Hijack from Speed of Time

[Mordred]

For the record I received high marks for my efforts. I learned a lot more about redshift and spectography than you will find in textbooks lol. Most textbooks only give you the most commonly used formulas. They rarely provide the formulas to get a higher degree of accuracy ones that account for other influences such as light pollution atmospheric distortions or temperature variations.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

And the error is EASILY provable to be where the error is in the 1905 Paper.  And I told you.  MEASUREMENTS are NOT  LAWS. 

Can you point to any discussion where it was asserted the measurements are laws? Otherwise this is a straw man argument.

[Logicandreason]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

When you get my user name wrong once, I can assume it’s a typo. When you do it twice in a row, it’s just careless, or possibly intentional.

As for the physics, I said nothing of the sort. I was rebutting a claim of yours, and then asking you to support a claim of yours. Trying to “read between the lines” isn’t going to serve you well here. Please stick to what is actually written.

You DID say that you are not interested in the text based analysis of the hypothesis.  (analysis is only opinion) Rather you were ONLY interested in the Math, because the value of the whole paper is really in the ability if the Math to make accurate predictions.  Therefore, its not inaccurate to conclude that as far as you are concerned, Einstein COULD have talked about Donald Ducks trousers, as long as he gave an equation that seems correct, is all that matters to you.

You made up pseudonym is not even a real Name, therefore YOU may have spelt it wrong, I was merely suggesting a better spelling.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

You DID say that you are not interested in the text based analysis of the hypothesis.  (analysis is only opinion) Rather you were ONLY interested in the Math, because the value of the whole paper is really in the ability if the Math to make accurate predictions.  Therefore, its not inaccurate to conclude that as far as you are concerned, Einstein COULD have talked about Donald Ducks trousers, as long as he gave an equation that seems correct, is all that matters to you.

I did? Can you quote where I said this?

 

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

You made up pseudonym is not even a real Name, therefore YOU may have spelt it wrong, I was merely suggesting a better spelling.

It’s based on a real name, so no, it’s not spelled wrong, but that’s not really important. What is important is that it runs afoul of our rules on civility (no insults) and I’m asking you to stop.

[Mordred]

13 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

You DID say that you are not interested in the text based analysis of the hypothesis.  (analysis is only opinion) Rather you were ONLY interested in the Math, because the value of the whole paper is really in the ability if the Math to make accurate predictions.  

That's my statement, not Swansont's my position always prioritizes the math over verbal.

[Logicandreason]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

For the record I received high marks for my efforts. I learned a lot more about redshift and spectography than you will find in textbooks lol. Most textbooks only give you the most commonly used formulas. They rarely provide the formulas to get a higher degree of accuracy ones that account for other influences such as light pollution atmospheric distortions or temperature variations.

Again, great, good on you.  But as the gathering of the data itself requires the application if analysis, and as that analysis ALWAYS requires to be done according to established beliefs of Physics, You absolutely will have had to use Einstein's theories and their math from the get go. You whole understanding of what's happening out there in space is dependant of Einstein's theories.

To QUOTE you directly:  "The principles of GR and SR are two of the most rigidly tested theories we have.....

 They have been so rigidly tested that the vast majority of all major Theories incorporate SR and GR."

So its therefore IMPOSSIBLE for you to have critically tested Einstein's theories looking for errors, when your experiments relied on the very theories you claim to have been critically reviewing. Your Data has already been corrupted by Einstein's theories.   Einstein's theory can't prove Einstein's theory.

[Mordred]

That's a very weak argument, it's essentially stating all test methods are simply duplications. How else do you validate any theory in any science without rigorous testing ?

I performed my own measurements I performed my own examination of the test methodology I chose. 30 years ago you didn't have the easily obtainable information available on the internet you have today. Lol we were still using those clunky dialup modems

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I did? Can you quote where I said this?

 

It’s based on a real name, so no, it’s not spelled wrong, but that’s not really important. What is important is that it runs afoul of our rules on civility (no insults) and I’m asking you to stop.

I made a mistake, it was said by Mordred.  But as all you guys are on the same page on this matter, the idea still stands. Unless you want to distance yourself from what Mordred said?  Do you have another belief about this?

