I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.

Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
However, they measure different values for various
constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant

Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?

II) Re-phrase Eintein's postulates:
1. Newton's model applies to any inertial frame.
2. Maxwell's model applies to any inertial frame.

Does this produce the same results as the 1905 paper?

--
Rich

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 5:38:47 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
>
> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> However, they measure different values for various
> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
>
> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
>
> II) Re-phrase Eintein's postulates:
> 1. Newton's model applies to any inertial frame.
> 2. Maxwell's model applies to any inertial frame.
>
> Does this produce the same results as the 1905 paper?
>
> --
> Rich

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

On 28-Jul-21 10:38 am, RichD wrote:
> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
>
> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> However, they measure different values for various
> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
>
> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?

If the universe were such that it were possible to measure different
values for those constants, then the principle of relativity would not
apply.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 09:04:46 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28-Jul-21 10:38 am, RichD wrote:
> > I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
> > third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
> >
> > Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> > Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> > However, they measure different values for various
> > constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
> >
> > Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
> If the universe were such that it were possible to measure different
> values for those constants,

Lady, it's You measuring. You can get any result You
want.

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 5:38:47 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.

Conservation of momentum applies in special relativity too, but it has a different form than in Newtonian mechanics, and Newton's third law is problematic because in special relativity the 3-acceleration is not generally parallel to the applied 3-force. You need to take the inertia of energy (including kinetic energy) into account.

> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> However, they measure different values for various
> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?

Obviously not, since the differences in constants (appearing in the laws of physics) explicitly violate the principle of relativity, which is that the equations of physics take the *same* homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates.

> II) Re-phrase Eintein's postulates:
> 1. Newton's model applies to any inertial frame.
> 2. Maxwell's model applies to any inertial frame.
> Does this produce the same results as the 1905 paper?

Of course not. First, your silly use of the word "model" is misguided and hopelessly vague; you need to talk about the equations of the theory. Second, in special relativity (as described in Einstein's 1905 paper), Newton's equations of motion do not hold good exactly in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, they hold good only to the first order, i.e., in the low speed limit. That was the whole point of the paper.

On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 10:23:21 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:

> > Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> > Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> > However, they measure different values for various
> > constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
> > Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
> Obviously not, since the differences in constants (appearing in the laws of physics) explicitly violate the principle of relativity

Bullshit, of course. An interpretation explaining that it is not so
at all can always be made.

On 29-Jul-21 5:17 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 09:04:46 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 28-Jul-21 10:38 am, RichD wrote:
>>> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
>>> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
>>>
>>> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
>>> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
>>> However, they measure different values for various
>>> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
>>>
>>> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
>> If the universe were such that it were possible to measure different
>> values for those constants,
>
> Lady, it's You measuring. You can get any result You
> want.
>
The usual presumption in these discussions is that any measuring is done
correctly.

Sylvia.

On 28.Jul.2021, JanPB wrote:

>> Does this produce the same results as the 1905 paper? -- Rich
>
> Not even wrong.

Nevermind, civil war in capitalist america. It's getting serioja. This
must be a parallel universe. They truly believed they are "elites" not
*public_servants*. Now the depopulation bill gates comes and eats them
all together. Amazing the power of pharmakia bill gates. Unexpected, even
for a nice old lady like me.

THE DEEP STATE WARNED U.S. REPS THEY WOULD BE CHARGED WITH TRESPASSING
https://www.bitchute.com/video/k4605kLJT5Bj/

Reporter - “You said fully vaccinated no longer need to wear a mask”.
Biden - 'No I didn´t say that'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Gvf3ZaH9zAxY/

Their intention was to maximize fear and death so people would accept the
vaccine https://www.brighteon.com/5fce85a5-059b-493b-976c-f64921e5686c

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 02:06:52 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29-Jul-21 5:17 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 09:04:46 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 28-Jul-21 10:38 am, RichD wrote:
> >>> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
> >>> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
> >>>
> >>> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
> >>> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> >>> However, they measure different values for various
> >>> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
> >>>
> >>> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
> >> If the universe were such that it were possible to measure different
> >> values for those constants,
> >
> > Lady, it's You measuring. You can get any result You
> > want.
> >
> The usual presumption in these discussions is that any measuring is done
> correctly.

And whether it is or not - it's a theory deciding. Or maybe
I'm wrong?
Since the Holy Postulate postulate You know that You have
to measure "correctly" with identical procedures everywhere;
identical procedures give identical, "correct" result. What a
surprise.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> The usual presumption in these discussions is that any measuring is
>> done correctly.
>
> And whether it is or not - it's a theory deciding. Or maybe I'm wrong?
> Since the Holy Postulate postulate You know that You have to measure
> "correctly" with identical procedures everywhere; identical procedures
> give identical, "correct" result. What a surprise.

both wrong. A "correct" measurement always involves *errorbars*, also
discarding those points out of the region of interest (error points).

