robert j. kolker wrote:


Eugene Stefanovich wrote:

What do you mean "switch sides"? You probably noticed that I posted a
book. So I staked out my claim. I took my side and I am going to stick
to it.


Has your book been reviewed by competent physicists or mathematicians?
If so please give references indicating who reviewed it and what they
had to say about it.

Bob Kolker


No, my book has not been formally reviewed. The only reviews I had
so far are those posted on this newsgroup (see thread "Download a
new book..."). However this book is based on three articles published
in peer reviewed journals

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Field Theory without Infinities Ann. Phys.
292 , 139-156 (2001).

E.V. Stefanovich, Quantum Effects in Relativistic Decays Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 35 , 2539-2554 (1996).

E.V. Stefanovich, Is Minkowski Space-Time Compatible with Quantum
Mechanics? Found. Phys. 32 , 673-703 (2002).

So far, I must admit, I don't have a support of my ideas from heavy
weight figures in science. There are a couple of prominent physicists
who expressed a sympathy to my work, though, I should say, they
are "cautiously curious" to what I am doing. I sent them my book
recently and haven't got a response yet.

You are free to form your own opinion about what this book is worth.

Eugene.

Pentcho Valev writes
Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops
a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on empirical
starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
independence.


What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by definition,
can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at the
beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the axioms
to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into steps
each of which has the form

a,b,... - c

and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants (secretly
in the latter case).

Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is time
for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me suggest a
possible beginning:

Axiom (1) Principle of relativity

The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give different
results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was only
accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling scientific
community to accept it.

Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.

a. Observation - Light shows wavelike properties
b. Reasoning - light is a wave.
c. Logical deduction - A wave needs a medium, as light is a wave there
must be a medium.
d. Further deduction - If light is a wave in a medium its speed will be
constant w.r.t the medium and not affected by the source.

That is where your so called Axiom came from. With no empirical evidence
for source independence it is based on 'belief' in the ether. How one
can deny the existence of the ether and then get away with retaining the
belief in source independence by calling it 'axiomatic' I do not know
especially as it is totally counter intuitive, and an absurd idea from a
causality point of view. The second postulate says that the speed of
light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it. There is no possible
causal relationship whereby the observer can influence the speed of
light travelling towards him.

MMX represents a T junction in physics. There were two routes which
could be followed.

Route 1 says that there is no propagating medium therefore light is not
a propagated wave. A source is surrounded by nothing which can affect
the speed of light so the only thing the speed of light can be dependent
upon is the source - light is source dependent. This route looked a dead
cert when it was found that although light has wavelike properties it is
actually made up of particles. Particles don't need a propagating medium
and one would naturally expect their speed to be determined by the
physical processes which emit them. This is the logical route but was
not followed.

Route 2 says that the wave properties of light are too convincing to
allow a single experiment to lead to the conclusion physics had been
wrong for 200years. The assumption was that the propagating medium was
there so an explanation had to be found as to why it had not been
detected. That is fine. One doesn't throw away a good theory at the
first hurdle one tries to find a work around. Lorentz speculated that
there was interaction between the ether and matter and worked out what
that interaction would need to be to explain the null result. He
expressed that interaction mathematically with what we call the Lorentz
transforms. As his theory retained the concept of the propagating medium
it was logical that it assumed source independence. The two go together.
Einstein did not find a third route. He fits in further down this route.
The myth has developed that he found some sort of 'work around' which
removed the need for the ether. He didn't he simply assumed the ether
property of 'source independence' in his second postulate.

The dogma of source independence was supported for 200 years by belief
in the ether (which relativists no longer believe in) supported for a
further 60 years by DeSitter analysis of double stars before his
analysis was discredited. Now things are confused with at least as much
evidence for source dependence as for independence.


1,2 (3) Time dilation in BOTH inertial frames
.......(4)........................

The derivation is set out as a sequence of numbered lines (1), (2),
(3) etc. The fact that line (3) was obtained from (1) and (2) as
premises is shown by writing 1,2 to the left of the line number (3).

