🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 16, 11:28 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Physical theories have *physical* bases, not mathematical ones. The
mathematics is a structure for rigorously expositing the conclusions
to be drawn from the *physical* basis of a theory. The mathematics is
a *tool*, not a foundation on which to build a theory.

The basis for SR is the two physical postulates *precisely as stated*
in Einstein's paper. Everything else falls from that. Where the
mathematical development proceeds from is Maxwell's equations, which
are laws known to be respected in nature. The Lorentz transform then
follows as a consequence of the invariance of Maxwell's equations
regardless of inertial reference frame. No other assumptions about the
physical basis of Maxwell's equations needs to be included. The *only*
thing that is required is that the mathematical form of those
equations remains invariant regardless of inertial reference frame.

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

And so it is the postulates and not the Lorentz transform that is the
basis of SR. The Lorentz transform is derived *from* the postulates.

>
> > 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.

No, it's quite straightforward. Not earth-shaking, not complicated.
Not all the steps are included in the publication, but they're easy
enough to fill in.

> 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 derivation of the Lorentz transform is not the most impressive
part of the paper, by a long stretch. I don't know where you got the
ridiculous notion that it was.

> 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?

No. He *guessed* it, to fit data.

> To derive the Lorentz transform you have
> must have already the two postulates.

No, you do not. You are apparently oblivious to the history of the
development of the theory here. And so you guess. You have this
*profoundly* stupid idea that there is only one way to come up with a
result, and if you have come up with the result first, then you must
have stumbled on the only way first.

> Did you not have said that as
> well?

No, I most certainly did not. I would not be so stupid as to assume
the same things you've assumed.

>
> > 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.

And that's wrong. You have *guessed* that if someone stumbled on the
Lorentz transform, then they *must* have gotten it from the two
postulates, and therefore Einstein wasn't the first to see the two
postulates. That guess of yours is the guess of a bonehead who doesn't
have the foggiest idea how scientific development works.

>
> > 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>

And that is another bonehead statement.

>
> > 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>

Yes, it was an ill-considered comment and I apologize. Your ability to
make profound errors in your reasoning is independent of your
retirement status.

>
> > > 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

Nope. Suppose you tell me.

>
> > 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.

Sorry, sir. You are not a scientist. You come from a different field.
It is not wise to tell a scientist that what they are doing is not
science, or that science *should* be done differently than the way it
is being performed. You wouldn't take kindly to a nurse coming up to
you and saying that engineers go about their business all wrong and
that it should be done differently.

You have deep misunderstandings of how theoretical developments are
made. You parlay that error into incorrect and inappropriate policies
about how scientific progress should be credited.

>
> > 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.

Certainly. I'll start with thermo. Many of the laws of thermodynamics
were derived under the presumption that heat was a material fluid.
Those laws are correct, though the physical basis that produced them
is wrong. It wasn't until the field of statistical physics was
developed *much later* and the nature of entropy and energy were
better understood that those laws made more sense. The attribution to
the laws of thermodynamics is *appropriately* given to those who
*later* arrived at them through a deeper and better understanding of
the more fundamental principles at work.

>
> > 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.

Your ability to ascertain facts is suspect. I'll let your
unsubstantiated claim sit there on its own.

>  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.

Who's judging the debates, pal? You?

>
> > > 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."

Source of that statement? I don't find it.
Is that from a coffee-table book?

>
> 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.

That is flat wrong. The principle of relativity makes no such
statement.

>
> 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.