 

Ok, its Swansont.   I never intended to cause you endless grief and harm. Please try to get over it.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's a very weak argument, it's essentially stating all test methods are simply duplications. How else do you validate any theory in any science without rigorous testing ?

 

Test all you want. But when the data and results are both gathered and then massaged by the application of the equations of the same theory that you claim to be trying to discredit, your argument becomes implausible.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my Question.  Which is an outstanding matter that needs to be addressed.

[Mordred]

Let me ask you a question. Would you trust an engineer that couldn't calculate the structural integrity of a bridge to build one ?

Would you trust a professional physicist to tell you how the physical world interacts without mathematics?

I certainly wouldn't I never trust any claim that cannot be shown and tested with the relevant mathematics regardless of who states it. This includes other professional physicists.

I could easily show you what the first postulate means in terms of the mathematics. However that would a waste of time as you would ignore any math based answer

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let me ask you a question. Would you trust an engineer that couldn't calculate the structural integrity of a bridge to build one ?

Would you trust a professional physicist to tell you how the physical world interacts without mathematics?

I certainly wouldn't I never trust any claim that cannot be shown and tested with the relevant mathematics regardless of who states it. This includes other professional physicists.

Try answering my question, I asked first, many hours ago. Stop this ducking and dogging. Its not even a hard question.

But I've nothing against Math, its essential in Physics and everything else.  But wrong equations mess good math up totally.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let me ask you a question. Would you trust an engineer that couldn't calculate the structural integrity of a bridge to build one ?

Would you trust a professional physicist to tell you how the physical world interacts without mathematics?

I certainly wouldn't I never trust any claim that cannot be shown and tested with the relevant mathematics regardless of who states it. This includes other professional physicists.

I could easily show you what the first postulate means in terms of the mathematics. However that would a waste of time as you would ignore any math based answer

Ok, Lets have your Math only version of the First Postulate. I'm happy to listen.  Why do you think that Einstein never bothered to just state the First Postulate in Math only language, when the Paper was intended for consumption by other Mathematicians?  He did not write the Scientific paper for the public, who were into Readers Digest.

[Mordred]

Ok well maybe you should ask yourself which laws are being preserved and what is their mathematical definition.

Let's start with Pythagoras theorem and the other law involves Newtons laws of inertia.

 If you hsve length contraction and time dilation with time being given dimensionality of length via the interval ct. It becomes readily apparent that a 4d geometry needs transformations to restore Pythagoras theorem as well as the Galilean transformations that have so well tested in everyday situations. 

(Principle of General Covariance for further detail)

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok well maybe you should ask yourself which laws are being preserved and what is their mathematical definition.

Let's start with Pythagoras theorem and the other law involves Newtons laws of inertia.

 If you hsve length contraction and time dilation with time being given dimensionality of length via the interval ct. It becomes readily apparent that a 4d geometry needs transformations to restore Pythagoras theorem as well as the Galilean transformations that have so well tested in everyday situations. 

(Principle of General Covariance for further detail)

Funny, I was sure that you said that "I could easily show you what the first postulate means in terms of the mathematics". But I see no Math here, just a lot of Opinions, and you prefer to just focus on math,  because  opinions are merely matters of intellectual posturing. So please just give me equations that fully explain the First Postulate.   After that, please answer my  question that has not been addressed yet. 

[Mordred]

It takes time to latex mathematics in place mate. 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It takes time to latex mathematics in place mate. 

He’s just Gish Galloping you anyway 

[Logicandreason]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It takes time to latex mathematics in place mate. 

Well then, do allow me the same leeway as you expect to get, when I examine what Einstein wrote in his masterpiece of Scientific literature, every word is a golden nugget. Worthy of close inspection and included by the Geniuses careful  consideration.

 

Simply put, you wish to use plan English to explain what you want to present in Math, but you refuse to think about the words Einstein used to present his Math.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Can you point to any discussion where it was asserted the measurements are laws? Otherwise this is a straw man argument.

