Re: why lorentz transformation?

"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Androcles wrote:
>>
>> Hey phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the *** up.

>Math? Since you know almost nothing about it, I find it odd that you
>should lecture people (or more like, INSULT) on that very subject.

Androcles reserves these sorts of insults almost exclusively to people
who actually have mathematical ability.

Androcles, you used your claim of kill-filing me in order to evade having
to deal with the rest of what I wrote in the post to which you responded
to the kill-filing. For this reason, I reproduce the post in question,
verbatim, starting immediately after the comment which led to your claim
of kill-filing me. There are two points of particular note here. The
first was your continued misinterpretation of what Einstein meant by a
specific comment, in spite of having had the correct interpretation given
to you. The second was your strange notation in which you mark off values
of x' equal to 0', 1', 2', etc, where the normal and sensible thing to do
is to mark off the values of x' equal to 0, 1, 2, etc. You never did
explain why you adopted the odd notation of putting the prime on 0, 1, 2,
3, etc, when discussing values of x'.

The post is quoted below. I have also taken care to attribute the
statements to the appropriate person.

-----

>From me:

I allowed you an insight into what Einstein meant when he wrote that
(or, rather, when he wrote the original German), and you ridicule it.
Have you no natural curiosity about the way things REALLY are? Or do
you prefer to construct your own fantasy about the way the world works,
and what people actually mean (and then insist that people abide by your
fantasy), and shut your ears to those who disagree with you? Secondly,
I followed up my above comment with a detailed explanation as to the
significance of the word "plays", and an explanation as to what Einstein
was getting at.

What you quoted from Einstein was not a statement that c is infinitely
great. If it had been, then Einstein would have explicitly said so,
rather than using the more vague language that he used.

The fact is that Einstein did not say that c is infinite, as you falsely
claimed. Einstein said that c played a role in special relativity which
was analogous to that played by infinite speed in classical mechanics,
and I went to a lot of trouble to explain exactly what that analogous
role was.

>From me:

>>Androcles effectively states that the only viable interpretation is
>>that Einstein states that c is infinite.

>From Androcles:

>or v = 0. I notice you've ignored the equation.

>From me:

I did not ignore the equation. The reason why I did not refer to the
equation was because the equation was irrelevant to what Einstein meant
when he wrote that the role of c in special relativity is analogous to
that of infinite speed in classical mechanics. The equation comes from
near the beginning of Section 3 of Einstein's 1905 paper. Throughout
what Einstein wrote following the equation, c was assumed to be finite.

Einstein's observation, that the role of c in special relativity was
analogous to that of infinite speed in classical mechanics, was made at
the beginning of Section 4, and it meant no more than what I have
already specified: the role of c in special relativity as the
unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material bodies is
exactly analogous to the role of infinite speed in classical mechanics
as the unattainable supremum to those speeds attainable by material
bodies.

>From me:

>>Here is an alternative interpretation for Androcles to consider. In
>>classical mechanics, infinite speed is the unattainable supremum for
>>attainable speeds (i.e. all finite speeds are theoretically
>>attainable, infinite speed is unattainable for material bodies, and
>>all material bodies travel at less than infinite speed). In special
>>relativity, c is the unattainable supremum for attainable speeds speed
>>(i.e. all speeds less than c are theoretically attainable, c is
>>unattainable for material bodies, and all material bodies travel at
>>speed less than c). This means that, from a physical point of view,
>>the role of c in special relativity as the unattainable maximum
>>possible speed (i.e. an unattainable supremum) is analogous to the
>>role of infinite speed in classical mechanics as the unattainable
>>maximum possible speed (i.e. an unattainable supremum).

>From Androcles:

>It takes finite time to travel from (0,0,0) to (x',0,0) and the
>tip of the ray returns to (0,0,0) IN THE MOVING SYSTEM.

>From me:

That is irrelevant because Einstein never stated that c is infinite. Of
course c is finite, and of course it takes nonzero time for light to
travel a nonzero distance. But c is the unattainable supremum for the
attainable speeds of material bodies, just as infinite speed is the
unattainable supremum for attainable speeds for material bodies in
classical mechanics. THAT was the point that Einstein was making when
he made the remark at the beginning of Section 4 of his paper. I have
ALREADY explained that fact to you.

I noted recently that you have a habit of introducing irrelevant
comments when you do not have anything to offer on the topic at hand.
Look at how you introduced irrelevant comments about Einstein's 1905
paper in response to my discussion on the Galilean invariance of
Maxwell's homogeneous equations, the Galilean invariance of Maxwell's
inhomogeneous equations, and the symmetry between primed and unprimed
frames. Even though none of these had anything to do with Einstein's
1905 paper, you tried to introduce irrelevant comments about the paper
into the discussion. I also noted that, at the same time, you exhibited
other odd behaviour by refusing to acknowledge that x' can take values
like 0, 1, 2, but instead you insisted on denoting the values by the
unrecognized notation of 0', 1', 2'.

>From Androcles:

>Therefore either the moving system has not moved or the velocity of
>light is infinite as Einstein clearly states in his theory.

>From me:

He did not clearly state anything of the sort. He stated that c in
special relativity was LIKE infinite speed in classical mechanics. The
manner in which they are alike is that in their respective theories
(special relativity in the case of c, and classical mechanics in the
case of infinite speed), each is the unattainable supremum of the
attainable speeds for material bodies.

Note that Einstein stated that c plays the part of infinitely great
speeds. If he had intended to say that c was infinite in its own right,
he would have said "the speed of light is infinite", or "the speed of
light is infinitely great", instead of what he actually did say. Is the
distinction between "the speed of light is infinite" (or "the speed of
light is infinitely great") and "the speed of light plays the part of an
infinitely great speed" beyond your comprehension? If you genuinely
believe that what Einstein wrote meant that c is infinite, then tell me
why he did not just come out and explicitly state that c is infinite.

-----

>From me:

>>From this analogous physical behaviour of c in special relativity and
>>infinite speed in classical mechanics (from the point of view of both
>>being unattainable suprema for attainable speeds for material bodies
>>in their respective theories), it is reasonable to suggest that it was
>>*this* that Einstein was thinking of when he wrote in Section 4 of his
>>paper that

>>"we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light
>>in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
>>velocity."

>>David

>>-----
.