Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition, Bewildering Magic or Paradox?


"Ray Vickson" <RGVickson@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7f7a436a-bad6-419f-bdea-a2ff475d43ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Jul 30, 1:14 am, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
| > Am Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:36:33 -0700 schrieb Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx>
in
| > 42be138c-a4fe-4cad-bcbc-c7ec0402e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in
| > sci.physics.relativity:
| >
| > > It's not clear to me why the Lorentz transformation can't be reduced
to
| > > the Galilean transformation by resetting clocks, rescaling distance
| > > measures and fiddling with clock rates according to the recipe on page
| > > 11 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfand
| > > equations (48) to (58).
| >
| > > How do you answer this riddle?
| >
| > > Shubee
| >
| > Easy. The Lorentz transformation
| >
| > x' = gamma (x - v t)
| > y' = y
| > z' = z
| > t' = gamma (t - v x / c^2)
| >
| > is not the same as the Galilean transformation
| >
| > x' = x - v t
| > y' = y
| > y' = z
| > t' = t
| >
| > Simple inspection reveals that. The only way the two can ever be the
same
| > is when v=0; but Relativity already has that built in. Rescaling x or t
| > will not change the underlying nature of the transformation.
|
| Taking c = infinity will also work.
|
| Some derivations of Lorentz from first principles (not using light
| velocity, etc.) end up with a Lorentz-type transformation having a
| frame-independent constant k having the dimensions of 1/(velocity)^2.
| The case k < 0 leads to unphysical behaviour, so can be rejected. Of
| course, k = 0 gives Galilean, while k > 0 gives actual Lorentz, which
| can then be re-written using k = 1/c^2, where c is a universal speed.
| Such derivations do not claim there is any physical "thing" having
| speed c, but they leave open the possibility that there is such a
| thing. Of course, "light" seems to fit the bill, but even if some
| future experiments give varying light speeds when performed to higher
| accuracy than attainable up to now, that would still not invalidate
| SR.
|

The case tau <> t leads to unphysical behaviour, so can be rejected,
fuckhead.

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."

Thence we conclude Einstein was a fuckhead, just like Vickson.



.