According to Einstein, the sequence eventually leads to

p,q,... (r) A clock in a non-rotating system undergoes time
CONTRACTION relative to a clock on the periphery of a rotating disc.

x,y,... (z) Two clocks placed at different gravitational potentials
will go at different rates in accordance with v=v_0(1+phi/c^2).

Now relativists should present all the steps leading to the above two
propositions and eventually replace p,q,r,x,y,z with real numbers.
They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just Einstein's
"intuitions", not theorems. Still some truth will be revealed and
truth should be valued in science shouldn't it.

I am in agreement with Essen "Many criticisms of relativity theory have
been published without having any effect on the Establishment, showing
that publication is not enough. Indeed the more the theory is criticized
the more strident the support is maintained - a common feature of all
irrational beliefs."

Either the maths of relativity is describing the properties of Lorentz's
ether or we have not the vaguest notion what the hell it is describing.
In the mean time what I have described as Route 1, the simplest most
logical route has been largely unexplored because the establishment
opted for route 2 rather than accept they had been wrong for 200 years
and have maintained tight control on the decimation of ideas and funding
ever since.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

General relativity describes in the first order the perihelion of mercur.
Special relativity calculation leads also to an perihel of the same size but
in opposite direction. Therefore, if one could find the force or the error
in the Landau Lifschitz essay about the two body problem, everything would
look fully otherwise.

The second proof of general relativity is that light changes its direction
when passing near a greater star like the sun.
This can also be explained by a frequency dependant mass term. The movement
is independant on the mass or frequeny anyway.

Therefore i think a solution of the unknown force (error or new gravity
force) in the special relativity two body problem will decide over general
relativity. There might be no curved spaces at all and the cosmology of GR
is another item. Maybe the room is flat and finite ! Maybe there are no
black holes at all ! Big masses are also nearly black in a flat room if
photons underly gravity.

I think special relativity might be able to explain more than we believe.
Help us to find out the error of the mercury paradox in special relativity.

One proposal is to have a new force similar to the magnetic field in
electrodynamics but acting on masses not on the charge. Could anyone try
this attempt who is in the matter ? This force has the same size of
displacement of mercur. Maybe its the double and opposite to the old SR
effect. This would be the last day of GR.



"John Kennaugh" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag .uk...
Pentcho Valev writes
Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops
a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on empirical
starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
independence.


What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by definition,
can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at the
beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the axioms
to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into steps
each of which has the form

a,b,... - c

and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants (secretly
in the latter case).

Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is time
for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me suggest a
possible beginning:

Axiom (1) Principle of relativity

The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give different
results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was only
accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling scientific
community to accept it.

Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.

a. Observation - Light shows wavelike properties
b. Reasoning - light is a wave.
c. Logical deduction - A wave needs a medium, as light is a wave there
must be a medium.
d. Further deduction - If light is a wave in a medium its speed will be
constant w.r.t the medium and not affected by the source.

That is where your so called Axiom came from. With no empirical evidence
for source independence it is based on 'belief' in the ether. How one
can deny the existence of the ether and then get away with retaining the
belief in source independence by calling it 'axiomatic' I do not know
especially as it is totally counter intuitive, and an absurd idea from a
causality point of view. The second postulate says that the speed of
light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it. There is no possible
causal relationship whereby the observer can influence the speed of
light travelling towards him.

MMX represents a T junction in physics. There were two routes which
could be followed.

Route 1 says that there is no propagating medium therefore light is not
a propagated wave. A source is surrounded by nothing which can affect
the speed of light so the only thing the speed of light can be dependent
upon is the source - light is source dependent. This route looked a dead
cert when it was found that although light has wavelike properties it is
actually made up of particles. Particles don't need a propagating medium
and one would naturally expect their speed to be determined by the
physical processes which emit them. This is the logical route but was
not followed.

