On 2024-07-11 02:57:35 +0000, Eric_Baird said:

An unusual "take" on relativity theory, the series examines Einstein’s universe in terms of symmetry relations.

That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no Einstein's universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry, although that is not always pointed out.

Note that the term "Einstein's universe" is ambiguous: it may mean either Special Relativity or General Relativity. They have different symmetries.

Part I – Introduction
Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s universe: Einstein’s quest for mathematical perfection
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33448.34566

Einstein's special relativity has the unique set of relativistic
equations required for velocity-symmetry, perfect energy-conservation,

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However, relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both are.

the absence of round-trip gravitational redshifts, and time-symmetry.

There are no gravitational redshifts in special relativity.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity. The
full Lorentz and Poincaré symmetries contain it but both have subgroups
that don't contain it. Only the minimal Poincaré group is essential to
Special Relativity.

--
Mikko

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

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 09:53, Mikko pisze:

On 2024-07-11 02:57:35 +0000, Eric_Baird said:

An unusual "take" on relativity theory, the series examines Einstein’s
universe in terms of symmetry relations.

That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no
Einstein's
universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry, although that is not always pointed out.

Personally -I prefer the symmetry of Pratchett's universe.

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

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However, relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both
are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

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

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 15:33, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both
are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.

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

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:29:46 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 15:33, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.

However,

relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then

both

are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.

Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies and considers conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic delusion" even though
there
is no evidence whatever of non-conservation. He probably wishes to
travel
back in time, too, so he can kill his grandfather. So much for a
delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))

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

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:29:46 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 15:33, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.

However,

relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then

both

are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.

Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies and considers

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

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

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:38:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:29:46 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.

Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies

Wozzie-delusional believes he can delete the truth and pretend
it didn't happen. He is sadly mistaken, here's the rest of it:

and considers conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic
delusion" even though there is no evidence whatever of non-
conservation. He probably wishes to travel back in time,
too, so he can kill his grandfather. So much for a delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))

The ruth hurts, doesn't it.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,

Wozzie-liar is delusional. The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church. Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth. He is delusional.

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

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 20:14, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:38:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:29:46 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

Your universe - maybe; the reality of sane
people fucks your moronic delusions, however.

Says the insane Hog-Wozzie who buries himself in fantasies

Wozzie-delusional believes he can delete the truth and pretend
it didn't happen.  He is sadly mistaken, here's the rest of it:

and considers conservation of energy and momentum a "moronic
delusion" even though there is no evidence whatever of non-
conservation.  He probably wishes to travel back in time,
too, so he can kill his grandfather.  So much for a delusional
"information engineer" who only accepts fabrication as fact :-))

The ruth hurts, doesn't it.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,

Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

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

W dniu 11.07.2024 o 21:35, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 07/11/2024 06:33 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both
are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

This is kind of interesting, I suppose that's un-usual.

Time symmetry has never been falsified.

Because only idiots like you can believe
those mysticallymagical properties of your
"falsification" idiocy.

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

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:26:52 +0000, Wozzie-broken record wrote:

Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,

Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
And a congenital liar. And has Biden brain.

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

W dniu 12.07.2024 o 00:30, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:26:52 +0000, Wozzie-broken record wrote:

Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,

Wozzie-liar is delusional.  The record shows that he has proven
only one thing: he is a delusional liar.

and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

Wozzie-Oink is projecting again from his idiotic non-information
reservoir which he worships as his church.  Wozzie-fool also
believes that all he has to do is re-post his stupid nonsense
and that somehow converts falsehood into truth.  He is delusional.
And a congenital liar.  And has Biden brain.

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of
your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart spitting
barking and slandering; but you will do what
you can for your moronic church and its glory.

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

On 2024-07-11 13:33:32 +0000, gharnagel said:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity. However,
relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then both
are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

So it seems.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.

--
Mikko

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

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 9:29:34 +0000, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 13:33:32 +0000, gharnagel said:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.

However,

relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then

both

are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

So it seems.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.

Indeed. I fight entropy every chance I get. Unfortunately, there
always
seems to be more of it when I'm done.

Which brings up the Ekpyrotic universe theory. When branes bash
together,
where does the creation energy come from? I suspect the energy
difference
between the branes would decrease, reducing the probability of another
bash.
So how many can be sustained? Or are there an infinite number of branes
so
it will take an infinite amount of time to equilibrate?

