🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 16, 5:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:07 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > How can SR not be an interpretation of the Lorentz transform if the
> > Lorentz transform is the mathematical basis of SR?  You must possess a
> > forked tongue just like the Queer of England.
>
> It's not the mathematical basis of SR.

Then, what is the mathematical basis of SR?  Don't tell me it has none
and continue to apply the Lorentz transform.  If so, you can only be
labeled as a hypocrite and a liar.

> The postulates are the basis of
> SR.

Yes, the postulates are also the bases of the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>

> The Lorentz transform was *derived from* these postulates by
> Einstein, not the other way around.

Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform was total gibberish.
In this, he knew the Lorentz transform before hand.  However, you can
lie all you want about Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform
being the most impressive work in all of mankind.  The bottom line is
that his 1905 derivation was garbage.  His re-derivation in his only
book 20 years later is also junk.

> It is a mathematical *by-product*
> of SR, as are a number of other mathematical by-products.  Calling the
> Lorentz transform the mathematical basis of SR is like calling bacon
> the basis of a pig.

No, calling the Lorentz transform as the *by-product* of SR is like
calling yourself as the *by-product* of your own fart.  <shrug>

> > No, Larmor the father of the Lorentz transform was the first.
>
> No, Larmor did not derive it from the two more fundamental postulates.

Well, you are a hypocrite.  Did you not have agreed on Larmor derived
the Lorentz transform first?  To derive the Lorentz transform you have
must have already the two postulates.  Did you not have said that as
well?

> If you have a reference that clearly states otherwise, then I'd be
> glad to have it.

Reference for what?  Again, you have already agreed on Larmor's priori
in the Lorentz transform.

> > Whatever is concerned with SR, the breakthrough came when the Lorentz
> > transform was written down.  PERIOD.
>
> I understand that's your opinion.

Yes, I do agree that it is a solid conclusion of mine.

> You think it's the Lorentz transform
> that's more fundamental than the postulates. That is an opinion that
> is not commonly shared.

No, I never said that.  I said the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform has already possessed these two such properties namely the
principle of relativity and the constancy in the speed of light.

> Physicists generally agree that the two
> postulates are the underlying physical facts that have more
> fundamental importance, and in fact those postulates have had broader
> and deeper impact than the Lorentz transform ever has.

This is nonsense.  Each principle is independent of the others.  There
is no one that is more important than the others.  <shrug>

> However, I also understand how immovable your opinion is. That's not
> uncommon in someone retired, where the ability to reform one's
> thinking is reduced.

What you know about me is totally wrong.  Just a few years ago, I was
believing in the validity of the Lorentz transform until I actually
spent the time and reasoning it all out.  <shrug>

> > Section 10 in Einstein's 1905 paper is all wrong.  First, he screwed
> > up on the transformation of acceleration.  Secondly, he messed up v
> > and dx/dt to arrive at the equation for the work done.  Do you not
> > understand any mathematics?
>
> Please elucidate clearly the errors you believe are there.

Let's see if you can absorb the first mistake.  Under the Lorentz
transform, can you see the error in the following?

**  d^2x'/dt^2 = (1 - B^2)^(3/2) d^2x/dt^2
**  d^2y'/dt^2 = (1 - B^2)^2 d^2y/dt^2

> I take it
> you found no errors in the derivation of the Lorentz transform from
> the two postulates.

I do stand by the two postulates are the properties of the Lorentz
transform.

> > I know.  That is because of the religion of SR and GR.  As you know,
> > it is rather difficult to convert the most faithful.  <shrug>
>
> No, it is not due to the religion of SR and GR.

Yes, it is.

> It is how science is done in general.

This is not true.  What you are doing is not science.

> I also cited examples of QCD and the theory of the
> weak interactions, which do not stem from SR or GR. I could also point
> to similar examples of association of credit with thermodynamics in
> the 19th century, or quantum mechanics, or optics.

Please do.

> As I said, your metrics of assigning credit in science are not
> commonly shared.

<shrug>

> Each of the resolutions can be derived from each of
> the others.
>
> > This is false.  <shrug>
>
> Your ignorance of how to do that is not an indicator of its falseness.
> It's only an indicator of your lack of experience and exposure.

It looks I understand more about the subject of the twin's paradox
than you do, and this is not an opinion of mine but fact.  Have you
tracked down the college that gave me all these degrees yet?  Let me
remind you again.  Please don't forget to complain to them that you
got your ass kicked so badly in any debates on the subjects that you
are supposed to be an expert on.

> > But it should be.  After all, this is physics we are discussing and
> > not some religious faith.  <shrug>
>
> Sorry, again, your view is one that is not commonly held. There are
> often multiple ways of solving a puzzle. Even an Atwood machine can be
> solved by using Newton's 2nd law, or by potential and kinetic energy,
> or by using a Lagrangian. And though it isn't obvious to the beginning
> student, each of the three solutions can be derived from each of the
> others. Your desire that there *should be* one and only one resolution
> to a puzzle is simply not commonly shared. You can consider yourself
> singular in a number of respects.

Well, I am talking about the subjects of relativity.  <shrug>

> The principle of relativity says that the form of the *laws of
> physics* are invariant regardless of the inertial reference frame.

You are playing games with words.  What do you mean by the "forms"?
The principle of relativity says.

"The outcome of any experiment cannot be affected by the speed
different between each element involved and another that has nothing
to do with this experiment."

Thus, with A and B moving relativity to each other, the principle of
relativity demands the aging of A as observed by B to be the same as
the aging of B as observed by A.

Because of the combination of the principle of relativity and this
time dilation, we have the twin's paradox.  It will never go away
under the Lorentz transform.