, massively crossposting spammer, deparately
tries to justify his bias with bull****, yet again:

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
,

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
, babbling space kadett:

In math, axiom IS used in that way.

No, it isn't. Axioms cannot be proven to be true. If you think so,
prove the following axioms:

Axioms are self-evidentiary or self-proving. You can't prove it true by use
of other propositions/postulates but it proves itself.

Maybe on your planet, but not here on earth. Axioms cannot be proven
and self-evident is not a mathematical qualifier.

Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+axiom and see how
many definitions use the term "self-evident."

Look up ``Axiom of Choice,'' and tell me what is self-evident about it.
Besides - the postulates in relativity are self-evident. End of story.
Now go play with yourself some more.

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
, massively crossposting spammer, deparately
tries to justify his bias with bull****, yet again:

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
,

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
, babbling space kadett:

In math, axiom IS used in that way.

No, it isn't. Axioms cannot be proven to be true. If you think so,
prove the following axioms:

Axioms are self-evidentiary or self-proving. You can't prove it true by use
of other propositions/postulates but it proves itself.

Maybe on your planet, but not here on earth. Axioms cannot be proven
and self-evident is not a mathematical qualifier.

Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+axiom and see how
many definitions use the term "self-evident."

Look up ``Axiom of Choice,'' and tell me what is self-evident about it.

Self-evident is not the same thing as obvious.

Besides - the postulates in relativity are self-evident. End of story.

Then they are not "not yet explained" as you put it. You stated that your
theory was based on some axioms (or postulates or what-ever, the term used
isn't really important) and that they weren't explained. Now either the
axioms/postulates ARE explained and accepted as true or your theory is
worthless. THAT is what I took objection to. If they ARE accepted
postulates, then they ARE explained. If they aren't explained, then they're
as worthless as my postulate "you owe me $1,000,000."

Now go play with yourself some more.

And all your little games with the follow-ups show how you aren't into this
to discuss it but are just trying to play games yourself.

--
Mike

atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004

schrieb
Bilge wrote:
, massively crossposting spammer, deparately
tries to justify his bias with bull****, yet again:

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:
,

In talk.atheism Bilge
wrote:
, babbling space kadett:

In math, axiom IS used in that way.

No, it isn't. Axioms cannot be proven to be true. If you think
so,
prove the following axioms:

Axioms are self-evidentiary or self-proving. You can't prove it
true by use
of other propositions/postulates but it proves itself.

Maybe on your planet, but not here on earth. Axioms cannot be
proven
and self-evident is not a mathematical qualifier.

Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+axiom and see
how
many definitions use the term "self-evident."

Look up ``Axiom of Choice,'' and tell me what is self-evident about
it.

Self-evident is not the same thing as obvious.

Besides - the postulates in relativity are self-evident. End of story.

Then they are not "not yet explained" as you put it.

You mingle Bilge with me.

The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

If they ARE accepted
postulates, then they ARE explained.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer:

The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

I only require the first postulate to derive both special relativity
and galilean relativity and the first postulate is nothing more than
saying physics doesn't depend on a coordinate system. The second postulate
is irrelevant. Gailean boosts conserve pt - mx and the commutator of
that with the momentum gives the mass as a locally conserved quantity.
Since mass is not conserved locally, the galilean transforms are ruled
out, leaving special relativity (the poincare group). That is sufficient
to derive a theory of electromagnetism and if charge is conserved,
one gets maxwell's equations.

If they ARE accepted
postulates, then they ARE explained.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

The main ``generalization'' being that physics is observer independent.
Newton assumed the same thing, but constrained his assumption to require
absolute simultaneity. Unfortunately, newton lacked the omnipotence
to forsee the development of variational calculus and group theory,
so what made sense to him makes a great deal less sense to those of
us living in the present. I refuse to reinvent the wheel to prove
someone wasn't being shortsighted in making it round just because
a few people just can't believe anything could be made more obvious
by a few hundred years of accumulated knowledge.

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

Do you really think forces can be created by coordinate transformations?
If not, then what is _not_ obvious about postulating that any real physics
should be indepedent of any coordinate system? The only thing which isn't
obvious is what such a theory should look like. But that is a difficulty
associated with implementing an obvious postulate into a mathematical
framework, not any non-obvious requirements in the postulates.

, dumb**** of the day:

In talk.atheism Bilge wrote:


Look up ``Axiom of Choice,'' and tell me what is self-evident about it.

Self-evident is not the same thing as obvious.