On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 17:54:16 UTC+2, Gabriella Bouttier wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> >> The usual presumption in these discussions is that any measuring is
> >> done correctly.
> >
> > And whether it is or not - it's a theory deciding. Or maybe I'm wrong?
> > Since the Holy Postulate postulate You know that You have to measure
> > "correctly" with identical procedures everywhere; identical procedures
> > give identical, "correct" result. What a surprise.
> both wrong. A "correct" measurement always involves *errorbars*

So? Where do you get the info whether it is correct or not, with
or without errorbars?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Friday, 30 July 2021 at 17:54:16 UTC+2, Gabriella Bouttier wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> >> The usual presumption in these discussions is that any measuring is
>> >> done correctly.
>> >
>> > And whether it is or not - it's a theory deciding. Or maybe I'm
>> > wrong?
>> > Since the Holy Postulate postulate You know that You have to measure
>> > "correctly" with identical procedures everywhere; identical
>> > procedures give identical, "correct" result. What a surprise.
>> both wrong. A "correct" measurement always involves *errorbars*
>
> So? Where do you get the info whether it is correct or not, with or
> without errorbars?

statistics, means, variance, distribution, correlation, etc, exact
solutions

I Can't See Without My 'Glasses'!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iW3hT5Qe2RyB/

On July 29, Arthur Adler wrote:
>> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
>> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
>
> Conservation of momentum applies in special relativity too, but it has a different form
> than in Newtonian mechanics, and Newton's third law is problematic because in special
> relativity the 3-acceleration is not generally parallel to the applied 3-force. You need to
> take the inertia of energy (including kinetic energy) into account.
>
>> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
>> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
> > However, they measure different values for various
> > constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
> > Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
>
> Obviously not, since the differences in constants (appearing in the laws of physics) explicitly
> violate the principle of relativity, which is that the equations of physics take the *same*
> homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates.

First, the form stipulated is the same in both frames, where 'form' refers
to a set of differential equations. They differ only in the measured constants.
However, the theories would predict different outcomes for identical experiments,
hence different laws, depending on state of motion.

But really, it's a trick question. Which nobody picked up.

The axioms of any logical system must be independent. Further, for science,
they must be physically independent; that is, independently testable.

Now, review the 1905 paper: two postulates/axioms. If the first is true, all
constants must be unvarying across inertial frames, as noted above.
That includes everybody's favorite constant... c. Does it not?

Then what's the point of the second postulate? It's redundant, a defect.
It's already implied!

Another way to see it: the postulates must be experimentally verifiable. Imagine
a universe where the first passes the test, but not the second. What would that mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

--
Rich

On July 29, Arthur Adler wrote:
>> II) Re-phrase Eintein's postulates:
>> 1. Newton's model applies to any inertial frame.
>> 2. Maxwell's model applies to any inertial frame.
>> Does this produce the same results as the 1905 paper?
>
> Of course not. First, your silly use of the word "model" is misguided and hopelessly vague;
> you need to talk about the equations of the theory.

It ought to be understood:
1. Newton's laws
2. Maxwell equations, & Coulomb force

> Second, in special relativity (as described
> in Einstein's 1905 paper), Newton's equations of motion do not hold good exactly in terms of
> any system of inertial coordinates, they hold good only to the first order, i.e., in the low speed limit.

OK
1. Newton's model, at low speeds
2. Maxwell's model

Does that reproduce special relativity?

I wish to fix the clumsiness of the original paper, which juxtaposed a principle of
natural law, alongside a single data point.

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On July 29, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>> I) My grasp of mechanics boils down to Newton's
>>> third law; conservation of momentum. That's all you need.
>>
>> Conservation of momentum applies in special relativity too, but it has a different form
>> than in Newtonian mechanics, and Newton's third law is problematic because in special
>> relativity the 3-acceleration is not generally parallel to the applied
>> 3-force. You need to
>> take the inertia of energy (including kinetic energy) into account.
>>
>>> Now, let's say there are two frames, in relative motion.
>>> Newton's mechanics apply to each, separately.
>>> However, they measure different values for various
>>> constants, e.g. gravitational, or Boltzman's constant
>>> Is the principle of relativity valid in this universe?
>>
>> Obviously not, since the differences in constants (appearing in the laws
>> of physics) explicitly
>> violate the principle of relativity, which is that the equations of
>> physics take the *same*
>> homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates.
>
> First, the form stipulated is the same in both frames, where 'form' refers
> to a set of differential equations. They differ only in the measured constants.
> However, the theories would predict different outcomes for identical experiments,
> hence different laws, depending on state of motion.
>
> But really, it's a trick question. Which nobody picked up.
>
> The axioms of any logical system must be independent. Further, for science,
> they must be physically independent; that is, independently testable.