Route 2 says that the wave properties of light are too convincing to
allow a single experiment to lead to the conclusion physics had been
wrong for 200years. The assumption was that the propagating medium was
there so an explanation had to be found as to why it had not been
detected. That is fine. One doesn't throw away a good theory at the
first hurdle one tries to find a work around. Lorentz speculated that
there was interaction between the ether and matter and worked out what
that interaction would need to be to explain the null result. He
expressed that interaction mathematically with what we call the Lorentz
transforms. As his theory retained the concept of the propagating medium
it was logical that it assumed source independence. The two go together.
Einstein did not find a third route. He fits in further down this route.
The myth has developed that he found some sort of 'work around' which
removed the need for the ether. He didn't he simply assumed the ether
property of 'source independence' in his second postulate.

The dogma of source independence was supported for 200 years by belief
in the ether (which relativists no longer believe in) supported for a
further 60 years by DeSitter analysis of double stars before his
analysis was discredited. Now things are confused with at least as much
evidence for source dependence as for independence.


1,2 (3) Time dilation in BOTH inertial frames
.......(4)........................

The derivation is set out as a sequence of numbered lines (1), (2),
(3) etc. The fact that line (3) was obtained from (1) and (2) as
premises is shown by writing 1,2 to the left of the line number (3).

According to Einstein, the sequence eventually leads to

p,q,... (r) A clock in a non-rotating system undergoes time
CONTRACTION relative to a clock on the periphery of a rotating disc.

x,y,... (z) Two clocks placed at different gravitational potentials
will go at different rates in accordance with v=v_0(1+phi/c^2).

Now relativists should present all the steps leading to the above two
propositions and eventually replace p,q,r,x,y,z with real numbers.
They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just Einstein's
"intuitions", not theorems. Still some truth will be revealed and
truth should be valued in science shouldn't it.

I am in agreement with Essen "Many criticisms of relativity theory have
been published without having any effect on the Establishment, showing
that publication is not enough. Indeed the more the theory is criticized
the more strident the support is maintained - a common feature of all
irrational beliefs."

Either the maths of relativity is describing the properties of Lorentz's
ether or we have not the vaguest notion what the hell it is describing.
In the mean time what I have described as Route 1, the simplest most
logical route has been largely unexplored because the establishment
opted for route 2 rather than accept they had been wrong for 200 years
and have maintained tight control on the decimation of ideas and funding
ever since.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Pentcho Valev writes
Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops
a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on empirical
starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
independence.


What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by definition,
can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at the
beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the axioms
to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into steps
each of which has the form

a,b,... - c

and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants (secretly
in the latter case).

Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is time
for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me suggest a
possible beginning:

Axiom (1) Principle of relativity

The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give different
results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was only
accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling scientific
community to accept it.

Not quite true. The POR is a simple extenssion of a principle loong knowm
to hold on classical mechanics.


Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.

That suic a constant exists follows form hte POR alone. Expriment fixes its
value as the speed of light.


a. Observation - Light shows wavelike properties
b. Reasoning - light is a wave.
c. Logical deduction - A wave needs a medium, as light is a wave there
must be a medium.
d. Further deduction - If light is a wave in a medium its speed will be
constant w.r.t the medium and not affected by the source.

That is where your so called Axiom came from. With no empirical evidence
for source independence it is based on 'belief' in the ether.

That view is out of date. It is now well known to follow from the POR - eg
see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076.

Bill

How one
can deny the existence of the ether and then get away with retaining the
belief in source independence by calling it 'axiomatic' I do not know
especially as it is totally counter intuitive, and an absurd idea from a
causality point of view. The second postulate says that the speed of
light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it. There is no possible
causal relationship whereby the observer can influence the speed of
light travelling towards him.

MMX represents a T junction in physics. There were two routes which
could be followed.

Route 1 says that there is no propagating medium therefore light is not
a propagated wave. A source is surrounded by nothing which can affect
the speed of light so the only thing the speed of light can be dependent
upon is the source - light is source dependent. This route looked a dead
cert when it was found that although light has wavelike properties it is
actually made up of particles. Particles don't need a propagating medium
and one would naturally expect their speed to be determined by the
physical processes which emit them. This is the logical route but was
not followed.

