Re: THE COVARIANCE OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE NATURE

On 17 ago, 18:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:14 pm, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 17 ago, 15:48, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Aug 17, 11:37 am, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[snip idiocy]

1) There is no potential energy in SR.

This is an out of topic statement, I am referring to 1905 Relativity.

An irrelevant distinction because its the same theory, no matter what
you say or how hard you deny.

I don't care if you insist to identify SR with 1905R. I am always
making specific and direct references to the Einstein's 1905 papers
and I am claiming all the time that I am considering 1905 Relativity.
Einstein writes in the 1905 Sep 27 paper (at the end of page 1 and the
beginning of the 2): {The principle of energy must apply to this
process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to
both systems of co-ordinates}
Einstein is referring here to the Principle of Energy Conservation
(PoE), that in 1905 is expressed as Total Energy=Kinetic Energy
+Potential Energy. I used "PoE" because Einstein writes "principle of
energy" (no relation at all with the Principle of Equivalence of GR, I
apologize you for some possible confusion in this point). If you have
some objection to my historic references, tell me what is it. Even if
the words "potential energy" do not appear in the paper, the potential
energy concept is implicitly present, not only by the use of the PoE,
but also for the management that Einstein make with {...the arbitrary
additive constants of the energies...}. In all Physics history,
potential energy is the unique one with an arbitrary additive constant
(if you have some other alternative, tell me which is it). As you see,
I make very direct and specific references to the paper text to
support what I say (I put always between { } Einstein's own words).
But yes, at least there isn't gravitational potential energy in SR,
because as part of GR, SR applies only in a local region where
gravitational potential is considered constant (space-time "flat").> 2) There is no principle of equivalence in SR.

Yet you use the EP anyway. So much for self-consistency.

If you refer to the Equivalent Principle you surely confuse it with
the Principle of Energy Conservation (that I denote as PoE) used by
Einstein in the paper. (See above).


Total agreement (even if not relevant to 1905R), that principle is an
essential part of GR.> 3) Brillouin does not understand relativity.

[...thus everything you said about Brillouin is irrelevant]

I can't believe that you don't detected any thing wrong in my
derivation! Surely you are waiting for a more profound reading of it.

The only way I'm going to think what you have done is profound is if
I'm high. Even then it isn't a sure thing, my magnets would probably
be more profound.

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of what are you saying (English
is not my native language). If you considered that something is wrong
in my derivation, point it to talk about it.
But it has very low level mathematics, isn't it? No higher rank
tensors, space separated from time, only Euclidean space and Cartesian
coordinates used, Newton practically considered a relativistic guy,
and with all this trivial stuff explaining gravitational effects? What
a lack of respect for GR!

SR IS NOT EUCLIDEAN, DUMBASS.

Total agreement that SR is not Euclidean (it uses Minkovski space-time
introduced in 1907), but you insist to confuse 1905 Relativity with
Special Relativity. As always, I will make here a direct reference to
the 1905 papers to support my claim that the geometry used here is the
Euclidean one. In the 1905 Jun 30 paper (almost at the beginning of
paragraph 1) you can read:
{If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the
employment of rigid standards of measurements and the method of
Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.}
How many times do people have to explain this to you before any of it
sinks in? Do I need to get a Hilti and anchor it in to your thick
fucking skull?

How many times I need to explain you that 1905 Relativity is NOT
Special Relativity? Please, read the 1905 papers (at least the short
Sep 27 one), verify all my references to them, convince by yourself!




RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Ocultar texto de la cita -

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
- Mostrar texto de la cita -

.