Re: self-study recommendations?

From: sal (pragmatist_at_nospam.org)
Date: 08/09/04 

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:18:26 -0400

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:43:00 +0000, Androcles wrote:

>
> "sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.09.03.04.19.466730@nospam.org...
> | On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:13:15 +0000, Androcles wrote:

> You should explain that to Einstein...

I can't, he died some time back.

> | > Do you have any evidence to support Einstein's second postulate?
> |
> | Not me, not personally. I have evidence that Google hates my website
> | (they flatly refuse to index it).
> Did you ask them?

Of course I did.

> People don't do what you ask for either of two reasons.
> They can't or they won't. It's hard to imagine Google can't, so it must be
> that they won't.
> Perhaps they want m.o.n.e.y.

They won't take money to index a website (unlike most of the other major
indices).

>
> | > Ok, we are done with that. Next question. Can you derive the Lorentz
> | > Transforms?
> |
> | I tried that in an earlier discussion with you, and gave up after I dug
> | myself about an hour and a half deep into a hole.
> |
> | Einstein did it once, that's good enough for me. And it should be good
> | enough for you, too. Right?

Actually I have an addendum to this, but I posted it before I saw your
response. Please jump over and look at my reply to Eric Gisse to pick up
a more reasonable response to the request for a derivation.

>
> Nah... as I said to Jim Greenfield,
> Einstein states:

But this is all from the physicists point of view, which you've already
said you dislike. The standard mathematician's derivation is much
clearer, believe me.

> Now, having backed your claim, let me see you apply it. From the data
> and information given, calculate the exact distance to the binary pulsar
> referred to in
> http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

Cool link -- was this from Eric?

> and be the first to calculate a great astronomical distance to any
> heretofore known precision, because you can bet your shirt on that 17Hz
> oscillator being regular, and it will be a greater contribution to
> science than beating up some dumb DHR on this ng devoted entirely to
> mud-slinging.

Actually the greatest contribution to science I could make right now is to
get back to work and figure out why our product crashes with the
latest and greatest version of the OS used on the nation's whizziest
computers, so that the guys doing real science can start getting some work
done.

> You are smart enough to do it, right?

I already told you SR isn't applicable to situations involving gravity,
like space with stars in it. And using GR would take too long, because I
need to get back to work.

>
>
> | --
> | I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
>
> BTW, what are those pretty ice cream cones with the clown suit buttons
> on your index page? It seems to be your logo. Curried pepper and chili
> ice cream, perhaps? It appears to be hot and falling off.

They're supposed to be spaceships. I thought they came out rather well,
actually, but perhaps I'm biased.

> And if you
> want a novice to relativity to read it, isn't he likely to be confused
> by MCRF? I glanced but saw no reference to its meaning. Perhaps I didn't
> look hard enough.

Um ... good point. I should probably explain that the first time it's
used on each page, or link to a definition or some such. The site has
some rough edges, it's true.

I certainly haven't been recommending that novices to relativity just bop
over to my site to learn all about it, as you may have noticed if you've
been following the "Recommendations" threads that occasionally move
through the NG. 

-- 
I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

Relevant Pages