In a formal mathematical system, yes, axioms should be independent. For the
purposes of a physics exposition, they need not be. I think it’s a little
silly to expect the same formal rigor that would apply in a mathematics
paper to always be the form of a physics paper.

Secondly, in science, an assumption or postulate does not need to be
directly testable at all. The usual flow is to deduce testable consequences
FROM the postulates and then put those to experimental comparison. Also
what should happen is that at least some of the testable consequences are
distinct from those from alternate postulates, so that experimental
measurements can distinguish which set of postulates is more likely
correct.

>
> Now, review the 1905 paper: two postulates/axioms. If the first is true, all
> constants must be unvarying across inertial frames, as noted above.
> That includes everybody's favorite constant... c. Does it not?
>
> Then what's the point of the second postulate? It's redundant, a defect.
> It's already implied!
>
> Another way to see it: the postulates must be experimentally verifiable. Imagine
> a universe where the first passes the test, but not the second. What would that mean?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY
>
> --
> Rich
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/2/21 7:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> The axioms of any logical system must be independent.

Not really. In any axiomatic system, one can declare any theorem to be
an additional axiom without changing the system. It is desirable for the
axioms to be independent, so one has a minimal set, but it is not
necessary. For most axiomatic systems, there are many different choices
for a set of axioms that leave the system unchanged.

> Further, for science, they must be physically independent; that is,
> independently testable.

This is just plain wrong. In general, one cannot test individual
statements, theorems, or axioms, one can only test physical theories. A
physical theory is more than an axiomatic system, it includes
definitions of the symbols that appear, relating them to measurable
physical quantities.

For any experimental test of a theory, one must derive a theorem of the
theory that corresponds to the conditions of the measurement being made.
The test is to compare the number calculated by the theorem to the
number measured in the experiment.

> Now, review the 1905 paper: two postulates/axioms. If the first is
> true, all constants must be unvarying across inertial frames, as
> noted above. That includes everybody's favorite constant... c. Does
> it not?

Yes and no, because there are two meanings for c:
1) the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, aka the symmetry
speed of spacetime.
2) the vacuum speed of light.
This distinction was not known in 1905, and Einstein intermixed them
inappropriately.

Given several theoretical preconditions, c(1) must be constant. Whether
c(2) is constant, and independent of the inertial frame used to measure
it, is a purely experimental question -- experiments show that c(2) is
constant and independent of inertial frame, to very high accuracy.

Those theoretical preconditions are:
0) Local phenomena only (i.e. gravitation is negligible). All
speeds are measured relative to an inertial frame (B).
A) The PoR is valid (i.e. the laws of physics are the same when
referenced to any inertial frame).
B) The definition of inertial frame is valid (realizable).
C) Any conditions that refute the transformation group between
inertial frames being either the Euclid group or the Galilei
group. Basic observations of space and time refute the
Euclid group. Some possibilities to refute the Galilei group:
C1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics
C2) the vacuum speed of light c(2) is constant and
independent of the speed of the source.
C3) there is a finite upper bound on signal speeds
C4) pion beams exist
Note that (A) and (B) require that the transformations between inertial
frames form a group, and the only admissible groups are those of Euclid,
Galileo, and Lorentz; (C) further restricts it to the Lorentz group,
which implies c(1) is constant and independent of inertial frame.

[In 1905, Einstein was thinking of C1, but used C2. In
1907 he replaced my (B) with the "missing postulates":
space is homogeneous and isotropic, time is homogeneous,
and clocks and rulers have no memory of their history.]

> Then what's the point of the second postulate? It's redundant, a
> defect. It's already implied!

No, it isn't. See above. One must eliminate the Euclid and Galilei
groups from consideration.

[Simple way to see this: the PoR does not imply that
the speeds of baseballs and bullets are constant and
independent of frame. Why should light be different?
-- it is, and the theory must reflect that.]

> Another way to see it: the postulates must be experimentally
> verifiable.

No. The THEORY must be experimentally testable. Individual postulates
are insufficient to derive the theorem corresponding to the conditions
of an experimental measurement.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:

> The axioms of any logical system must be independent.

> Then what's the point of the second postulate? It's redundant, a defect.
> It's already implied!