OK, let's see... So far, you claim that axioms are either provable
or self-evident, but that an axiom can be self-evident without being
obvious. So apparently, you have some special ability to determine
the difference between an axiom that is self-eveident yet non-obvious
and an axiom that is obvious yet not self-evident. I believe your
ability is called bias, hypocrisy and bull****. The only reason you're
such a ****ed off asshole is that I'm not buying into your bull****.
For some insight into your reasons for overestimating your scientific
and logical savoir faire, see www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Besides - the postulates in relativity are self-evident. End of story.

Then they are not "not yet explained" as you put it.

Which part of ``physics is independent of any coordinate system,''
are you finding to not be self-evident? This must be one of those
obvious but not self-evident axioms. I thought it was so obvious
that it had to be self-evident. Since the speed of light postulate
is irrelevant to anything beyond historical interest, I have no
interest in arguing about how self-evident it was to people who
are too dead to weigh in with their opinion.

In talk.atheism Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

schrieb
Bilge wrote:
, massively crossposting spammer, deparately
tries to justify his bias with bull****, yet again:

Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+axiom and see
how
many definitions use the term "self-evident."

Look up ``Axiom of Choice,'' and tell me what is self-evident about
it.

Self-evident is not the same thing as obvious.

Besides - the postulates in relativity are self-evident. End of story.

Then they are not "not yet explained" as you put it.

You mingle Bilge with me.

Yes, you are right. I realized that later after posting.

The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

Then they'd have to be based on either axioms (which are) or on other
postulates (which are likewise either based on self-evident axioms or on yet
more postulates, etc.)

If they ARE accepted
postulates, then they ARE explained.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

They are exlained in HOW they are true. And that's about all that we can do.
We can't explain "why" in the strictest sense about anything. But we can
explain "how" based on the chain of postulates that eventually end in some
axioms (the main one for the physical sciences being "there exists a
universe and it can be reliably observed.") So if your postulates were based
on observation (mixed with valid math,) then they are explained in the "how"
by that base axiom (and those of math) and thus would be valid (assuming the
math used is correct, etc.) And if you meant they aren't explained in the
"why" then I retract my original statement.

An example of all that would be: we observe the sun moving across the sky
(and some other such things) and thus come up with the postulate that the
earth moves around the sun. That postulate is explained in the "how." We
can't really explain WHY in the sense of "why is all this here?" but that's
more of a philosophical issue.


Ilja



--
Mike

atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004

"Bilge" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer:
The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

I only require the first postulate to derive both special relativity
and galilean relativity and the first postulate is nothing more than
saying physics doesn't depend on a coordinate system.

Not at all.

You should not mingle the question how a theory is presented
(there are alsways covariant ways to describe a theory, see
Kretschmann) and the nontrivial physical content of the principle
that it is impossible for observers to detect their own position and
state of motion.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

The main ``generalization'' being that physics is observer independent.
Newton assumed the same thing, but constrained his assumption to require
absolute simultaneity. Unfortunately, newton lacked the omnipotence
to forsee the development of variational calculus and group theory,
so what made sense to him makes a great deal less sense to those of
us living in the present.

I don't see your point, but what made sense for him makes a lot of sense
today too.

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

Do you really think forces can be created by coordinate transformations?

Of course, if you use inappropriate coordinates, this has to be
compensated by forces.

If not, then what is _not_ obvious about postulating that any real physics
should be indepedent of any coordinate system?

Of course it was possible to use other coordinates and to do,
nonetheless, the same physics, in Newton's time too. That is not the point.

Of course, in Newtonian physics there is a system of coordinates where
physics becomes especially simple. BTW, such systems of coordinates
exist in GR too.

The only thing which isn't
obvious is what such a theory should look like. But that is a difficulty
associated with implementing an obvious postulate into a mathematical
framework, not any non-obvious requirements in the postulates.

But the part you name "obvious" is the part which is irrelevant for GR.

Ilja

schrieb
In talk.atheism Ilja Schmelzer
wrote:
The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

Then they'd have to be based on either axioms (which are) or on other
postulates (which are likewise either based on self-evident axioms or on
yet
more postulates, etc.)

But this is not done, and nobody tries to do it.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

They are exlained in HOW they are true. And that's about all that we can
do.

No.

We can't explain "why" in the strictest sense about anything. But we can
explain "how" based on the chain of postulates that eventually end in some
axioms (the main one for the physical sciences being "there exists a
universe and it can be reliably observed.")

But based on such weak axioms you cannot derive a physical theory
which is able to make falsifiable predictions.

So if your postulates were based
on observation (mixed with valid math,) then they are explained in the
"how"
by that base axiom (and those of math) and thus would be valid (assuming
the
math used is correct, etc.)

There are no such self-evident base axioms in modern science.

An example of all that would be: we observe the sun moving across the sky
(and some other such things) and thus come up with the postulate that the
earth moves around the sun. That postulate is explained in the "how."

I don't understand your meaning of "how".

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer:

"Bilge" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer:
The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

I only require the first postulate to derive both special relativity
and galilean relativity and the first postulate is nothing more than
saying physics doesn't depend on a coordinate system.

Not at all.

You should not mingle the question how a theory is presented
(there are alsways covariant ways to describe a theory, see
Kretschmann) and the nontrivial physical content of the principle
that it is impossible for observers to detect their own position and
state of motion.

You see kretschmann. You've turned what kretschmann said into a
cliche and you are applying it as a cliche beyond the context in
which his conclusions apply. I already mentioned this in another
thread. Sure, general covariance is vacuous if the only field in
the universe is gravity. No only is it vacuous, it's obviously
so. But we don't live in such a universe. We inhabit a universe
which has fields other than gravity and those fields _do_ appear
as forces (unless you have discovered that general covariance
eliminates the other forces in nature along with gravity).
(see, ``Local Quantum Fields: Fields, Particles and Algebras,''
Haag, R. for some comments about this.)

If you ignore the strong, electromagnetic and weak interaction,
then general covariance is a tautology, but we aren't discussing
general covariance under those conditions. If you define a frame
with a charge at some point X, general covariance just tells
you how to describe point X in a coordinate free way. It doesn't
eliminate the force due to the charge at point Y.

In the case of SR they are generalizations from observations.

The main ``generalization'' being that physics is observer independent.
Newton assumed the same thing, but constrained his assumption to require
absolute simultaneity. Unfortunately, newton lacked the omnipotence
to forsee the development of variational calculus and group theory,
so what made sense to him makes a great deal less sense to those of
us living in the present.

I don't see your point, but what made sense for him makes a lot of sense
today too.

My point is that newton did not see the connection between space and
time, but he did see the connection between invariance and inertial
motion, even if he stated it rather crudely in his three laws for
lack of the mathematical language needed to express it more concisely.
All einstein did was to complete what newton proposed by erasing the
artificial distinction between space and time that newton imposed
for lack of the same knowledge available to einstein and others in
the centuries that followed. Up until einstein, the schemes invented
to explain maxwell's equations were nothing more than attempts to
maintain that artifice by introducing an ether as a compensatory
element.

But, that is silly for the simple reason, that even in newton's
theory, time has to be related to space through geometry. If it
weren't, a velocity defined by dx/dt would be meaningless. The
geometry is just different from the geometry of minkowski space.
In newtonian mechanics, the galilean transforms apply and the
clock time is an affine parameter, so it may be written in terms
of a coordinate time as, T = ct + a.


They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

Do you really think forces can be created by coordinate transformations?

Of course, if you use inappropriate coordinates, this has to be
compensated by forces.

I believe you've missed the entire point of general relativity and
how it differs from the things called forces. In general relativity,
the gravitational interaction is given by the connection, i.e.,
the cristoffel symbols. For other forces the connection is given
by the lie algebra of the gauge fields.

If not, then what is _not_ obvious about postulating that any real physics
should be indepedent of any coordinate system?

Of course it was possible to use other coordinates and to do,
nonetheless, the same physics, in Newton's time too. That is not the point.

Actually, it's the entire point. If you base a theory on invariance,
you implicitly assume that if the force vanishes under some symmetry
operation, the force is only apprent.

If you base a theory on a preferred set of coordinates, you implicitly
assume the existence of coordinate dependent force that makes everything
appear different to different observers using the same coordinates.
There is quite a difference.

Of course, in Newtonian physics there is a system of coordinates where
physics becomes especially simple. BTW, such systems of coordinates
exist in GR too.

In newtonian physics, the way that is accomplished is by inventing a
potential function. In a relativistic theory, you can't do that.

The only thing which isn't
obvious is what such a theory should look like. But that is a difficulty
associated with implementing an obvious postulate into a mathematical
framework, not any non-obvious requirements in the postulates.

But the part you name "obvious" is the part which is irrelevant for GR.

Rather than treat kretshmann as a slogan, try to see why your slogan
doesn't apply when you have forces that can't be eliminated by a
coordinate transformation. Do you really think the electromagnetic
force disappears through the general covariance in general relativity?

"Bilge" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer:
"Bilge" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer:
The postulates in relativity are not self-evident.

I only require the first postulate to derive both special relativity
and galilean relativity and the first postulate is nothing more than
saying physics doesn't depend on a coordinate system.

Not at all.
You should not mingle the question how a theory is presented
(there are alsways covariant ways to describe a theory, see
Kretschmann) and the nontrivial physical content of the principle
that it is impossible for observers to detect their own position and
state of motion.

You see kretschmann. You've turned what kretschmann said into a
cliche and you are applying it as a cliche beyond the context in
which his conclusions apply. I already mentioned this in another
thread. Sure, general covariance is vacuous if the only field in
the universe is gravity. No only is it vacuous, it's obviously
so. But we don't live in such a universe. We inhabit a universe
which has fields other than gravity and those fields _do_ appear
as forces (unless you have discovered that general covariance
eliminates the other forces in nature along with gravity).
(see, ``Local Quantum Fields: Fields, Particles and Algebras,''
Haag, R. for some comments about this.)

If you ignore the strong, electromagnetic and weak interaction,
then general covariance is a tautology, but we aren't discussing
general covariance under those conditions. If you define a frame
with a charge at some point X, general covariance just tells
you how to describe point X in a coordinate free way. It doesn't
eliminate the force due to the charge at point Y.

I do not plan to ignore the other fields, and the EEP, as I understand
and use this notion, is a nontrivial physical principle (which I prove,
as a nontrivial physical principle, in my theory.)

... and the first postulate is nothing more than
saying physics doesn't depend on a coordinate system.

My point is that newton did not see the connection between space and
time, but he did see the connection between invariance and inertial
motion, even if he stated it rather crudely in his three laws for
lack of the mathematical language needed to express it more concisely.
All einstein did was to complete what newton proposed by erasing the
artificial distinction between space and time that newton imposed
for lack of the same knowledge available to einstein and others in
the centuries that followed.

A very strange interpretation of what was done by Einstein.

Up until einstein, the schemes invented
to explain maxwell's equations were nothing more than attempts to
maintain that artifice by introducing an ether as a compensatory
element.

Nonsense. The classical ether was a reasonable theory, not an
"attempt to maintain an artifice". The problem was that it was
empirically falsified.

But, that is silly for the simple reason, that even in newton's
theory, time has to be related to space through geometry.
If it weren't, a velocity defined by dx/dt would be meaningless.

Strange words (related to space through geometry) for a simple
thing - absolute space.

The
geometry is just different from the geometry of minkowski space.
In newtonian mechanics, the galilean transforms apply and the
clock time is an affine parameter, so it may be written in terms
of a coordinate time as, T = ct + a.

A formula which does not hold in LET, where the clock rate
depends on the velocity of the clock. Your point being?
A naming convention that you disagree with the use of the
notion "Newtonian framework" in the context of LET because
clock time in LET is not defined in the same way?

They are neither self-evident (instead, they are falsifiable
empirical hypotheses) nor explained (means, it is not clear
why they are true - if they are really true and not only
approximations).

Do you really think forces can be created by coordinate
transformations?

Of course, if you use inappropriate coordinates, this has to be
compensated by forces.

I believe you've missed the entire point of general relativity and
how it differs from the things called forces.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. If you make accusations, prove them.
Else, it is not good style to make such claims.

Of course it was possible to use other coordinates and to do,
nonetheless, the same physics, in Newton's time too. That is not the
point.

Actually, it's the entire point. If you base a theory on invariance,
you implicitly assume that if the force vanishes under some symmetry
operation, the force is only apprent.
If you base a theory on a preferred set of coordinates, you implicitly
assume the existence of coordinate dependent force that makes everything
appear different to different observers using the same coordinates.

That's nonsense. Coordinates define names for events, if different
observers use the same coordinates they describe the world in the
same way. And, as a consequence, with the same equations, inclusive
the same forces. (Their own trajectory is, in this case, different for two
different observers.)

If different observers use - everybody - a system of coordinates
so that for each of them their own path is x(t)= 0 in his own system,
they use different coordinates.

Of course, in Newtonian physics there is a system of coordinates where
physics becomes especially simple. BTW, such systems of coordinates
exist in GR too.

In newtonian physics, the way that is accomplished is by inventing a
potential function. In a relativistic theory, you can't do that.

In GR, the Einstein equations simplify in harmonic coordinates. Fact.

The only thing which isn't
obvious is what such a theory should look like. But that is a
difficulty
associated with implementing an obvious postulate into a mathematical
framework, not any non-obvious requirements in the postulates.

But the part you name "obvious" is the part which is irrelevant for GR.

Rather than treat kretshmann as a slogan, try to see why your slogan
doesn't apply when you have forces that can't be eliminated by a
coordinate transformation.
Do you really think the electromagnetic
force disappears through the general covariance in general relativity?

It is not my aim to eliminate these forces. There is no reason to eliminate
them.
The question is if it is possible to define such theories like NM or
electromagnetism in a general covariant form. It is. Look into MTW to
find out the details.

Ilja