🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 16, 12:07 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:13 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 11:38 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Actual historic timeline
> > > regarding the development of relativity is as follows.
>
> > > **  About 400 years ago, Galileo identified the principle of
> > > relativity.  The mathematics is the Galilean transform itself.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.
>
> > > **  In 1881, Michelson alone set out to measure the drift velocity of
> > > the earth in the background of the Aether.  The results were null
> > > based on the Galilean transform.
>
> > The results were null, period. There was no signal. This could be
> > interpreted any number of ways, but the experimental result is in all
> > cases null.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > **  In 1887, Voigt proposed the constancy in the speed of light
> > > relative to all observers.  The Voigt transform as a modification to
> > > the Galilean transform becomes the mathematics of Voigt's work.
> > > Although the Voigt transform explains the null results of Michelson's
> > > experiment, it violates the principle of relativity.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.  So, through Voigt's ingenuity, the speed of light becomes
> constant for an observer.
>
> > > **  In 1887 a few months after Voigt's work, Michelson and Morley
> > > conducted their famous experiment (MMX), and the results were also
> > > null.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.
>
> > > **  In 1889, FitzGerald proposed a longitudinal length contraction to
> > > the travel arm of the MMX.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.
>
> > > **  In 1897, Larmor modified the Voigt transform into the Lorentz
> > > transform.  The constancy in the speed of light still holds for the
> > > Lorentz transform.  However, the Lorentz transform now obeys the
> > > principle of relativity.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.
>
> > > **  In 1899, Lorentz knowing about Larmor's work wrote the Lorentz
> > > transform with his ludicrous interpretation now called LET.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.
>
> > > **  In 1904, Poincare proclaimed relative simultaneity as a property
> > > of the Lorentz transform.  His interpretation to the Lornetz transform
> > > would later be called SR.
>
> > Not quite. Poincare did land on one of the features of SR. However, SR
> > is not an interpretation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> 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. The postulates are the basis of
SR. The Lorentz transform was *derived from* these postulates by
Einstein, not the other way around. 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.

>
> > > **  In 1905, Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform and
> > > tried to pass it as he was the first to derive it based on the two
> > > postulates.
>
> > Einstein was the first to insist that the priniciple physics facts
> > were those stated in the two postulates,
>
> No, Larmor the father of the Lorentz transform was the first.

No, Larmor did not derive it from the two more fundamental postulates.
If you have a reference that clearly states otherwise, then I'd be
glad to have it.

>
> > and showed that all the
> > results that had been guessed by others before him (including Lorentz,
> > Poincare, Voigt, Fitzgerald, and Larmor) were the direct consequences
> > of these two fundamental principles.
>
> What guess work are you referring to?
>
> > The two fundamental principles
> > also led to a number of other conclusions that his predecessors had
> > not guessed.
>
> Like what?  What other guess works are involved in the Lorentz
> transform?
>
> > While Einstein's work was not singular in its
> > originality, as you note,
>
> Nothing ever was.  <shrug>
>
> > he did figure out what the real underlying
> > physics was,
>
> Such as?  Do you mean his reverse-engineering of the Lorentz
> transform?  He even got it all wrong putting it back together.
> <shrug>
>
> > rather than getting it ass-backwards as so many of his
> > predecessors did.
>
> What ass-backwards are you referring to?
>
> > This is not uncommon. Many of the results of QCD
> > were guessed well before QCD (a theory based on SU(3) symmetry) was
> > formulated, but QCD was the first to get the fundamental physics
> > right.
>
> But Einstein's works were based on plagiarism, reverse-engineering,
> and errors.  <shrug>
>
> > Fermi and Yukawa and others guessed many of the features of the
> > weak interaction, but it wasn't until Weinberg, Glashow, and Salam
> > that the real basis for the weak interaction was understood. Credit is
> > often given not to those who guess some of the features first, but to
> > those who make the breakthrough to provide the fundamental
> > understanding.
>
> Whatever is concerned with SR, the breakthrough came when the Lorentz
> transform was written down.  PERIOD.

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

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.

>
> > > In doing so, he made a series of errors,
>
> > There are no errors.
>
> 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. I take it
you found no errors in the derivation of the Lorentz transform from
the two postulates.

>
> > > but the results
> > > were always what were of expectations.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > > Einstein was a nitwit, a
> > > plagiarist, and a liar.
>
> > These are value judgements based on how YOU think science should be
> > credited.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > As I've indicated above, your metrics are not commonly
> > shared,
>
> 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. It is how science is
done in general. 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.

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

>
> > and there's no sound reason to think that your metrics SHOULD
> > be used.
>
> My "metrics" are all based on historic facts backed up with the
> forensic evidence in the very mathematics itself.  <shrug>
>
> > > **  In 1908, Minkowski discovered a single equation to represent the
> > > Lorentz transform.  In doing so, a physical Aether is replaced by an
> > > abstract one where the spacetime becomes its mathematical model.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Good.  I am surprised that you did not challenge me on the replacement
> of the physical Aether with an abstract one.
>
> > > **  In 1911, Longevin jokingly mentioned the twin's paradox as an
> > > Achilles heel of the Lorentz transform.  The twin's paradox can be
> > > resolved in a numerous ways
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > > where each one is in direct contradiction
> > > of the others.
>
> > That is in error.
>
> There is no error in my statement.  <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.

>
> > This would not be possible if they were in direct
> > contradiction.
>
> They are in direct contradiction because the Lorentz transform is just
> nonsense.  <shrug>
>
> > Your fond desire that there should be one and only one
> > way of looking at the resolution to the puzzle, for the sake of your
> > clarity, is not commonly shared.
>
> 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.

>
> > > Thus, effectively, the twin's paradox has not been
> > > resolved.  In fact, it can never be resolved because the very
> > > combination of a time dilation and the principle of relativity form
> > > this paradox.
>
> > The principle of relativity does not demand what you apparently think
> > it should.
>
> What demand did I say?
>
> > > To resolve this paradox, one must invalidate either the
> > > time dilation or the principle of relativity.
>
> > The principle of relativity as YOU understand it is certainly invalid.
>
> What do I understand the principle of relativity that you object?
>
> > That has been recognized here for a long time. However, the principle
> > of relativity as correctly stated stands.
>
> What did I state?

The principle of relativity says that the form of the *laws of
physics* are invariant regardless of the inertial reference frame. It
does NOT say, for example, that the quantities that appear in the laws
of physics will be the same in every inertial reference frame. It does
not even say that qualitative statements of conditions (e.g.
"simultaneous", "before", "after", "stopped", "moving") will be the
same regardless of inertial reference frame. Any extrapolation beyond
what the principle of relativity actually says is likely to land you
in error.

> > >  In doing so, one also
> > > invalidates the Lorentz transform along with its ubiquitous
> > > interpretations such as SR and LET.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -