Re: A little challenge for relativists.

Harry:
>
>"shuba" <tim.shuba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:tim.shuba-8AB091.08285902112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> O'Harry wrote:
>>
>> > Fine - I don't consider the absence of a limiting speed as a valid
>> > "invariant" number, but you may do so if you like.
>>
>> The point is that an instantaneous signal in Galilean relativity
>> would be instantaneous in all frames, independent of the speed of
>> the source. You would be better off studying the mathematics of
>> relativty, rather than making more uninformed and disingenuous
>> comments based on your poor understanding.
>
>You would be better of studying physics:

You would better studying enough physics to separate the physics
from the math and terminology. The reason you are still trying to
pass off your non-standard terminology to equivocate the differences
in the physics obtained by different derivations of the lorentz
transforms, is that you don't understand the difference between physics
and math and try to conflate differences in physics through terminology
-- as if terminology was also physics.

>light is not instantaneous in *Newtonian* mechanics.

You only manage to make your misconceptions about the role of
light in relativity even more obvious. Get it through your thick
head that the speed with which light propagates is just as irrelevant
to special relativity as it is to galilean relativity. See if this
helps. Let those things apply to light, but then stop using
the term ``light'' to mean electromagnetic radiation of any sort.
Now, lightlike and speed of light, just refer to an interval
with zero proper time.

Obviously, those terms can be applied to galilean relativity,
with physical meanings similar to that in special relativity,
since they don't necessarily say anything at all about the
electromagnetic radiation as described in maxwell's equations.

In galilean relativity, the definition of such an interval is
essential, since the motion of an object doesn't depend causally
on every other object in the universe at every instant. What
physically corresponds to the null subspace in galilean relativity?
The mass. tp - xm is the conserved quantity corresponding to a
galilean boost. By comparison, tp - xE is the conserved quantity
corresponding to a lorentz boost. The consequence of the galilean
boost, is that mass is conserved.

>> What would lead you to think that I disagee with them? I doubt
>> they would disagree with my initial statement either, as it's a
>> well known and uncontroversial fact about the group structures
>> that can logically follow from the relativity principle.
>
>Your "The Principle of Relativity leads to an invariant speed c", sounds
>quite different from "It also came from Maxwell's equations" and "his
>(implicit) assumption that Maxwell's equations are a law of physics accounts
>for it completely".

I imagine that many things appear to be unrelated to the person who
has only a superficial knowledge of just a few of those things. So
long as you have no interest in understanding anything more than that,
you'll continue to receive the negative and condescending replies for
arguing from ignorance despite the attempts to remedy your ignorance.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Shuberts Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations
    ... > it looks mathematically like *Special* relativity. ... because no one in their right mind would ever use such a sync. ... of course since frames obeying Galilean relativity do not actually exist ... world - if the world was Galilean then a more reasonable sync would show it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... > You would better studying enough physics to separate the physics ... > pass off your non-standard terminology to equivocate the differences ... > light in relativity even more obvious. ... > to special relativity as it is to galilean relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RAH and Light speed was Re: Awesum mind powerz!!!
    ... are not consistent with Galilean relativity was one of the first big ... : in classical physics. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Lorentz on special relativity
    ... galilean boosts result in an additional conservation law. ... >been observed, and whatever version of mechanics one uses, it must allow ... Insofar as galilean relativity ... unless you want to also say that galilean relativity is special ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: correct, sensible, absurd relativity
    ... > The SR derivation of velocity addition that is consistent with the ... You dare say that a observer that travel at such .999 C would not be ... Galilean relativity was a sensible representation of what is locally ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)