Well, Einstein concluded this. He said in his Second Postulate that Light speed was a universal constant measurement (c) and as such was every bit as valid as the other universal Laws mentioned in the First Postulate. Thus now, we consider that the speed of light in a vacuum is one of the Laws of Physics.  Or an Axiom, either way, its applied in the exact same way as other Las of Physics and Math are applied. But it cant be only an Axiom, because its claimed to have been proved 100%. If it's not a Law, then I can say that the speed of light varies, right?   And everyone here is claiming and in agreement that when Einstein said, constant determined speed of light (c" he was talking about the known measured speed of light. These are all the actual claims of Einstein believing experts.

So where is the strawman exactly? 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

start with the Galilean transforms

(t´=t),(x´=x−vt),(y´=y),(z´=z)

with Pythagorus theorem \(a^2+b^2=c^2\) we all know the relevant trigonometry rules regarding the Euclidean Geometry.

however those Trig rules can be applied using Euler coordinates. Further we need to preserve f=ma. Which we all know from basic geometry we can apply vector notation towards. Those kinematics you had an issue with. I'm not about to teach an entire course on differential geometry. 

So lets skip ahead and look at Euler angles these are given here

https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS206/LECTURES/FILES/euler.pdf

Now due to length contraction these Euler angles are no longer preserved so we need transformation rules 

The Lorentz transforms are

\(\acute{t}=(\gamma\frac{vx}{c^2}), \acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt), \acute{y}=y,\acute{z}=z\)

In general relativity, the metric tensor below may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past.

 

[latex]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/latex]

[latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Which corresponds to

[latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

The simplest transform is the Minkowskii metric, Euclidean space or flat space. This is denoted by [latex]\eta[[/latex]

Flat space [latex]\mathbb{R}^4 [/latex] with Coordinates (t,x,y,z) or alternatively (ct,x,y,z) flat space is done in Cartesian coordinates. In this metric space time is defined as

[latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex]

[latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

the boosts and rotations of the Lorentz group are as follows

Lorentz group

Lorentz transformations list spherical coordinates (rotation along the z axis through an angle ) \[\theta\]

\[(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)=(ct,r,\theta\\phi)\]

\[(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(-ct,r,r^2,\theta,[r^2\sin^2\theta]\phi)\]

 

\[\acute{x}=x\cos\theta+y\sin\theta,,,\acute{y}=-x\sin\theta+y \cos\theta\]

\[\Lambda^\mu_\nu=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&\cos\theta&\sin\theta&0\\0&\sin\theta&\cos\theta&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}\]

generator along z axis

\[k_z=\frac{1\partial\phi}{i\partial\phi}|_{\phi=0}\]

generator of boost along x axis::

\[k_x=\frac{1\partial\phi}{i\partial\phi}|_{\phi=0}=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0&0\\1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

boost along y axis\

\[k_y=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&0\\1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

generator of boost along z direction

\[k_z=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&1\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\1&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

the above is the generator of boosts below is the generator of rotations.

\[J_z=\frac{1\partial\Lambda}{i\partial\theta}|_{\theta=0}\]

\[J_x=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&1\\0&0&-1&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

\[J_y=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&-1\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

\[J_z=-i\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&-1&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}\]

there is the boosts and rotations we will need

and they obey commutations

\[[A,B]=AB-BA\]

the symmetry statement

\(\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot \mu\) tells us the Minkowskii metric inner product of those two vectors are covariant hence symmetric that the choice of who is the observer or emitter is irrelevant. ( the laws of physics are the same for all observers. Which is the more common notation.

So in essence we have the transformations to regain Pythagoras theorem as well as Newtonian kinematics. 

 The point of all those mathematics is the Principle of General Covariance in a nutshell. We is easiest to describe as we know Newton physics works at slow velocities. So why not include them. We simply need the corrections for when we reach relativistic velocities.

The principle in equivalence tells us the inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass.

\(m_i=m_g\)

So in that Einstein paper he didn't waste time teaching Euclidean differential geometry rules. He extended them by adding the necessary corrections.

