Re: arXiv endorsement request

From: Eugene Shubert (_at_sys13.hou.wt.net)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:06:39 +0000 (UTC)

"chris h fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8dd8e508.0409072300.2f2ae77a@posting.google.com...
> "Eugene Shubert" wrote
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity
> (*) not by making the speed of light invariant in all reference
> frames
> (*) not by looking for coordinate changes that leave the form of
> Maxwell's equations unchanged

Correct.

> (*) but by a change of variables ?!?!?!

The process does indeed involve resetting clocks and taking a proper
velocity u that was defined physically and then defining an ordinary
velocity v by the equation u=v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). How does this violate
the laws of physics?

> Explain how this doesn't imply that
> (*) Galilean relativity == Special Relativity

Because no relativist at sci.physics.relativity could find a flaw with
any step in my argument, I will reveal my secrets here. In my paper, a
Galilean synchronization between any two frames of reference means
that time in those two frames can be defined in the Shubertian clock
sense as

T= (x-x')/u
T'=(x-x')/u

My critics are unsophisticated dupes. They accuse me of saying that
the difference between Galilean and Ordinary Relativity is just
mathematical trickery and the power of suggestion. The truth is my
derivation of the Lorentz transformation just appears to be magic,
because I do it so easily. The great secret that I've been exploiting
is that a Galilean synchronization exists between any two frames of
reference but not for three simultaneously.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... clock from a height equal to the height of the train car roof. ... relativity (which you call the principle of equivalence, ... description of that single sequence as seen from two reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: basic question classical v. relativity
    ... >> relativity seems to claim that you can't ... >> your frame of reference. ... > reference frames are equivalent. ... (It is also known as the First Postulate). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... Reference frames are imaginary so they don't affect ... the mass and Coulomb coupling of an electron. ... Light with the Principle of Relativity Apparent" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... quantities should have the same measured value in all frames. ... I would suggest you get a book and read what relativity says. ... So you agree that the first postulate is meaningless drivel? ... So according to your interpretation of the Galilean principle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... of light in all frames of reference AND use Galilean transforms. ... a century ago) reject the Galilean transforms as not being correct. ... Galilean at low speeds, and allow for a constant maximum speed of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)