On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You deliberately misrepresented what I wrote so you can argue with your own
> strawman. What I said was that special relativity is based on false premises.

Excuse me, but that's a lie, as shown by the verbatim quote from your very first post: "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Do you deny posting that sentence?

Also, in subsequent posts we've explored your (contradictory) claim that relativity, though correct, is based on false premises, and we've found that your belief was based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding. Once the foundations and content of special relativity were explained to you clearly, your allegations were thoroughly debunked and you ran away. Remember?

> If you want to contribute something useful, you could either provide a link to usenet FAQs
> or just explain how to edit on this platform.

You can just log in to Google groups on your web browser, and go to sci.physics.relativity, and post replies to any message you like. All you need to do is create a google account (if you don't already have one, for gmail, etc.) It's free and takes about 30 seconds to make one.

But for you to suggest that my messages to you have not been useful is disgraceful. I have carefully responded to each of your statements, and explained why the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of Lorentz transformations do not imply that there is anything wrong with either special relativity or the premises on which it is based. I've explained in detail your misconceptions about length contraction, etc. You've ignored all this, and when I ask you to point out anything you think is wrong or unclear, you just run away, saying "I won't play your game". That is very juvenile behavior.

> The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.

It is self-evident and trivial that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.

> and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0. This expands to...

Well, there's no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)].

> There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.

Well, you're using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.

So, I ask again, what is your point? Remember, in your very first post you said Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You deliberately misrepresented what I wrote so you can argue with your own
> strawman. What I said was that special relativity is based on false premises.

Excuse me, but that is a lie, as shown by the verbatim quote from your very first post: "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Do you deny posting that sentence?

Also, in subsequent posts we explored your (contradictory) claim that relativity, though correct, is based on false premises, and we've found that your belief was based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding. Once the foundations and content of special relativity were explained to you clearly, your allegations were thoroughly debunked and you ran away. Remember?

> If you want to contribute something useful, you could either provide a link to usenet FAQs
> or just explain how to edit on this platform.

You can just log in to Google groups on your web browser, and go to sci.physics.relativity, and post replies to any message you like. All you need to do is create a google account (if you don't already have one, for gmail, etc.) It's free and takes about 30 seconds to make one.

But for you to suggest that my messages to you have not been useful is disgraceful. I've carefully responded to each of your statements, and explained why the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of Lorentz transformations do not imply that there is anything wrong with either special relativity or the premises on which it is based. I've explained in detail your misconceptions about length contraction, etc. You've ignored all this, and when I ask you to point out anything you think is wrong or unclear, you just run away, saying "I won't play your game". That is very juvenile behavior.

> The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.

It's self-evident and trivial that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.

> and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0. This expands to...

Well, there is no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)].

> There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.

Well, you are using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.

So, I ask again, what is your point? Remember, in your very first post you said "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is.." Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity (and/or the premises on which it is based) is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You deliberately misrepresented what I wrote so you can argue with your own
> > strawman. What I said was that special relativity is based on false premises.
> Excuse me, but that is a lie, as shown by the verbatim quote from your very first post: "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Do you deny posting that sentence?
>
> Also, in subsequent posts we explored your (contradictory) claim that relativity, though correct, is based on false premises, and we've found that your belief was based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding. Once the foundations and content of special relativity were explained to you clearly, your allegations were thoroughly debunked and you ran away. Remember?
> > If you want to contribute something useful, you could either provide a link to usenet FAQs
> > or just explain how to edit on this platform.
> You can just log in to Google groups on your web browser, and go to sci.physics.relativity, and post replies to any message you like. All you need to do is create a google account (if you don't already have one, for gmail, etc.) It's free and takes about 30 seconds to make one.
>
> But for you to suggest that my messages to you have not been useful is disgraceful. I've carefully responded to each of your statements, and explained why the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of Lorentz transformations do not imply that there is anything wrong with either special relativity or the premises on which it is based. I've explained in detail your misconceptions about length contraction, etc. You've ignored all this, and when I ask you to point out anything you think is wrong or unclear, you just run away, saying "I won't play your game". That is very juvenile behavior.
> > The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.
> It's self-evident and trivial that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.
> > and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0.. This expands to...
>
> Well, there is no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)].
>
> > There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> > These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.
>
> Well, you are using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.
> So, I ask again, what is your point? Remember, in your very first post you said "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity (and/or the premises on which it is based) is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

You may spin my exact words any way you want. You can even "win" the argument. Your opinion is of no importance to me.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:22:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You may spin my exact words any way you want.

