Special relativity (as physics) cannot be derived from just the standard two postulates: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.
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
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).Footnote: A 2016 source not given in 2022 by Baird: "Einstein’s third postulate" W. Engelhardt
So the success of Einstein's special theory seems to be at least partly due to Einstein keeping its dependencies hidden.
Enjoy.
Eric Baird.
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).
Special relativity (as physics) cannot be derived from just the standard two postulates: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.
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
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).Also on the third postulate:
So the success of Einstein's special theory seems to be at least partly due to Einstein keeping its dependencies hidden.
Enjoy.
Eric Baird.
On Monday, 1 August 2022 at 12:09:36 UTC+2, erkd...@gmail.com wrote: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!
On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 3:56:58 PM UTC+1, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: ... however, forbiddenYes, I did.
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuringYou didn't actually understand either the post or the paper, did you?
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always 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.
On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 06:40:18 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:According to Englehardt the LT requires the third postulate.
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.
On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 06:40:18 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:Engelhardt shows that Einstein knew that different clocks in the same IRF would have different readings at the same time if LT is applied.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 00:03:19 |
Calls: | 7,752 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,891 |
Messages: | 5,743,002 |