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

W dniu 13.07.2024 o 17:44, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 9:29:34 +0000, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 13:33:32 +0000, gharnagel said:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 7:53:05 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Perfect conservation of energy is not essential to relativity.

However,

relativity requires that if energy or momentum is conserved then

both

are.

Our universe seems quite rigid about conservation of both.

So it seems.

The time direction symmetry is not an essential part of relativity.

Our universe seems quite rigid about that, too.

Not to the same extent. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics
is asymmetric.

Indeed.  I fight entropy every chance I get.  Unfortunately, there
always
seems to be more of it when I'm done.

Which brings up the Ekpyrotic universe theory.  When branes bash
together,
where does the creation energy come from?  I suspect the energy
difference
between the branes would decrease, reducing the probability of another
bash.
So how many can be sustained?  Or are there an infinite number of branes
so
it will take an infinite amount of time to equilibrate?

Oh, invisible red dwarves can easily trensfer
the energy between the branes, it's judt
that they're asleep mow.

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

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:17:32 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

Hmm... so now some scientists, physicists, and mathematicians
(I hesitate to call them, "researchers") say they've written
a formalism where the superluminal or tachyonic isn't
imcompatible with Special Relativity, after all.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006

Just published last month, but the Figure 1 recalls the
"reinterpretation" "principle" (RIP) of Bilaniuk, Deshpanda
and Sudarshan -- which I call Rest In Peace. Backward in
time was a BIG problem with RIP, which they endorsed to
solve the negative energy problem arising from the four-
momentum formalism: P' = eta P = gamma[E/c - pv/c, p - vE/c].

Unfortunately, p > E/c for tachyons, so for some values of
v/c, E' is negative. BDS hypothesized that negative energy
meant the tachyon was traveling backward in time for certain
certain values of v and appeared to go in the opposite direction.
They didn't bother to look at the 3-momentum term which didn't
reverse under those conditions: p NEVER reverses sign in the 4MF.

The only credible conclusion is that the 4MF is not valid
when E' reverses sign. This is confirmed by the fact
that if the basic equations

E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

are valid then, by the first postulate,

E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)

are also valid, and E' NEVER reverses sign over the full
range -infinity < u' < infinity! This has been explained in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

If you remember, DON'tknOw contended that the 4MF was a
"definition" and therefore inviolate, which, of course,
is the purest baloney since E' can be derived by applying
u = (u' + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) to E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).

The problem with the 4MF when applied to tachyons is that
a quaint little mathematical rule gets violated when the
1 + uv/c^2 term goes negative. BDS forgot about this and
thus RIP was born -- and died when it pointed out.

"Civilization advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
― Alfred North Whitehead

This adage has its limitations, particularly in physics.
One must make sure the tools still work when moving into
a new domain.

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

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:03:06 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 14/07/2024 à 00:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

the tachyon was traveling backward in time

On n'est plus à ça près.

R.H.

It was inferred from the LTE:

t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2)

For uv > c^2, t' becomes negative, so it IS près ... mais
pas de cigare. Presuming that energy becomes negative under
those conditions is a canard because

E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2)

NEVER becomes negative for ANY -infinity < u' < infinity.
As I've already pointed out. Did you follow that?

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

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:35:51 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/14/2024 12:46 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:03:06 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 14/07/2024 à 00:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

the tachyon was traveling backward in time

On n'est plus à ça près.

R.H.

It was inferred from the LTE:

t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2)

For uv > c^2, t' becomes negative, so it IS près ... mais
pas de cigare. Presuming that energy becomes negative under
those conditions is a canard because

E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2)

NEVER becomes negative for ANY -infinity < u' < infinity.
As I've already pointed out. Did you follow that?

How about where it's just zero in the middle from either side?

Potentials, ....

In the four-momentum formalism, E goes smoothly from positive,
through zero to negative. Time in the primed frame also goes
smoothly from positive, through zero to negative as uv goes
smoothly from positive, through zero to negative. But u' does
NOT go smoothly since the t' = gamma(t - uv/c^2) is in the
demominator! As uv/c^2 goes from positive and approaches zero,
u' approaches infinity, and as uv/c^2 approaches negative numbers,
u' becomes MINUS infinity: It is discontinuous! Generation of
infinities is the standard by which an equation has been judged
to reach the limit of its domain. If velocities have reached
the limit, how can one argue that t' or E' have not their limits?

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