Special Relativity in a Parallel Universe

[Perspicacious]

Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and their interactions. Think of each model universe as filling one page in the atlas of all possible universes. "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ... But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics." - Galileo Galilei.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions, then the two universes are essentially the same (isomorphic).

Consider this example. In one universe, a celebrated physicist constructs what he calls a theory of relativity. The theory is based on empirical observations yet a few skeptics don't see the need for his implausible sounding rhetoric. The theory says trains get smaller and smaller as they move away from train stations. Observers at train stations do in fact see distant train tracks getting narrower and narrower to accommodate the shrinking of distant trains. But everything is relative. Passengers on moving trains can think of themselves as stationary. They see receding train stations getting smaller and smaller and the train tracks to them getting narrower also. Approaching train stations get bigger and bigger. Consistent mathematics can support this and all observations will confirm each and every one of the predictions. Not surprisingly, there is a parallel universe where different definitions are used and a different philosophy is believed. In that parallel universe, it is agreed that the lengths of objects can only be defined by co-moving measuring rods. There, it is axiomatic that only local, co-moving measurements of length express the actual truth about an objective reality.

In Einstein's model of the theory of relativity, moving clocks run slow and moving objects shrink in the direction of motion. Lucky for you, I'm not going to have you learn an outdated and tortured way of reasoning. I will not be repeating Einstein's rhetoric about shrinking trains. It suffices to construct a universe where lopsided chimeras are ignored and carefully rephrase and explain relativity with absolute concepts yet maintain all the factual, empirical aspects of the theory.

By explicit construction of moving clocks in our new universe, it will be obvious that moving clocks tick at the same rate as stationary clocks. There is also a real desynchrony effect. If you don't believe in modern physics, I advise that you try to follow the reasoning of this paper line by line. That's the way our universe really works.

The Lorentz transformation has always been perceived as a rule for translating the perspective of one observer's sense of space and time to the perspective of other observers in relative motion. Forget about your faith in Hendrick A. Lorentz and Albert Einstein. It's time to learn a conceptually simpler interpretation.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

[UncleAl]

Forget about your faith in Hendrick A. Lorentz and Albert Einstein. It's time to learn a conceptually simpler interpretation

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...1-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~...periments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...3-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...3-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system

[Perspicacious]

More evidence that Uncle Al is a computer program:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1ec5f7836dffb5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...818385a2c04e23
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7473840da02c5a

[Qfwfq]

I don't think Uncle Al is a computer program, despite how repetitive he can be.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter, energy and their interactions. Think of each model universe as filling one page in the atlas of all possible universes. "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ... But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics." - Galileo Galilei.

Don't confuse mathematics and physics. Galileo did not.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

In one universe, a celebrated physicist constructs what he calls a theory of relativity. The theory is based on empirical observations yet a few skeptics don't see the need for his implausible sounding rhetoric. The theory says trains get smaller and smaller as they move away from train stations. Observers at train stations do in fact see distant train tracks getting narrower and narrower to accommodate the shrinking of distant trains.

Einstein never said that trains get smaller and smaller as they move away from train stations. The narrowing of tracks is an appearance due to perspective, nothing to do with SR. As for the title of your paper:

"A Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation from Newton’s First Law of Motion and the Homogeneity of Time"

That is precisely what Minkowski did, also using the observation that c is an invariant.

[UncleAl]

More evidence that Uncle Al is a computer program:

11 technical links were posted. How may of them did you read? Zero. They contain the answer - rigorously derived, tested against empirical observation, and surviving all challenges unscathed.

Ignorance and stupidity are different. Ignorance is an absence of knowledge. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is willful or congenital ignorance. Stupidity is forever. Educating the stupid is as productive as administering medicine to the dead.

[Perspicacious]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I don't think Uncle Al is a computer program, despite how repetitive he can be.

The usual problem with the Uncle Al output is that it typically never shows evidence of sentience or even good programming. What do 10 links on general relativity and 1 link on the experimental basis of special relativity have to do with a new derivation of the Lorentz transformation?

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Don't confuse mathematics and physics. Galileo did not.

Shubert's goal for the mathematization of physics harmonizes perfectly with Hilbert’s aspirations. Have you never heard of problem number six in Hilbert's famous list of worthy problems (Hilbert 1900; Rowe 1995; Corry 1996)?

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Einstein never said that trains get smaller and smaller as they move away from train stations. The narrowing of tracks is an appearance due to perspective, nothing to do with SR.

I'm sure that everyone agrees that SR, as formulated by Einstein, is based on a relativity of perspective for uniformly moving observers. Shubert is comparing the lopsidedness of Einstein's explanation with the lopsidedness and unnaturalness of a theory based on a relative, always changing, geometric perspective. The point is just an illustration. As I understand Shubert's paper, he is emphasizing that special relativity is much clearer when derived from absolutes.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

11 technical links were posted. How may of them did you read? Zero.

Nobody is under any obligation to go through your links, whether or not they are pertinent and contain the answer. Especially when you post lists of them "without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion", which is non-compliance to the Rules of these forums. So is your frequent lack of tact, that Perspicacious points out.

This is warning n° n.

[Qfwfq]

Please don't pay excessive attention to UA, mods are often around to tip such posters off. I faded the unnecessary remarks from his recent post. Reply only with actual discussion, when you can, else ignore.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

What do 10 links on general relativity and 1 link on the experimental basis of special relativity have to do with a new derivation of the Lorentz transformation?

Probably quite a lot, although I haven't bothered going through them.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

Shubert's goal for the mathematization of physics harmonizes perfectly with Hilbert’s aspirations. Have you never heard of problem number six in Hilbert's famous list of worthy problems (Hilbert 1900; Rowe 1995; Corry 1996)?

The philosophical view of idealism, of which Descartes was also a strong supporter, is currently not accepted as a basis of physics. As Galileo says in your quote, mathematics is the language of physics and its main tool. Physics is however distinct from mathematics, one concerns reality and the other doesn't.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

I'm sure that everyone agrees that SR, as formulated by Einstein, is based on a relativity of perspective for uniformly moving observers.

Not quite everyone. "relativity of perspective" is a rather loose expression, unlike the more precise and specific meaning of the principle of relativity. In modern terminology: coordinate transformations.

Perspective, of which the Renaissance painters were the first great masters, does have to do with coordinates but that doesn't mean let the baby run out with the bath.

Originally Posted by Perspicacious

Shubert is comparing the...

Oh, so you aren't Eugene Schubert! I had taken your initail post as being a repetition of your own words in the paper, as they didn't appear to be a quote.

If you want to start a discussion about something by giving a link to it, that's not the most suitable way. Even if you don't start by adding much of your own, maybe with brief quotes, it would be better to just give the link with a remark of the type "Hey! I found this stuff interesting! What do y'all think?" or similar words.