going back to
Poincaré's easier to understand theory but in my revision I'm not
presupposing that an unobservable absolute frame of reference exists
or doesn't exist. In that sense, I believe that I've created a theory
that is more fundamental than both Einstein's special relativity and
Poincaré's original relativity.

Shubee

He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether and
by declaring two previously accepted results were fundamental
postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz
transformation.

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

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an
irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners,
which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic
theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without
using Einstein's first or second postulate.

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

The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both
dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole
edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology,
which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of physics
may be divided into two distinct categories. There are physical laws
that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws that
aren't.

You do not give a definition for "same", therefore I have a doubt about
that you really mean.

Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?

--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org

On Jun 13, 10:05 am, "harry"
wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in message

Harald, please cite an internet reference for that.

Instead I have the original papers which state and acknowledge that (Lorentz
1904, Poincare 1905).

Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by placing the
space and time determinations in any two inertial systems on exactly
the same footing.

That happens to be already the case with the Lorentz transformations,
thanks to their group property.

I need to edit my remark. “Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely
symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial systems on
exactly the same footing.”

Your comment is now false.

No, why? The Lorentz transformations comply to Poincare's PoR, according
to which the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame.

Poincaré's theory already had the all the necessary mathematical
symmetry that one needs for real physics. But Einstein complicated
Poincaré's theory by insisting on an additional unobservable symmetry
where the meaning of time and distance flip-flops back and forth,
depending on the observer. That simply doesn't happen with the
assumption of an unobservable absolute frame of reference. In this
sense, I strongly believe that Einstein complicated Poincaré's theory
by insisting on the unobservable.

The innovation in my approach is that I'm really going back to
Poincaré's easier to understand theory but in my minimalist approach
I'm not presupposing that an unobservable absolute frame of reference
exists or doesn't exist. In that sense, I believe that I've created a
theory that is more fundamental than Poincaré's original relativity
and Einstein's revision.

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification.

Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.

That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
frame of reference.

SRT doesn't contain such a postulate, just the PoR which was by then a
matter of observation. Of course you can argue that not all possible
observations can be tested, but that is true for any law of physics.

Poincaré believed in an unobservable, absolute frame of reference.
And, of course, Poincaré originated the PoR. Are you saying that the
PoR in special relativity, as taught today, is identical to the PoR in
Poincaré’s original relativity?

Even if Einstein’s PoR is identical to the PoR in Poincaré’s original
relativity and even though physicists today might not have declared
the nonexistence of an unobservable, absolute frame of reference as an
axiom clearly enough for you, they sure do presuppose its nonexistence
when explaining Einstein’s theory. And I’m not talking about
observations. I’m talking about presuppositions.

I've read several papers that state that Lorentz's theory evolved from
v/c order to exactness. See, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
where it says:

A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895[4] was the "theorem
of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c. This theorem states
that a moving observer (relative to the ether) in his „fictitious“
field makes the same observations as a resting observers in his „real“
field. This theorem was extended for terms of all orders by Lorentz
(1904)[5] and completed by Poincaré (1905, 1906)[6][7] and by Lorentz
(1906, 1916)[8] in order to obey the principle of relativity.

As Lorentz put it himself:

"It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of
certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order
of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought
to frame a theory of this kind. I believe it is now possible to treat
the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the
velocity will be that it be less than that of light. I shall start from the
fundamental equations of the theory of electrons."

This quote from Lorentz confirms what I’ve said. Lorentz started
relativity by approximating the consequences to the PoR in terms of
first order effects. The phrase, “without neglecting terms of one
order of magnitude or another” doesn’t admit an oversight or a
mathematical error. It simply refers to the business of making an
approximation.

Those "fundamental assumptions" were really new. Probably the word "many"
was put there because it appeared to him that it still didn't work
perfectly. Poincare corrected the glitch and showed that Lorentz's new
theory resulted in the Lorentz transformations which achieve perfect
relativity of inertial frames.

How does that contradict my opening post?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...8815ad2efed0f5

Shubee

On Jun 13, 10:05 am, "harry"
wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in message

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred
when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to
experimental verification.

Huh? Everything above IS based on experiments.

That’s false. No experiment proves the nonexistence of an absolute
frame of reference.

SRT doesn't contain such a postulate,

I found a reference for you in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

In their article on special relativity, in the section titled
“Postulates”, it clearly states:

"It should be noted that the derivation of special relativity depends
not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several tacit
assumptions (which are made in almost all theories of physics),
including the isotropy and homogeneity of space and the independence
of measuring rods and clocks from their past history." (Einstein,
"Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity", 1920).

The independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history
is not an assumption that I'm willing to make.

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

On Jun 14, 6:06*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

Are you noticing the difference between invariant and covariant laws?

Please provide brief abstract definitions. Thanks.

On Jun 13, 1:03*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

SR remains merely a conjecture --- an absurd one actually. *shrug

Why is the conjecture of Lorentz invariance "absurd"?