It is those corrections that are being shown in that paper we have been examining. He isn't going to waste time going over 3d Euclidean and Newtonian physics.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

45 minutes ago, Mordred said:

start with the Galilean transforms

(t´=t),(x´=x−vt),(y´=y),(z´=z)

with Pythagorus theorem a2+b2=c2  we all know the relevant trigonometry rules regarding the Euclidean Geometry.

however those Trig rules can be applied using Euler coordinates. Further we need to preserve f=ma. Which we all know from basic geometry we can apply vector notation towards. Those kinematics you had an issue with. I'm not about to teach an entire course on differential geometry. 

So lets skip ahead and look at Euler angles these are given here

https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS206/LECTURES/FILES/euler.pdf

Now due to length contraction these Euler angles are no longer preserved so we need transformation rules 

 

I was expecting that you were going to give me a concise mathematical version of the simple English statement " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable."

I don't see that anywhere in your suspiciously overly long collection of advanced math and unrelated equations. You actually fail big time when you say, "Now due to length contraction these Euler angles are no longer preserved so we need transformation rules "  because as Einstein was proposing his Postulates, there IS NO SUCH THING AS Length Contraction at this stage.. so those fancy looking equations that follow are inadmissible as part of a math based  explanation of the way, way more concise plain English statement, " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable."  It is no wonder that Einstein had his whole theory outlined in simple words, in the initial first few pages, because Physics principals are more easily communicated through simple words, and the Math can only follow afterwards, and must be based squarely on the simple plain language hypothesis. 

So much for that attempt. Lets move forward.

Now back to the topic which was up to a question that I asked.

So can you answer the question or not? Do I have to repeat the question yet again?

So now that you have FAILED at this task, please answer my Question. Or ask the help of an Expert, if it is too hard for you.

(also, why on earth are you including General Relativity in a conservation that is specifically on Special Relativity according the 1905 Paper?)

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

So you want me to teach you basic calculus is that it?

Did you not learn basic kinematics in school ? Why should I waste time teaching you that if your here questioning relativity itself ? I showed you how the transforms preserves those lessons you should have been taught in high school physics  If you dont understand basic kinematics under geometry treatment in Euclidean level mathematics You should start there. Prior to trying to understand and question SR and GR. Those basic lessons are essential.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So you want me to teach you basic calculus is that it?

Did you not learn basic kinematics in school ? Why should I waste time teaching you that if your here questioning relativity itself ? I showed you how the transforms preserves those lessons you should have been taught in high school physics  If you dont understand basic kinematics under geometry treatment in Euclidean level mathematics You should start there. Prior to trying to understand and question SR and GR. Those basic lessons are essential.

You were not supposed to be making a lecture on transformations. Your task was simple, and you said it was simple. I showed you that what you wrote is NOT describing what Einstein wrote in his first postulate.  I asked for that, you failed to supply anything resembling such a math only explanation.  

But lets drop this, and move on to answering my question.  Please say nothing else other than answer the question or tell us that you can not answer. 

[Mordred]

what do you think the transformation are for ? they directly apply to transforming from one geometry to the other. That is the very essence of the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. That includes velocities from 0 to c.

Regardless of geometry or regardless of observer all observers will agree on invariant quantities.

c itself is an example of an invariant quantity. so to maintain that invariance you need the relevant transformation rules. 

Here this will save me tons of having to type in the basis of the kinematics and how it relates to the addition of velocities. It will start with the basics of Galilean relativity to Lorentz. Including highlighting Covariance and invariants.

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/SpecRel.pdf

in particular note section 8 with regards to c Maxwell equations starting with

"8. Electrodynamics and Lorentz symmetry"

The article highlights the essence of invariant quantities (an invariant quantity is the same to all observers) under both Galilean relativity and SR,GR.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

what do you think the transformation are for ? they directly apply to transforming from one geometry to the other. That is the very essence of the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. That includes velocities from 0 to c.

Regardless of geometry or regardless of observer all observers will agree on invariant quantities.

c itself is an example of an invariant quantity. so to maintain that invariance you need the relevant transformation rules. 

Here this will save me tons of having to type in the basis of the kinematics and how it relates to the addition of velocities. It will start with the basics of Galilean relativity to Lorentz. Including highlighting Covariance and invariants.

