On Mar 11, 7:15 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 11, 6:45 pm, wrote:



On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

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

Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
**** about your "work". Because it is ****.

Thank you very much. I receive between 1,000 and 2,000 hits per month.
But there is no excuse for your blindness and willful stupidity.
Please understand that not everyone can do high school math so you,
like my other adversaries, are excused from entering a rational debate.



Hits but ZERO publications. Despite heavy and shameless
selfadvertising. Care to explain?

On Mar 11, 9:50 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
land of group theory.

Garbage. Group theory and Special Relativity are two totally separate
theories.

[1] Group theory describes a specific mathematical structure.

[2] Special Relativity describes a kinematical theory of physics.

That the Lorentz (or Poincare) transformations form a group does not
mean "SR is based on group theory". Any theory admitting a vector
space structure also admits a group structure as reflection
transformations form a group. Poincare transformations consist of
spatial translations, rotations and boosts which are fundamentally
composed of reflections.

Your attempts at working with special relativity are ham-handed and a
fantastic waste of time. I can derive all of special relativity by
digging up the only four dimensional group that is unitary,
orthogonal, orthochronus, and has a finite speed limit.

Garbage. A group or a group element cannot have a "finite speed
limit". Your other properties of the group are easily derived by basic
geometric formulations of the theory.

It is called
the Lorentz group - also called SO(1,3). Furthermore, this method gets
me the metric formulation and does it in all four dimensions.

You can't move from a group structure to a vector space structure
without (various) hidden assumptions and axioms. It's not surprising
that you don't know this or that you don't understand this.

wrote:

[...]

Sounds like you hate group theory more than you hate relativity. Do
you shun all forms of mathematics higher htan algebra?

wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:50 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
land of group theory.

Garbage. Group theory and Special Relativity are two totally separate
theories.

Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.


That the Lorentz (or Poincare) transformations form a group does not
mean "SR is based on group theory".

He meant that a modern derivation of SR uses group theory in a
fundamental way. Specifically, all of SR can be derived from the following:

0) SR models the world as a 4-dimensional manifold involving 3-d
space and time
1) the Principle of Relativity (Einstein's version)
2) there is a finite upper bound on the relative speed of inertial
frames
3) the definition of inertial frames as coordinates on the manifold

plus the obvious requirement that the transformations among inertial
frames form a group.

(0)+(1)+(3)+group theory imply that only the following groups can be
admitted as transforms among inertial frames: Euclid(4-d), Galilei,
Poincare'. (2) further limits one to the Poincare' group. All of SR
follows from that (well, to get mechanics more postulates are needed...).


You can't move from a group structure to a vector space structure
without (various) hidden assumptions and axioms.

I didn't hide it -- that's all part of (0).

Indeed the Lorentz symmetry of SR has proved to be of fundamental
importance to theoretical physics. So this is a natural and appropriate
derivation.


Tom Roberts

On Mar 12, 2:38 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
wrote:

[...]

Sounds like you hate group theory more than you hate relativity. Do
you shun all forms of mathematics higher htan algebra?

That makes no sense. Group algebra is more primitive than normal
algebra.

The infinitely decreasing boundary of your competence becomes more
evident with each of your posts, Gisse. In fact, one could say your
incompetence has no boundaries at all.

On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.

I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
(without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

He meant that a modern derivation of SR uses group theory in a
fundamental way.

SR as derived by Hermann Minkowski does not require group theory in
any fundamental way. The group structure arises trivially from
spacetime reflections.

Specifically, all of SR can be derived from the following:

Specifically wrong. SR includes more than the underlying Minkowski
spacetime, it contains dynamical and mechanical considerations.

I didn't hide it -- that's all part of (0).

Another mistake. A manifold is not a vector space. You need the
remaining postulates to recover a vector space (or Minkowski space in
this case).

Indeed the Lorentz symmetry of SR has proved to be of fundamental
importance to theoretical physics. So this is a natural and appropriate
derivation.

That (clumsy) derivation may be "natural" and "appropriate" to you,
but it certaintly is not the way the founders of SR viewed the theory.
Quite the contrary, actually.

The group structure of SR is a (trivial) geometric consequence not a
fundamental axiom.

On Mar 11, 9:48 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.

I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
(without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

Such as?

[...]

On Mar 12, 4:27 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:48 pm, wrote:

On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.

I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
(without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

Such as?

If you want me to teach you something, tell me specifically what it is
you want to learn.

On Mar 11, 11:17 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:27 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 11, 9:48 pm, wrote:

On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.

I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
(without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).

Such as?

If you want me to teach you something, tell me specifically what it is
you want to learn.

If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the **** you are talking about.

Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.

"What the ****" the assumptions are irrelevant, that they exist is
trivially true.