Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006

But yet SR works. Not bad for a "wrong" assumption.

So you don't understand relativity? That makes it "wrong"?

I see two things;

a) You are unfamiliar with the topic at hand. Minkowski, not Mikowski.

b) You don't care about physics because you can't explain why SR
accurately predicts the outcome of experiments.

?? indeed. You appeal to 'logic' when you can't appeal to something
much more concrete like "SR doesn't get the answer right". By the way,
logic isn't defined as "things that make sense to Julian Becker'...

Julian Becker, who can't wrap lines to the proper length:

 Oh, really? If everything you deduce from an assumption is correct,
how could the assumption be incorrect? Even more to the point, how
exactly do you expect to determine which assumptions are correct regarding
the physics in the universe if you disregard the phenomena we observe
as the asis for any determination?

  Let me fill you in on a few more items before you go off on some
tangent about godel. Geometry can be formally proved to be both consistent
and complete. Godel's theorems don't apply to geometry because geometry
does not satisfy the assumptions under which godel's incompleteness
theorems are derived (proven by tarski). In addition, if there is an
inconsistency in hyperbolic geometry (i.e., the spacetime of relativity),
then euclidean geometry must also contain the same inconsistency. (proven
by hilbert and several others).

 Then, don't do that. I don't and there is no reason you should either.

 Learn to wrap your lines. It's a lot easier than relativity, so if
you can't figure out line wrapping, relativity is way out of your reach.

 Tell me what space newton defined _his_ coordinate system in. Newton
defines the path of inertial object as a straight line and a straight line
as the path of an inertial object. Oh, let me guess... You somehow
concluded that assuming euclidean geometry is not really an assumption. In
any case, your entire objection only reflects your ignorance of
relativity, special, general _and_ galilean. Once you specify the
geometry, the laws of physics for that geometry follow.

 Actually, everything is a great deal simpler if you simply enumerate
the possible choices for a spacetime and eliminate the ones which are
inconsistent with experimental data. The only two possibilities which
are not obviously ruled out (assuming a certain naivete for the sake
of argument), are galilean spacetime and minkowski space. The _only_
criteria for deciding what the correct geometry happens to be is the
agreement with experimental data. Since mass is locally conserved in
a galilean spacetime, galilean spacetime is ruled out by experimental
data. That leaves only one candidate: minkowski space.

 If you want to be even more general and allow the spacetime to be
dynamical, thereby not choosing any geometry, a priori, then you end up
with a theory of gravity called general relativity. However, I'm sure
you must have a good argument that explains why your galilean bias
is really the only ojective choice, despite all of the evidence supplied
by nature to the contrary.

 You are confused. Minkowski did not come up with the idea of minkowski
space until several years after einstein published his theory. Do you
think einstein had a crystal ball and looked ahead?
 
 On the other hand, If I assume minkowski space, I can derive special
relativity as a consequence, without any of einstein's assumptions.

 Say ... Given your own personal understanding of ``circularity,''
why are you not criticizing newtonian physics for being circular?

the cretin Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will
be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system."

circular reasoning.

Very good point.

He in essence assumes the theorem [space,time] <-> Galilelan and derives the
garbage minkowski butchered into space-time.

But Albert knew his garbage wasn't space-time garbage, and that it was just
galilean [space,time] garbage.

--
(c) eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
http://eleaticus.blog-city.com

He doesn't presume either in this paper, nor is a presumption is
required. A system of coordinates is a reference system in which
*measurements* can be made, and he's about to find out what
relationship holds between the *measurements* made in two different
reference systems. The only presumption to determine that are the two
postulates listed in the paper. An additional postulate of Euclidean
coordinates or Minkowski coordinates is not required. In fact, the
nature of the coordinate system is derived *from* the other two
postulates. A further consequence of this *conclusion* about the
geometry is a change in what physically measurable quantity remains
invariant from reference frame to reference frame. It is this change
that distinguishes one geometry from the other, and the change is
certainly checkable with experiment. Upon consulting with experiment,
the Minkowski geometry appears to win. On the basis of that, we feel
better that Einstein's two postulates are indeed correct, because they
produce *conclusions* that match with experiment.

PD

Good, now go f.ck yourself, imbecile.