Route 2 says that the wave properties of light are too convincing to
allow a single experiment to lead to the conclusion physics had been
wrong for 200years. The assumption was that the propagating medium was
there so an explanation had to be found as to why it had not been
detected. That is fine. One doesn't throw away a good theory at the
first hurdle one tries to find a work around. Lorentz speculated that
there was interaction between the ether and matter and worked out what
that interaction would need to be to explain the null result. He
expressed that interaction mathematically with what we call the Lorentz
transforms. As his theory retained the concept of the propagating medium
it was logical that it assumed source independence. The two go together.
Einstein did not find a third route. He fits in further down this route.
The myth has developed that he found some sort of 'work around' which
removed the need for the ether. He didn't he simply assumed the ether
property of 'source independence' in his second postulate.

The dogma of source independence was supported for 200 years by belief
in the ether (which relativists no longer believe in) supported for a
further 60 years by DeSitter analysis of double stars before his
analysis was discredited. Now things are confused with at least as much
evidence for source dependence as for independence.


1,2 (3) Time dilation in BOTH inertial frames
.......(4)........................

The derivation is set out as a sequence of numbered lines (1), (2),
(3) etc. The fact that line (3) was obtained from (1) and (2) as
premises is shown by writing 1,2 to the left of the line number (3).

According to Einstein, the sequence eventually leads to

p,q,... (r) A clock in a non-rotating system undergoes time
CONTRACTION relative to a clock on the periphery of a rotating disc.

x,y,... (z) Two clocks placed at different gravitational potentials
will go at different rates in accordance with v=v_0(1+phi/c^2).

Now relativists should present all the steps leading to the above two
propositions and eventually replace p,q,r,x,y,z with real numbers.
They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just Einstein's
"intuitions", not theorems. Still some truth will be revealed and
truth should be valued in science shouldn't it.

I am in agreement with Essen "Many criticisms of relativity theory have
been published without having any effect on the Establishment, showing
that publication is not enough. Indeed the more the theory is criticized
the more strident the support is maintained - a common feature of all
irrational beliefs."

Either the maths of relativity is describing the properties of Lorentz's
ether or we have not the vaguest notion what the hell it is describing.
In the mean time what I have described as Route 1, the simplest most
logical route has been largely unexplored because the establishment
opted for route 2 rather than accept they had been wrong for 200 years
and have maintained tight control on the decimation of ideas and funding
ever since.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"John Kennaugh" wrote in
message .uk...
: Pentcho Valev writes
: Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather
develops
: a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
: small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."
:
: Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on
empirical
: starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
: independence.
:
:
: What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by
definition,
: can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at
the
: beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
: theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
: deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the
axioms
: to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into
steps
: each of which has the form
:
: a,b,... - c
:
: and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants
(secretly
: in the latter case).
:
: Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is
time
: for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me suggest
a
: possible beginning:
:
: Axiom (1) Principle of relativity
:
: The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give
different
: results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was only
: accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling
scientific
: community to accept it.

What?
You have REALLY misunderstood the PoR, John.
It is nothing like "experiments giving different results". Those are
EXAMPLES.
To quote Einstein, "Examples of this sort, together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics
as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the
idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been
shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

The PoR is nothing more exotic than two cars travelling side by side
being RELATIVELY at rest, and that is just one more EXAMPLE. There is
no ABSOLUTE rest, which is what an aether would provide. The PoR is so
simple and axiomatic it is difficult to describe except by example.
That Einstein used a magnet moving past a coil or a coil moving past a
magnet doesn't change the PoR in the slightest. The PoR is a
self-evident truth and an axiom, not to be challenged, changed or
otherwise meddled with.
Car 1 at speedometer reading 60 mph.
Car 2 at speedometer reading 60 mph.
60 - 60 = 0
No relative velocity, PoR in action.
Car 1 at speedometer reading 120 mph.
Car 2 at speedometer reading 60 mph.
120 - 60 = 60, PoR correct.
(120-60)/(1 - 120*60/c) 60mph, PoR modified.
Why do you imagine Einstein leaves this till later in his paper?
Answer: Because he wants to use c-v, c+v in this equation:
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
and to be able to say:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =
t."
He is most careful not to sasy
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity
(c-v)/(1-v/c), so that x'.(1-v/c) /(c-v) = t."
That would destroy his hoax.


:
: Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light
:
: No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
: observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.
:
: a. Observation - Light shows wavelike properties
: b. Reasoning - light is a wave.
: c. Logical deduction - A wave needs a medium, as light is a wave
there
: must be a medium.
: d. Further deduction - If light is a wave in a medium its speed will
be
: constant w.r.t the medium and not affected by the source.
:
: That is where your so called Axiom came from.

Actually, you are even further off base than you realize.
Pentcho is not a relativist. He's one of us, an ally. You are
preaching to the converted. He knows it isn't an axiom.
If you read what he say later,
"They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just Einstein's
"intuitions", not theorems. "
Still, it might come under the eye of a lurker.
Androcles.


: With no empirical evidence
: for source independence it is based on 'belief' in the ether. How
one
: can deny the existence of the ether and then get away with retaining
the
: belief in source independence by calling it 'axiomatic' I do not
know
: especially as it is totally counter intuitive, and an absurd idea
from a
: causality point of view. The second postulate says that the speed of
: light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it. There is no
possible
: causal relationship whereby the observer can influence the speed of
: light travelling towards him.
:
: MMX represents a T junction in physics. There were two routes which
: could be followed.
:
: Route 1 says that there is no propagating medium therefore light is
not
: a propagated wave. A source is surrounded by nothing which can
affect
: the speed of light so the only thing the speed of light can be
dependent
: upon is the source - light is source dependent. This route looked a
dead
: cert when it was found that although light has wavelike properties
it is
: actually made up of particles. Particles don't need a propagating
medium
: and one would naturally expect their speed to be determined by the
: physical processes which emit them. This is the logical route but
was
: not followed.
:
: Route 2 says that the wave properties of light are too convincing to
: allow a single experiment to lead to the conclusion physics had been
: wrong for 200years. The assumption was that the propagating medium
was
: there so an explanation had to be found as to why it had not been
: detected. That is fine. One doesn't throw away a good theory at the
: first hurdle one tries to find a work around. Lorentz speculated
that
: there was interaction between the ether and matter and worked out
what
: that interaction would need to be to explain the null result. He
: expressed that interaction mathematically with what we call the
Lorentz
: transforms. As his theory retained the concept of the propagating
medium
: it was logical that it assumed source independence. The two go
together.
: Einstein did not find a third route. He fits in further down this
route.
: The myth has developed that he found some sort of 'work around'
which
: removed the need for the ether. He didn't he simply assumed the
ether
: property of 'source independence' in his second postulate.
:
: The dogma of source independence was supported for 200 years by
belief
: in the ether (which relativists no longer believe in) supported for
a
: further 60 years by DeSitter analysis of double stars before his
: analysis was discredited. Now things are confused with at least as
much
: evidence for source dependence as for independence.
:
:
: 1,2 (3) Time dilation in BOTH inertial frames
: .......(4)........................
:
: The derivation is set out as a sequence of numbered lines (1), (2),
: (3) etc. The fact that line (3) was obtained from (1) and (2) as
: premises is shown by writing 1,2 to the left of the line number
(3).
:
: According to Einstein, the sequence eventually leads to
:
: p,q,... (r) A clock in a non-rotating system undergoes time
: CONTRACTION relative to a clock on the periphery of a rotating
disc.
:
: x,y,... (z) Two clocks placed at different gravitational potentials
: will go at different rates in accordance with v=v_0(1+phi/c^2).
:
: Now relativists should present all the steps leading to the above
two
: propositions and eventually replace p,q,r,x,y,z with real numbers.
: They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just Einstein's
: "intuitions", not theorems. Still some truth will be revealed and
: truth should be valued in science shouldn't it.
:
: I am in agreement with Essen "Many criticisms of relativity theory
have
: been published without having any effect on the Establishment,
showing
: that publication is not enough. Indeed the more the theory is
criticized
: the more strident the support is maintained - a common feature of
all
: irrational beliefs."
:
: Either the maths of relativity is describing the properties of
Lorentz's
: ether or we have not the vaguest notion what the hell it is
describing.
: In the mean time what I have described as Route 1, the simplest most
: logical route has been largely unexplored because the establishment
: opted for route 2 rather than accept they had been wrong for 200
years
: and have maintained tight control on the decimation of ideas and
funding
: ever since.
:
: --
: John Kennaugh
: to email convert the number from hex to decimal

