Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:07:48 -0500

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2tdthkF1pnqkgU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> eleaticus wrote:
> >
> > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are
> > implicit in SR. It is idiocy at its base.
>
> Any logical or mathematical inconsistencies in SR are inconsistencies in
> the theory of real variables and linear mappings of vectors spaces. In
> short, ALL the mathematics used by ANY branch of physics is likewise
> inconsistent, which means ALL of physics comes crashing to the ground.
>
> But this is not the case. No one has identified any -internal-
> inconsitencies in SR. Now SR may be wrong, i.e. empirically falsifiable,
> but that is NOT the same thing as being internallly inconsistent. SR is
> just maxwellian electrodynmics in a Minkowski four-space subjected to
> Lorenz transformations. In a purely mathematical sense it is an
> excercise in group actions.
>
> Apparently you do not know the difference between empirical
> falsifiability and mathematical inconsistency. Your other postings on
> the invariance of Maxswell's equations under Galilean transform is
> indicative you do not know dickey-doo about mathematics. We know that
> Maxwell's equations are not microscopically true, but they are
> consistent and they are NOT galilean invariant.

Robert,

It requires not one, not two, but THREE strawman impositions on Newton to
say the Galilean transforms are not invariant on Maxwell.

A. the use of x,y,z as distance measures instead of direct distance
measures, the problem being the moronic refusal to use them in a way that is
well known to preserve their use as distance expressions: (x1-x0) (where the
two x-values are the coodinates of the two ends of the relevant distance).

B. the use of the spurious time transform which has no purpose except the
impostion of spurious extra terms in a transform. Comply with
Newton-theoretical idea that time is absolute and do not impose the
anti-Newtonian time transform and you do not get the spurious terms.

C. the Newtonian Galilean transforms are transforms of coordinates from one
observer to another moving inertially relative to the first. Don't impose
the unnecessary, spurious, corrupt idea that the transform must be to that
of an observer moving at a velocity already present in the untransformed
equation.

Without those corrupt strawman impositions on Newton Maxwell is obviously
invariant under the classic theoretical model.

McAnal(y) at least has the honesty to admit (indirectly) that the imposition
of the time transform is at the root of the problem. Why not do him better,
show that without the three strawmen arguments that Maxwell is indeed not
invariant under the Newtonian-consistent transforms?

You can't do it without those corrupt impositions of anti-Newton crap on
Newton.

Not to mention that you lack the honesty to admit that the Lorentz-Einstein
COORDINATE transformations on Maxwell makes a horrible mess of Maxwell.

eleaticus

>
> Bob Kolker
>
>

Quantcast