Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 11/03/04 

Date: 2 Nov 2004 23:56:02 -0800

"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in message news:<4187dc55@sys13.hou.wt.net>...
> "Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> news:fd0fc2fa.0411020013.4874f5de@posting.google.com...
>
> > "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org>
> > wrote in message news:<418680bb@sys13.hou.wt.net>...
> >
> >> I consider my math degree to be of greater worth than a
> >> degree in muddled thinking.
> >
> > I find it impossible to comprehend that you could've gotten
> > a degree in math
>
> My math degree is from the University of California, San Diego.
> I graduated summa cum laude.

Then what the *** is your problem? A mental block?

>
> > when you make huge gaping errors in mathematical logic.
>
> What error did I make using the principle called, change of variables?
> What assumption is made in the substitution, u=v/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2)?
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=418524d7@sys13.hou.wt.net

Read the following for comprehension:

Your math is fine. Technically it is correct, but it is not a proper
derivation in any sense of the word.

The assumption you make in the substitution is that the proper form of
the equation is v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). You do not derive gamma anywhere,
you assume it.

Do you understand what I said? You do not derive gamma, you assume it.

If you truly have a major in mathematics, this would be patently
obvious to you.

>
> > Explain the difference between what you did, and what
> > Paul Anderson did when he "derived" PV=nRT from
> > a=b by substituting a=PV and b =nRT.
>
> There is no explanation for willful stupidity. What is a, b,--real
> numbers, functions, what? Whatever you say they are, the equation
> a=b means that a and b are dependent. The substitution a=PV works
> perfectly fine. a=b and a=PV implies that b=PV. So far so good. But
> if b=PV, why should b also equal to nRT? Since nothing is defined,
> there's nothing preventing you from making that substitution.
> Therefore the equation PV=nRT is true but says nothing more than
> two unspecified things are equal, which is exactly where you started.
> Garbage in. Garbage out.

Do you not see my point? Substituting a=PV and b=nRT to derive PV=nRT
is mathematically fine but it is not a derivation. Why should u =
v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)? You assume what you wish to derive!

>
> In http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf , it is
> assumed that stationary observers on the Shubertian clock travel equal
> distances in equal proper times. It should be clear that the quantity
> u is a real parameter that measures that proper velocity. You may
> also think of u as the right number to insert into the Shubertian time
> formulas so that the Shubertian clock ticks at the correct rate. Those
> equations are
>
> T = T(x,x') = -x'/u + xi(x)
> T' = T'(x,x') = x/u + zeta(x')
>
> At page 2 of my paper, the quantity v is not defined to be anything
> more than the solution to the equation u=v/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2). My
> paper is 6 pages long. I believe that the physical meaning of the
> parameter v is clear to those who actually finish reading the paper.

But you ASSUME u=v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)! You ASSUME u=v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)!

v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is derived from first principles in SR. Furthermore,
it is only true for 1 dimension, it is not true in 3 dimensions.

Let me state my thesis yet AGAIN because you fail to understand: Your
math is fine but it is not a derivation because you assume the answer
which you want to derive.
>
> Eugene Shubert
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Quantcast