Spin? I quoted what you said, verbatim. If you want to retract or modify your statement, you're certainly free to do so. But you are not free to deny that you posted that statement... unless you are claiming that someone hacked your account.

> You can even "win" the argument.

What argument? I keep asking you to tell me what your point is. You say, Behold! The Lorentz transformation has lightlike eigenvectors! Therefore special relativity, or the premises on which it is based, are wrong! To which my response is Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Why does the trivial existence of eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (or any other linear transformation) imply that there is something wrong with special relativity and/or its premises?

> Your opinion is of no importance to me.

This isn't about whether someone's opinion is important to you. This is about whether your claim that the existence of eigenvectors of a linear transformations implies something wrong with special relativity or its premises. Clearly it does not, and you have not articulated any rational reason for thinking that it does. If you disagree, then what is your rational reason? Do you have one? Is it a secret?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:22:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You may spin my exact words any way you want.

Spin? I quoted what you said verbatim. If you want to retract or modify your statement, you're certainly free to do so. But you are not free to deny that you posted that statement -- unless you are claiming that someone hacked your account.

> You can even "win" the argument.

What argument? I keep asking you to tell me what your point is. You say "Behold! The Lorentz transformation has lightlike eigenvectors! Therefore special relativity, or the premises on which it is based, are wrong!" To which everyone's response is "Huh?" That doesn't make any sense. Why does the trivial existence of eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (or any other linear transformation) imply that there is something wrong with special relativity and/or its premises? (Not to mention that you've shown you do not understand either special relativity or its premises.)

> Your opinion is of no importance to me.

This isn't about whether someone's opinion is important to you. This is about whether the existence of eigenvectors of linear transformations implies something wrong with special relativity or its premises. Clearly it does not, and you have not articulated any rational reason for thinking that it does. If you disagree, then what is your rational reason? Do you have one? If you do, is it a secret?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:22:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You may spin my exact words any way you want.
> Spin? I quoted what you said verbatim. If you want to retract or modify your statement, you're certainly free to do so. But you are not free to deny that you posted that statement -- unless you are claiming that someone hacked your account.
> > You can even "win" the argument.
> What argument? I keep asking you to tell me what your point is. You say "Behold! The Lorentz transformation has lightlike eigenvectors! Therefore special relativity, or the premises on which it is based, are wrong!" To which everyone's response is "Huh?" That doesn't make any sense. Why does the trivial existence of eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (or any other linear transformation) imply that there is something wrong with special relativity and/or its premises? (Not to mention that you've shown you do not understand either special relativity or its premises.)
> > Your opinion is of no importance to me.
> This isn't about whether someone's opinion is important to you. This is about whether the existence of eigenvectors of linear transformations implies something wrong with special relativity or its premises. Clearly it does not, and you have not articulated any rational reason for thinking that it does. If you disagree, then what is your rational reason? Do you have one? If you do, is it a secret?

If you really care, keep reading. But I will not waste any more time with your strawman arguments. Why do you think I said "spin"? Because you put your interpretation onto my words. I said relativity was wrong. These are your exact words: "your only relevant proposition is 'special relativity is false' " Wrong does not equal false. Nor did I specify in that cherry-picked statement how wrong or what part. But you spun it to suit yourself. It isn't worth my time to figure out which of your criticisms is aimed at one of your strawmen, and which might be legitimate,

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 6:27:41 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I will not waste any more time with your strawman arguments.

What strawman arguments? You said "When I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." My point is this: The fact that a Lorentz transformation (and every other non-singular linear transformation) has eigenvalues and eigenvectors does not in any way imply that special relativity is wrong, nor even that the premises of special relativity are wrong.

> If you really care, keep reading.

Keep reading? So far you've posted mountains of verbiage signifying precisely nothing. I have asked you repeatedly for clarification -- some hint as to what point you are trying to make. You refuse to answer. I ask what you think is wrong with special relativity, or with its premises, and you refuse to answer.

> Wrong does not equal false.

So.... your claim is that that special relativity and/or the premises of special relativity are wrong but not false? Well, then please explain what is wrong. Is it a secret? Why can't you tell me? Why?

Look, the only attempt at conveying any cognitive content you have offered so far is the (frankly absurd) claim that since the Lorentz transformation of special relativity has eigenvalues, it follows that the premises of special relativity are wrong. But you haven't offered the slightest explanation or defense of that patently senseless assertion. We don't need another mountain of senseless verbiage, we just need you to answer the simple question and offer some rational justification of your bizarre claim.

> Nor did I specify in that cherry-picked statement how wrong or what part.

