Re: ABOUT THE USE OF THE LT

On Sep 17, 6:30 pm, xxein <xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 17, 3:02 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Harald wrote:
Happily, Einstein as
well as some good university textbooks do use "coordinate system" since
often no physical frame is meant at all.

So you understand that 'coordinate system' is not necessarily
synonymous with 'frame'. When did you change your mind?

The term "coordinate system" term
is perfectly well defined and conveys accurately what it stands for.

Which is not necessarily synonymous with 'frame', by your own
statement above. and yet you originally said 'the only excuse for
the use of the word "frame" is that it's so much shorter than
"coordinate system". Apparently now we have both identified
another excuse -- to express concepts with a greater level of
rigor and precision.

As I said, look though an introduction to manifolds and vector
analysis, and you will find that 'frame' cannot be replaced by
'coordinate system' in all cases without serious semantic and
logical difficulties. For certain levels of discourse in physics,
the distinctions can be ignored, but categorically claiming that
it is "misleading" to strive toward vocabulary in which concepts
can be more precisisely expressed is utterly bizarre.

---Tim Shuba---

xxein: What coordinate system? It would be subjectively biased and
measured as so with any observer movement. It would be put to an
invented math to comply.

Yes 1+1=2, but 1 of what and what is the other 1? We make this stuff
up with properties as we subjectively see them. All relative. Don't
they exist out of the our sense of a relativity and measurement?
Don't they have an intrinsic behavior beyond what we witness? Their
own objectivity to the physic?

Einstein took Lorentz (et al) to fashion us moving in a static space
and then into fields of energy that occupy it. But he didn't see it
quite that way. He invoked a curvature and called it space-time.
Like fields invade a static space and cause the curvature.

So we have motion and certain things like mass that create a gravity
field. We have since found that even a static energy field can make
for a gravity. Lesser, of course, but measurable. But have no idea
of why they exist, just as we wonder why there is anything at all.

So our answer is to invent reason out of the "whole cloth" you
referred to. Now what is believable and not believable? It depends
on how we wish to believe it.

There are certain things we can truly believe in, such as in we exist
in some kind of realistic moving environment. But there are invents
that proscribe to us as to why and how this environment (and us)
occur. In our case, the god stipulation is easiest to fall back
upon. Next up this ladder is physics (not the physic). Can you see
where I'm going here? Even though we can set such a god thought
aside, we are wondering how what we see and measure works as a
separate item. Iow, given a box of crayons or sub-atomic
measurements, what sense do we attach to it?

This is why these pages are sometimes at odds with the academia. No
one really knows. We attempt to find a skeleton structure and often
build our own skeleton structure to do so. But it is not the physic
that we exist in. We make believe.

Now about LT and its significance. It is a subjective measurement
tool with a math. But if you look deeper into it, the premise does
not imply that there is no absolute. But it quickly (to most) implies
only a relative measurement. Lorentz understood this perfectly. But
he couldn't grasp the gravity component. Neither can we.

Aside from gravity, he knew exactly how and why we make measure as we
do. Math doesn't explain it. Only concept can. That's why we can
have different theories.

Einstein's first mistake was to shortcut Lorentz and assume the
measurable c to all observers meant that "c, itself", was a constant
in all inertial frames. Lorentz had already explained how such a
measurement would remain a constant to inertial observers. Sadly with
only a math. But it can be understood that the observation was under
a length contraction and time dilation when making such a measurement.

Whatever. The longer we use relativity as our physics, the lesser we
will be able to understand the physic.

Evrything is that said in this publication shows that the term
relativity is wrong understood. The relativity is a method of asking
the truth. So the relativity is used about the determination of the
truth of the comparative notions.
In this case we can have three categories:
1) The determination of the multitudes of natural elements, for
example ten cars. In this case the truth is absolute because there do
not exist any mistake.
2) The case of the technical notions. By measuring in these cases the
length and the time we use the units of measurement (m) and (s). The
truth is a relative truth compeared with these units of measurement
and represents an approximation of the absolute truth that exists for
this notions.
3) The comparative notions that do not have units of measurement. For
example the wisnes of a man
could not be determined by using an unit of measurement and
represents a subjective truth.
The important conclusion is that the absolute truth exists and for
the last two categories but is impossible to be determined by man.
Because of that I named this phenomenon the Principle of the
impossibility. Shortly, this is to my opinion a clear determination of
the terms absolute relative and subjective truth. Does it has any
importance about the determination of the relativity in physics if it
is or not an errant theory. I say that it is.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... Once Fitzgerald had his "aha" revelation and asserted that the reason for the results of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment was that "yardsticks" were shortening in the direction of the relative velocity ... It must be remembered however, that the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory of Fitzgerald, Larmor and Lorentz is actually a special case solution of Special Relativity and since the two theories are cross-derivable they are really different ways of expressing the same theory. ... One of the two interpretations of quantum physics is the "spooky" requirement that quantum effects propagate though all of space at an in infinite velocity. ... The intellectual sloppiness that has transpired is the failure of the scientific community to recognize that LCAT and STR have shown that, in making a measurement in and or between two different reference frames, one must also include the effect, if any, of the change in the reference frame on the "size" of the units of measurement employed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)