Comparison of Special Relativity with a Galilean "preferred frame" theory

You didn't use "proper time invariant" you used the fringe concoction "local inertial invariance of time" so, I simply asked you where you read "local inertial invariance of time" , I asked you if you made the term up like you generally do and I explained to you the correct term (i.e. "proper time"). Not only that you make up terms, you don't even know the correct terms nor do you understand their meaning. Both I and rpenner tried (in vain) to correct you in subsequent posts that point out your misconceptions on the subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm.

Brace yourself Tach...I didn't read this stuff anywhere. I formulate it from my own head, and when I later read that the Physics community has already explored the idea I feel validated. It started here after I acquiesced here that I was wrong about something.

You would do well to expand your imagination, perhaps smoke a joint :m:, and allow yourself to have thoughts that didn't originate from a textbook.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, it doesn't have the fringe meaning that you used. This was explained to you in the very next two posts by me and by rpenner. In essence, we told you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, so you are admitting to making up the fringe term "local inertial invariance of time", this is why I pointed out the exact post where you coined it. Yet, not long after that, you came up with a whole list of other fringe "inventions". Since you are unable to ever post a mathematical formulation of your concepts, it is impossible to tell what you are talking about. This is why I compiled the list of questions that I am asking you to answer. Explain the terms or retract them as well as being equally fringe:


1. Define "relative position".
2. Define "relative position invariance". (przyk already asked you this)
3. Define "absolute position".
4. Define "absolute position invariance". (przyk already asked you this)
5. "Moving frames" with respect to what?
6. "Moving frames" as opposed to "non-moving frames"?
7. Define "proper time invariant".
8. What does it mean that "Newtonian mechanics + electromagnetism is actually a contradiction (i.e. is not proper time invariant)"
9. Did you read about the above terms somewhere or did you make them up all by yourself again?
10. What gives you the idea that "all available methods for measuring the speed of light are themselves dependent on the speed of light"? This is an idea that Farsight also advocates, what gives you the idea that it is true?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus, is it the concepts or the wording that you're griping about? The reason I don't use phrases that you recognize is because I'm using English to describe concepts rather than quoting shit from textbooks. "Retract the phrasing of those words!! I'm so offended!!!" HAHA

Done with you Tach. I judge you incapable.

 

No, it is your inability of performing even the most basic physics combined with the pretenses ....

 

Yes, I am unable to communicate with you. We've established this, so please move on. You can continue to lurk in this thread and await my response to Przyk.

 

Ah, yes, actual knowledge. Useless shit, isn't it?

 

I'm referring to the phrasing and terms used, not the "knowledge". Logic is a universal language and only a wretch would be incapable of applying it to phrases and concepts outside of what they've read in a book.

If you believe "actual knowledge" only comes from textbooks then you're clearly not a candidate for ever contributing anything to those textbooks.

 

You are unable to communicate with any mainstream physicists not only because you are making up your own fringe terms but mostly because you don't understand the physics behind the terms and because you cannot express any of your "concepts" (more correctly, your misconceptions) in mathematical form. For your information, math is the language of physics, until you learn it, you are simply another form of Farsight.

 

Well that's fine and all, but for someone who believes that you seem to be spending a lot of time throwing undefined terminology around and very little time trying to articulate the actual concepts being referred to. Tach's numbered lists of questions are quite reasonable in this regard: they're all things you've said or casually referred to, and I don't know what you mean by most of them either.

Also, much of your terminology is confusingly similar and sometimes identical to standard physics jargon, but it is not clear at all that you are referring to the same actual concepts (in fact it seems clear to me that much of the time, you are not). While I agree in principle that terminology is just arbitrary labels and it shouldn't matter what you call things, in practice it's very confusing if you misuse physics terminology. So if you have some time principle you want to propose and discuss, please don't call it e.g. "proper time invariance" unless you are damn sure you are referring to the same thing that textbooks and physicists are referring to when they use the same terminology. If in doubt, call it something else and define the principle explicitly, ideally in operational terms ("I will never/always see X in Y type of experiment, depending on conditions Z and independently of conditions W") or as well as you can on a foundational level ("All the laws of physics have property X").

 

My math is fine. Don't you recall when I whipped you with it?

 

That may be accurate but: A) I don't necessarily know which terms exist in order to avoid "collisions", B) I feel I made a decent effort to define "proper time variance" here, C) "proper time invariance" was settled upon after probably 3 or 4 different phrasings as I tried to get as succinct as possible, D) the Poincare Group description linked to by rpenner basically restates exactly what I've been trying to describe, E) rpenner tacitly agreed with my premise so I know at least one other person in this thread thinks they understand what I mean, lastly F) Tach is a known tool and I generally refuse to answer questions from him.

In the end I'm not defending a position anyway, I'm exploring it.

 

The thread confirms the already known fact that you are unable to perform any math. It also showcases your ignorance in terms of basic relativity, I have no idea why you keep pointing out to your own ineptitude.

 

Find a SINGLE member on this forum to publicly agree with your assessment (of that thread) and I'll eat my hat. Go ask your buddies, I dare you. You're just as full of shit when it comes to admitting failure as some of the cranks you try picking on.

 

You have contradicted your own premise. Multiple times, all pointed out to you.

LOL, look in the mirror.
Even more importantly, look at the crackpottery you have been posting in THIS thread. You keep trying different diversions but the fact remains that THIS thread gives an ample demonstration of your level of knowledge.

 

Where was it settled? The best I got out of your definition was "translation symmetry", and even there you replied with some distinction between "absolute" and "relative" position invariance that you still have not defined. I still honestly have no idea why the toy model I gave you doesn't satisfy your time invariance principle.

Not really. First, I think rpenner read "proper time invariance" to mean invariance of the interval \((\Delta \tau)^{2} \,=\, (\Delta t)^{2} \,-\, (\Delta r)^{2}\), which is not what I am getting from your definitions.

Second, noting that Poincaré transformations are the most general transformations that leave \((\Delta \tau)^{2}\) invariant constitutes a purely mathematical solution to a purely mathematical problem. That alone does not amount to a rederivation of relativity. As I explained earlier, trying to adopt invariance of proper time as a standalone physical principle is not as trivial as it might seem at first:

Also, how much you can derive depends on the extent to which you postulate \((\Delta \tau)^{2}\) is invariant. E.g. is it supposed to be the same for observers moving relative to one another or just observers in different places at rest relative to one another? The point I'm trying to make here is that how much of relativity you can "derive" can be very sensitive to how you formulate things and you really need to be careful with this.

 

Then bring some ketchup.

You have admitted to not understanding/knowing/using common terms, and yet you seem reticent to define those you do use concisely. And no, you have yet to do anything but cite your own vague arm-waving. You seem to be a typical crank, evading direct questions by claiming umbrage and claiming to have no position while actively arguing against others, which is itself a tacit position.

At least Farsight, MD, PL, etc. had the good sense to back off their nonsense in fairly short order. You seem to be determined to drown an otherwise educational OP in crank nonsense, without ever giving anyone a position concise enough to warrant all of your posting.

Answer direct questions or be satisfied with being an obviously evasive crank.

 

No problem; specifically which part of the referenced thread do you have a problem with? Did you even look at it?

 

You only asked who publicly agreed with Tach's assessment. I have absolutely no interest in retracing the ground he already covered, especially as an off-topic distraction in this thread.

 

That's what I thought; I call you out and you backtrack. Either that or you're making accusations without doing 30 seconds of research to back up your claims. Color me unimpressed either way.