Re: The Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein Fraud
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: YBM: "Re: A Magical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A Magical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
- In reply to: Holman: "The Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein Fraud"
- Next in thread: eleaticus: "Re: The Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein Fraud"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:08:35 GMT
"Holman" <toma33825@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67d359bf.0410020643.1a6217ca@posting.google.com...
> Response to eleaticus (eleaticus@bellsouth.net) on the subject of
> SR-cult Fraud and Corruption, 0n 9-30-04.
>
> Eleaticus,
>
> If I read your text correctly, a relativity cultist is an investigator
> who blindly believes that Newtonian-Galilean physics has little to do
> with SR. Perhaps you are partly right. But then I must completely
> disagree with your last comment of the article. You said, "It is
> typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of
> moving objects that are being waved at you, and such items are
> completely irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance."
>
> Am I reading correctly what you have implied? Relativity is
> completely irrelevant to coordinate transformations. I believe both
> pro-and-con positions--the purist & the cultist camps--have much to be
> desired.
>
> First, assertions that relativity must be taken to account for every
> aspect of physics are faulty. It is like saying that an ant moving a
> grain of sand here on earth has some great influence over the moon's
> orbit. Second, neither one side nor the other dug to the core of the
> issue. Certainly, too, the non-relativistic student cannot rely on
> Newtonian physics entirely.
>
> What cultists imply is a state of dependence regarding
> relativity--that is, one entity's existence is solely dependent upon
> those properties produced by another entity. Whereas, a purists
> believes otherwise--no link exists between a progenitive source and
> descending lines.
>
> Now let's step into the twenty-first century. Relativity is simply a
> state of knowledge--I repeat, a state of knowledge--showing how
> natural laws link in logical, natural associations.
Relativity is a theory having the same status as any other theory.
Philosophical semantic word games calling it a state of knowledge and other
such meaningless sophistry are not worth much.
> Special
> relativity is a framework (period).
It is a theory based on experiment the same as any other theory -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. Why
we would choose it over LET for example may be described as a framework I
suppose - but it is a framework based on experience and evidence - see
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com.
> It provides the means to
> translate physical events (and laws) into any appropriate
> inertial-frame form.
So Lorentz invariance is not a condition that can be imposed on theories?
The POR has no physical content?
> So if the truth is known, natural associations
> have much to do with coordinate transformations.
>
> It's well known that special relativity is based upon two postulates;
> namely, the principle of relativity (The laws of physics are the same
> everywhere regardless of the observer's speed.) and the constancy for
> the speed of light (regardless of an observer's motion). From this we
> can deduce Lorentz transformations, especially Lorentz' gamma factor,
> for a particular event when compared to a parallel event using
> spacetime coordinates. Therefore, these postulates are merely theory
> and no more. (Does light really have a constant velocity everywhere?
> Are laws in physics actually identical elsewhere?) Some theoretical
> renditions say that's not so, that natural law and light's motion are
> merely relative associations.
As shown above it is based on experiment just as much as any theory is. Of
course no scientific theory can ever be proven because we are not sure some
experiment will not pop up tomorrow that may disprove it - but so what?
>
> Perhaps coincidental, seemingly hard facts have come to the surface
> regarding the laws of motion that was obtained from electrodynamic
> considerations; i.e., time t, mass m, force f, and the velocity u are
> relative to an inertial frame s, let us say. But Minkowski introduced
> an invariant reformulation for this usual law of motion.
>
> Since force, time, and mass are dependent upon reference frames, an
> investigator must take great care to refer all quantities to the
> correct, corresponding frame.
No - the investigator must take great care to express the laws in accordance
with the POR eg ensure they are Lorentz invariant.
> And that is where everyone missed the
> boat. For example, Lorentz transformation velocities can be shown in
> terms of composition or addition of velocities. But have they been
> expressed properly? As in the above case, the Lorentz gamma factor,
> does the formula translate into reality?
Experiment shows it is correct.
>
> I believe not. It is my current opinion, which I have held for many
> years, that from Lorentz on forward everyone got off on the wrong foot
> in regards to the transformation of time. Time cannot be portrayed as
> a nonspatial continuum only, as an irreversible succession of events.
> But it must be observed truly as a property of space. Yes, it can be
> considered as an interval separating two point in space, often called
> a linear measure. Yet time has more than just one dimension. Think
> about it.
Please point me to the experiment that shows this, not some philosophical
mumbo jumbo masquerading as science, but an actual experiment.
>
> If we think of time as being a property of space, similar to space's
> three-dimensional field, then we must also mentally conceive time to
> be more than one dimension. There's where the flaw lies in
> transformation. Spacetime coordinates inevitably disclose more than
> one independent measure. Once an investigator steps over this
> obstacle, he/she has the primary option to envisage coordinates as
> they should be, not as die-hards believe them to be or what
> traditionalists have taught in the past.
Buzzwords strung together in a way that indicates the author probably does
not know what they mean.
>
> For instance, imagine a length, width, and depth in respect to the
> properties of time, any dimension of which can influence your view on
> parallel events. Now imagine measuring and comparing periods of time
> within two coordinate systems where the ratio for time dilation is
> 1:0.5 sec, for example. While laws are the same within both reference
> frames (first SR postulate), the execution of any given
> law--simultaneous speaking--fails to deliver the same results (punch)
> in one system as another. Why? Because periods of time do not bear
> the same quantities. After all, the above condition expresses a 1 to
> 0.5 time-interval relationship, however that relationship might be
> determined.
You misunderstand the POR.
>
> So we must presently go back and revisit everything that has been
> discovered to date, by factuality alone, since SR was first written
> down. SR is just a theory (setting forth relative associations) to
> the point where its postulates are mere guideposts. Points of
> argument are meaningless today when periods of time do not bear the
> same quantities, or when comparing various or different coordinate
> systems. As they say, a guess is as good as a miss, a kilometer away.
> And that is what we are doing today; it's a guessing game at best
> when using theoretical methods to determine resolutions.
>
> Now grab hold of another mental picture. The above illustration, a
> 1:0.5 ratio, only expresses two of three dimensions. The scene
> becomes somewhat more complicated when a third dimension for time is
> brought into the picture.
>
> I wish I could go into more detail on the subject of time dilation and
> coordinate transformation velocities. But many of the formulae are
> rather elaborate when executed individually, plus there are many
> equations when conveying a complete line of thinking. In addition,
> numerous drawings help paint a clear picture for the various states of
> time, illustrations that cannot be displayed here. For those reasons,
> I'm searching for an online ejournal in order to publish my findings.
> So if anyone is aware of one, please drop me an email,
> toma33825@yahoo.com, with the following subject line: Lorentz
> Formulae Revisited.
>
> Holman.....
I wish you would read some proper books on relativity such as Rindler -
Interception to Special Relativity that may correct some of you obvious
misconceptions.
Bill
- Next message: YBM: "Re: A Magical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A Magical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
- In reply to: Holman: "The Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein Fraud"
- Next in thread: eleaticus: "Re: The Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein Fraud"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