John Kennaugh wrote in message o.uk...
Pentcho Valev writes
Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops
a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on empirical
starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
independence.


What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by definition,
can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at the
beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the axioms
to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into steps
each of which has the form

a,b,... - c

and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants (secretly
in the latter case).

Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is time
for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me suggest a
possible beginning:

Axiom (1) Principle of relativity

The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give different
results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was only
accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling scientific
community to accept it.

Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.


Einstein and textbooks sometimes claim that certain propositions are
deduced from the two above which they call postulates, principles or
axioms, but do not give explicitly the deductive path, step by step.
So I asked initiated relativists to fill the gap. They are considering
carefully my request and will answer in a few decades.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message om...
John Kennaugh wrote in message o.uk...

[snip]

Einstein and textbooks sometimes claim that certain propositions are
deduced from the two above which they call postulates, principles or
axioms, but do not give explicitly the deductive path, step by step.
So I asked initiated relativists to fill the gap. They are considering
carefully my request and will answer in a few decades.

Surely you mean an infinite number of decades
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...gInfinity.html

Dirk Vdm

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
: John Kennaugh wrote in
message o.uk...
: Pentcho Valev writes
: Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather
develops
: a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from
a
: small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."
:
: Einstein described relativity as a principle theory based on
empirical
: starting points. There was no empirical evidence for source
: independence.
:
:
: What Einstein describes is an axiomatic system which, by
definition,
: can be presented as a sequence of propositions with the axioms at
the
: beginning followed by theorems (deduced propositions), where each
: theorem is accompanied by an explicit authentication of the exact
: deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the
axioms
: to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into
steps
: each of which has the form
:
: a,b,... - c
:
: and can undergo the scrutiny of both critics and sycophants
(secretly
: in the latter case).
:
: Perhaps, after 100 years of intensive begging the question, it is
time
: for relativists to perform this important operation. Let me
suggest a
: possible beginning:
:
: Axiom (1) Principle of relativity
:
: The PoR was an acceptance that no experiment was going to give
different
: results but it can hardly be a 'self evident truth' when it was
only
: accepted after MMX and others experiments forced an unwilling
scientific
: community to accept it.
:
: Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light
:
: No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
: observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.
:
:
: Einstein and textbooks sometimes claim that certain propositions are
: deduced from the two above which they call postulates, principles or
: axioms, but do not give explicitly the deductive path, step by step.
: So I asked initiated relativists to fill the gap. They are
considering
: carefully my request and will answer in a few decades.
:
: Pentcho Valev

ROFL! Nice one, Pentcho.
Androcles

Bill Hobba writes

Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.

That suic a constant exists follows form hte POR alone.

Prove it!


Expriment fixes its
value as the speed of light.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Bill Hobba writes

Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light

No. Why describe it Axiomatic? It was the result of reasoning from
observation. That reasoning might, or might not, have been flawed.

That suic a constant exists follows form hte POR alone.

Prove it!

The paper I linked to did. Did you read it or is calculus beyond you? For
another proof based on group theory see an ancient post by Tom Roberts

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=A+...t.com&r num=1

Bill




Expriment fixes its
value as the speed of light.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal