I think that anyone reading Einstein's 1905 paper
for the first time may find it somewhat cryptic and
unclear, partly because he does not include all the
intermediate mathematical steps in his argument.
I have posted a page which presents the argument
in the kinematical part of Einstein's paper, with
illustrations, and with the intermediate mathematical
steps filled in. Perhaps it might prove helpful to some
people trying to read Einstein's paper for first time!?

The page contains nothing unorthodox, although I
have other pages that do contain unorthodox material,
which don't, however, contradict the postulates of
SR or the transformation equations themselves.

http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/P...Derivation.htm

It should be emphasized that reading even an annotated version of
Einstein's famous paper is a terribly inadequate presentation of
relativity. For elegance and mathematical simplicity I recommend
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

Shubee a écrit :
It should be emphasized that reading even an annotated version of
Einstein's famous paper is a terribly inadequate presentation of
relativity. For elegance and mathematical simplicity I recommend
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Still trying to sell your brain dead religious falacies, Eugene Shubert ?

(notice to Alen: this is one of the specific cranks you'd be talking
about. His crap has been devasted here for years)

A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of
books.

-- Walt Whitman

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Alen" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think that anyone reading Einstein's 1905 paper
for the first time may find it somewhat cryptic and
unclear, partly because he does not include all the
intermediate mathematical steps in his argument.
I have posted a page which presents the argument
in the kinematical part of Einstein's paper, with
illustrations, and with the intermediate mathematical
steps filled in. Perhaps it might prove helpful to some
people trying to read Einstein's paper for first time!?

The page contains nothing unorthodox, although I
have other pages that do contain unorthodox material,
which don't, however, contradict the postulates of
SR or the transformation equations themselves.

http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/P...Derivation.htm

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.

-- Albert Einstein

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Shubee" wrote in message
oups.com...
It should be emphasized that reading even an annotated version of
Einstein's famous paper is a terribly inadequate presentation of
relativity. For elegance and mathematical simplicity I recommend
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

On Mar 18, 5:54 am, "Alen" wrote:
I think that anyone reading Einstein's 1905 paper
for the first time may find it somewhat cryptic and
unclear, partly because he does not include all the
intermediate mathematical steps in his argument.
I have posted a page which presents the argument
in the kinematical part of Einstein's paper, with
illustrations, and with the intermediate mathematical
steps filled in. Perhaps it might prove helpful to some
people trying to read Einstein's paper for first time!?

The page contains nothing unorthodox, although I
have other pages that do contain unorthodox material,
which don't, however, contradict the postulates of
SR or the transformation equations themselves.

http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/P...Derivation.htm

Interesting website. A couple of notes:

1. the 1905 derivation has been superseeded by more modern ones (you
can safely ignore the idiotic one pushed by Shubee)

2. I don't think that Einstein mixes frames, I could not see any
situation where he used x/tau=c or zeta/t=c

3. You do have an interesting website, worth reading

4. One more time, ignore any self promotion from Shubee, his "theory"
has been dissected by many, it is pure junk.

On Mar 18, 8:00 am, YBM wrote:
Shubee a écrit :

It should be emphasized that reading even an annotated version of
Einstein's famous paper is a terribly inadequate presentation of
relativity. For elegance and mathematical simplicity I recommend
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Still trying to sell your brain dead religious falacies, Eugene Shubert ?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf is very
irreligious. It's the very clear logic that you don't like.

On Mar 18, 8:14 am, wrote:

4. [Shubert's] "theory" has been dissected by many, it is pure junk.

No one has even attempted dissecting The Axiomatization of Physics -
Step 1. Most certainly you haven't. To do so requires understanding
high school algebra. That's a standard beyond your abilities.

Shubee

On Mar 18, 7:35 am, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 18, 8:14 am, wrote:

4. [Shubert's] "theory" has been dissected by many, it is pure junk.

No one has even attempted dissecting The Axiomatization of Physics -
Step 1. Most certainly you haven't. To do so requires understanding
high school algebra. That's a standard beyond your abilities.

Shubee

No, Scooby-Dooby, I disproved your "everything UNIMPORTANT" nonlinear
theory. You can't even demonstrate that your nonlinear transforms
satisfy the simple requirement:

T*T^-1=I.

You can't even define T^-1.
You and Ken Seto must ve twins separated at birth.

Shubee a écrit :
On Mar 18, 8:14 am, wrote:

4. [Shubert's] "theory" has been dissected by many, it is pure junk.

No one has even attempted dissecting The Axiomatization of Physics -
Step 1. Most certainly you haven't. To do so requires understanding
high school algebra. That's a standard beyond your abilities.

As well as more cranks you are too delusional to admit having been
refuted. Your dishonesty and mental desease will prevent you to
recognize as such the numerous rational proofs that you've never
write anything close to any kind of "derivation". What you could
see, nevertheless, is that all mathematicians and physicists you
send your paper to kicked you in the ass. You failed to feel the
irony in t'Hooft's response though :

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