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/SpecRel.pdf

in particular note section 8 with regards to c Maxwell equations starting with

"8. Electrodynamics and Lorentz symmetry"

The article highlights the essence of invariant quantities (an invariant quantity is the same to all observers) under both Galilean relativity and SR,GR.

 

 

You really are missing two points.

1.  All you needed to do was explain with Math equations alone, what Einstein and Newton could were able to explain in less than 20 words.  You said that your Math explanation was going to be more accurate or removed the possibility of misinterpretation or subjective opinions.  You just proved that you required not only a hell of a lot of equations, but also a lot of English explanation anyway. So thank for the effort, but the simple English statement in Postulate One is perfectly concise and complete and easily understandable, that's why Einstein wrote it that way. Math can't save the day. its just a tool.

2.  You or anyone else has even tried to answer my Original question.  Point One is simply a bit of a diversion and we can move on from that now.

As an Expert, what can you tell me?

Also, I think that in this statement, "Regardless of geometry or regardless of observer all observers will agree on invariant quantities" surely you really meant  invariant QUALITIES.  Not Quantities.  Quantity is a measure, which is not always constant from one inertial frame to another, but the Qualities of an object  will remain.  For instance, based on those Laws of Physics that Einstein was referring to in Postulate one, a object that has a measured weight of x in one frame, can have a measured weight of y in another frame subject to the local gravitational force. Yet the whole time, the objects Mass has remained invariant.  We measure Mass by measuring its Weight in Earth gravity. But the theory goes that the Mass wont change when we measure it on the moon, but the Weight will. Measurement is a Quantity, Mass is invariant and is a Quality. This is all in keeping with those Laws of Physics that Einstein directly referenced. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason
added more info

[Mordred]

Well quite frankly if you don't understand the very basis of relativity, that it is a model that describes particle kinematics which entails addition of velocities under graph aka coordinate system. in essence the space or spacetime paths. Which is described by geodesics. Then its pointless to go any further. That is precisely what Relativity in either form is designed to do.

[Logicandreason]

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well quite frankly if you don't understand the very basis of relativity, that it is a model that describes particle kinematics which entails addition of velocities under graph aka coordinate system. in essence the space or spacetime paths. Which is described by geodesics. Then its pointless to go any further. That is precisely what Relativity in either form is designed to do.

I wondered when this pathetic argument was going to rear its ugly head. The good old fall back position based on a logical fallacy,  "you are just too stupid to understand my superior arguments."

I actually  understand Special Relativity better than you, and that's why I can ask question s that you are scared of trying to answer. 

But let's say I'm an ignorant sod, son of pig farmer, incapable of putting together a sentence of more than a half dozen words not containing more than 2 syllables a piece. 

So please now answer the Question not for me, but for some other more intelligent person almost  as smart as your gifted self, for their benefit.  Go on, grace us with enlightenment of your awesome intellect  and inexhaustible knowledge.

Or you could just back away quietly and let someone else answer the question. However, based on the way that the others here have kept quiet, maybe they all think you are the smartest one here.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

I actually  understand Special Relativity better than you, and that's why I can ask question s that you are scared of trying to answer. 

 

 

 

Great glad to hear that. Then you should have no problem mathematically showing where SR is incorrect.

[Logicandreason]

47 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Which is described by geodesics

Shows exactly that you have very little knowledge of Einstein's Paper.  There is not any reference in the Paper to  geodesics which relates to Riemannian geometry's curved surfaces and tangential lines on those surfaces showing the shortest path is not a straight line.  This is used on General Relativity, never in Special relativity which is employing Cartesian geometry systems.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Great glad to hear that. Then you should have no problem mathematically showing where SR is incorrect.

I would like to, but first I need to apply that latex to cement that Math together into a coherent whole. And you are unwilling to listen to the sound of latex as it is not in accord to your familiar sounds you have learned off by heart.

To explain, I have to get you to first UNDERSTAND the PROBLEM. 

And you REFUSE to give me any fair hearing.

I asked a simple question, the answer to which will help unravel the actual problem, and you are intentionally ignoring that Question.

Why is that?