• Re: Einstein's Missing Third Postulate

    From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to erkd...@gmail.com on Thu Sep 28 20:14:27 2023
    On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 7:16:32 AM UTC-7, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
    Special relativity (as physics) cannot be derived from just the standard two postulates:
    1: the principle of relativity, and,
    2: the constancy of the speed of light //in vacuo//.

    Those two postulates will only get you as far as a theory that //only// claims validity //in vacuo//, that is, when no matter is present.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362297778_Einstein's_Missing_Third_Postulate

    In order to argue that the SR relationships also apply to actual physics, we have to add a third postulate or definition ... that the lightbeam geometry derived for empty space still applies when space is //NOT// empty. In other words, the missing
    third postulate has to be equivalent to saying that we know that the presence and motion of matter has zero effect on the behaviour of light.

    Snag is, if we'd included that as a third postulate, SR would have been rapidly overturned, as we know that the presence of matter alters lightspeeds (refractive index), and that the motion of matter further complicates things (Fizeau effect).

    So the success of Einstein's special theory seems to be at least partly due to Einstein keeping its dependencies hidden.

    Enjoy.
    Eric Baird.
    Footnote: A 2016 source not given in 2022 by Baird: "Einstein’s third postulate" W. Engelhardt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to erkd...@gmail.com on Fri Sep 29 13:21:47 2023
    On 01-Aug-22 12:16 am, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
    Special relativity (as physics) cannot be derived from just the
    standard two postulates: 1: the principle of relativity, and, 2: the constancy of the speed of light //in vacuo//.

    Those two postulates will only get you as far as a theory that
    //only// claims validity //in vacuo//, that is, when no matter is
    present.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362297778_Einstein's_Missing_Third_Postulate

    In order to argue that the SR relationships also apply to actual
    physics, we have to add a third postulate or definition ... that the lightbeam geometry derived for empty space still applies when space
    is //NOT// empty. In other words, the missing third postulate has to
    be equivalent to saying that we know that the presence and motion of
    matter has zero effect on the behaviour of light.

    Snag is, if we'd included that as a third postulate, SR would have
    been rapidly overturned, as we know that the presence of matter
    alters lightspeeds (refractive index), and that the motion of matter
    further complicates things (Fizeau effect).


    So, obviously, your third postulate is not something to add.

    The correct approach is to look at what actually happens, and see how relativity would fit in with that.

    As it turns out, it fits in very well.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to erkd...@gmail.com on Thu Sep 28 20:23:13 2023
    On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 7:16:32 AM UTC-7, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
    Special relativity (as physics) cannot be derived from just the standard two postulates:
    1: the principle of relativity, and,
    2: the constancy of the speed of light //in vacuo//.

    Those two postulates will only get you as far as a theory that //only// claims validity //in vacuo//, that is, when no matter is present.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362297778_Einstein's_Missing_Third_Postulate

    In order to argue that the SR relationships also apply to actual physics, we have to add a third postulate or definition ... that the lightbeam geometry derived for empty space still applies when space is //NOT// empty. In other words, the missing
    third postulate has to be equivalent to saying that we know that the presence and motion of matter has zero effect on the behaviour of light.

    Snag is, if we'd included that as a third postulate, SR would have been rapidly overturned, as we know that the presence of matter alters lightspeeds (refractive index), and that the motion of matter further complicates things (Fizeau effect).

    So the success of Einstein's special theory seems to be at least partly due to Einstein keeping its dependencies hidden.

    Enjoy.
    Eric Baird.
    Also on the third postulate:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 28 20:30:27 2023
    On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 3:34:28 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Monday, 1 August 2022 at 12:09:36 UTC+2, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 3:56:58 PM UTC+1, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: ... however, forbidden
    by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
    t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
    You didn't actually understand either the post or the paper, did you?
    Yes, I did.

    To say that the two postulates are //insufficient// is not to say that they are wrong ...
    It is not, sure. And still we can check GPS
    and see that outside your moronic gedankenwelt -
    when it comes to the real measurements of the real
    world - forbidden by your insane cult clocks keep
    measuring t'=t, like they always did.
    it's to say that they are //not enough// to isolate special relativity's relativistic description from other potential relativistic descriptions.
    It is, sure. And still we can check GPS
    and see that outside your moronic gedankenwelt -
    when it comes to the real measurements of the real
    world - forbidden by your insane cult clocks keep
    measuring t'=t, like they always did.
    An ad hoc third postulate is obviously required to save the second ad hoc postulate you lame brain! Can't you even understand that clocks in the same IRF have different readings at the same time? I give up on you!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 28 20:40:32 2023
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:56:02 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 06:40:18 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

    General relativity is founded on differential geometry and is impeccably logical, and it the most superb theory of physics along with quantum field theory, both of which are founded on local Lorentz invariance.
    But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
    by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
    t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
    According to Englehardt the LT requires the third postulate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 28 21:25:56 2023
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:56:02 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 06:40:18 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

    General relativity is founded on differential geometry and is impeccably logical, and it the most superb theory of physics along with quantum field theory, both of which are founded on local Lorentz invariance.
    But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
    by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
    t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
    Engelhardt shows that Einstein knew that different clocks in the same IRF would have different readings at the same time if LT is applied.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)