To sum up what Tom was saying to you, the PoR (with a few more conditions) just says that there exist a max speed
(for the L group). The " c(1) "

After experimentations, scientist have noticed that the SoL was the max they can attain. The " c(2) ".
So scientist (Physicist, Einstein) declared that this measured SoL (EM's) was the max speed of the L group.
Hence SR's 2nd postulate.

> Another way to see it: the postulates must be experimentally verifiable.

They just need to *not be experimentally refuted*. Quite a different statement from your above declaration.

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:55:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Secondly, in science, an assumption or postulate does not need to be
> directly testable at all. The usual flow is to deduce testable consequences
> FROM the postulates and then put those to experimental comparison.

Thinkers more advanced than poor idiot Odd (Poincarfe, Kuhn, Lakatos)
knew better.

On August 3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Further, for science, they must be physically independent; that is,
>> independently testable.
>
> This is just plain wrong. In general, one cannot test individual
> statements, theorems, or axioms, one can only test physical theories...
> For any experimental test of a theory, one must derive a theorem of the
> theory that corresponds to the conditions of the measurement being made.
> The test is to compare the number calculated by the theorem to the
> number measured in the experiment.

Fine, but in this case, the point isn't critical.

>> Now, review the 1905 paper: two postulates/axioms. If the first is
>> true, all constants must be unvarying across inertial frames, as
>> noted above. That includes everybody's favorite constant... c. Does
>> it not?
>
> Yes and no, because there are two meanings for c:
> 1) the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, aka the symmetry
> speed of spacetime.
> 2) the vacuum speed of light.
> Given several theoretical preconditions, c(1) must be constant. Whether
> c(2) is constant, and independent of the inertial frame used to measure
> it, is a purely experimental question -- experiments show that c(2) is
> constant and independent of inertial frame, to very high accuracy.

Not merely experimental; a tautology.
c(2) must be constant, otherwise inconsistent with the first postulate.
Though we do test tautologies, as a sanity check -

> Those theoretical preconditions are:
> A) The PoR is valid (i.e. the laws of physics are the same when
> referenced to any inertial frame).
> B) The definition of inertial frame is valid (realizable).
> C) Any conditions that refute the transformation group between
> inertial frames being either the Euclid group or the Galilei
> group. Basic observations of space and time refute the
> Euclid group. Some possibilities to refute the Galilei group:
> C1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics
> C2) the vacuum speed of light c(2) is constant and
> independent of the speed of the source.
> C3) there is a finite upper bound on signal speeds
> C4) pion beams exist
> Note that (A) and (B) require that the transformations between inertial
> frames form a group, and the only admissible groups are those of Euclid,
> Galileo, and Lorentz; (C) further restricts it to the Lorentz group,
> which implies c(1) is constant and independent of inertial frame.

All right, we select the Lorentz group, and measure the symmetry constant.
It's not too important here.

>> Then what's the point of the second postulate? It's redundant, a
>> defect. It's already implied!
>
> No, it isn't. See above. One must eliminate the Euclid and Galilei
> groups from consideration.
> [Simple way to see this: the PoR does not imply that
> the speeds of baseballs and bullets are constant and
> independent of frame. Why should light be different?
> -- it is, and the theory must reflect that.]

Because we don't have Sam Colt's bullet theory as a fundamental
law of nature. Unlike Maxwell and light.

Second postulate:
"light is always propagated with a definite velocity V which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Proof by contradiction: assume this postulate is false, while
the first holds. Now, a question arises: state of motion of the
emitter... with respect to what, precisely? Kinda fuzzy there, Al!

We assume Maxwell's model, which implies that light is a
wave. Wave mechanics indicates a medium, and the fact
that wave velocity is independent of source velocity, relative
to the medium. Moreover, we cannot directly detect such
motion of emitter vs. ether; it must be inferred, indirectly,
from other observables. (a la Michaelson-Morley experiment)

Hence we interpret "state of motion" as relative motion of
emitter vs. receiver, where the receiver is inertial. So, if the
postulate is falsified, there will be some variation of c, depending
on this motion. This variation cannot depend on emitter velocity,
as noted above, hence must depend on receiver motion, relative
to the ether. (a la M-M exp.)

Assuming the first postulate, all inertial frames must see this
same variation. But wave/ether mechanics tells us that separate
frames, in differing movement relative to the ether, will measure
differing values for c. (e.g. water waves) Contradiction!

Note that we have recovered the M-M experiment, with
a positive result, as they expected, where they assumed an
ether. Note also that such a result contradicts the first postulate.
By logical equivalence, the first necessarily implies the second.
QED

--
Rich