I *know* you didn't... that is why I've been pleading with you to tell me how special relativity is wrong, and why you think the existence of eigenvalues implies that it is wrong. You tried to answer previously by spouting a load of misunderstandings of length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, but after your misunderstandings were exposed and debunked, you have fallen silent, and you refuse to offer any substantiation of your weird claim. Then you sometimes deny that you ever said special relativity was wrong, and you say that only the premises of special relativity are wrong, but when I point out that you are lying, and give the verbatim quote, you run away, saying you won't "play my game"... and you won't explain why you think the premises are wrong either.

> It isn't worth my time to figure out which of your criticisms ... might be legitimate.

Huh? It doesn't take any time at all. My "criticism" is that you claimed that when you learned the Lorentz transformation has eigenvalues and eigenvectors you realized how wrong special relativity is, and I have asked you to explain why the existence of eigenvalues implies that special relativity is wrong, and in what way it is wrong, and you refuse to answer. Why won't you answer? Why?

El sábado, 23 de octubre de 2021 a las 22:27:41 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:

> If you really care, keep reading. But I will not waste any more time with your strawman arguments. Why do you think I said "spin"? Because you put your interpretation onto my words. I said relativity was wrong. These are your exact words: "your only relevant proposition is 'special relativity is false' " Wrong does not equal false. Nor did I specify in that cherry-picked statement how wrong or what part. But you spun it to suit yourself. It isn't worth my time to figure out which of your criticisms is aimed at one of your strawmen, and which might be legitimate,

Einstein's 1905 paper was fundamental in establishing Special Relativity. However, many physicists have worked in more simple and direct derivations of Einstein's results. One of them was Lev Landau (1962 Nobel Prize in Physics) who wrote (with one of his students Lifshitz) The Classical Theory of Fields. Starting from the constancy of the speed of light (based in speed limits set by the propagation of information of events) and the principle of relativity, he first introduces the relativity of simultaneity. Then he introduces the concept of interval (ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2) and shows how the interval is an invariant quantity. Then he derives the timelike and spacelike intervals. From the interval properties there he works on the definition of proper time (dt'=dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)). Finally he derives the Lorentz transformation by using rotations in the tx plane, which must leave unchanged the difference (ct)^2-x^2. From there he derives the length contraction (l=lo sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) and time dilation (dt=dt'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)). All this takes only 12 pages of the book and all relations are clearly demonstrated by using basic algebra.
Professor Suskind uses Landau's book a lot in his courses of Special (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&t=4822s) and General Relativity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1077s).
I strongly recommend to carefully study Landau's book and follow Susskind lectures.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 7:04:11 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
>
> I strongly recommend to carefully study Landau's book and follow Susskind lectures.

Ahh, the eternal optimist. Tom Capizzi has been at it ("proving relativity wrong") for the last 30 years, do you have any illusion that he'll start studying it?

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 04:04:11 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 23 de octubre de 2021 a las 22:27:41 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail..com escribió:
>
> > If you really care, keep reading. But I will not waste any more time with your strawman arguments. Why do you think I said "spin"? Because you put your interpretation onto my words. I said relativity was wrong. These are your exact words: "your only relevant proposition is 'special relativity is false' " Wrong does not equal false. Nor did I specify in that cherry-picked statement how wrong or what part. But you spun it to suit yourself. It isn't worth my time to figure out which of your criticisms is aimed at one of your strawmen, and which might be legitimate,
> Einstein's 1905 paper was fundamental in establishing Special Relativity. However, many physicists have worked in more simple and direct derivations of Einstein's results. One of them was Lev Landau (1962 Nobel Prize in Physics) who wrote (with one of his students Lifshitz) The Classical Theory of Fields. Starting from the constancy of the speed of light (based in speed limits set by the propagation of information of events) and the principle of relativity, he first introduces the relativity of simultaneity. Then he introduces the concept of interval (ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2) and shows how the interval is an invariant quantity. Then he derives the timelike and spacelike intervals. From the interval properties there he works on the definition of proper time (dt'=dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)). Finally he derives the Lorentz transformation by using rotations in the tx plane, which must leave unchanged the difference (ct)^2-x^2. From there he derives the length contraction (l=lo sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) and time dilation (dt=dt'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)). All this takes only 12 pages of the book and all relations are clearly demonstrated by using basic algebra.
> Professor Suskind uses Landau's book a lot in his courses of Special (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&t=4822s) and General Relativity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1077s).
> I strongly recommend to carefully study Landau's book and follow Susskind lectures.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

El domingo, 24 de octubre de 2021 a las 1:41:49 UTC-3, Dono. escribió:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 7:04:11 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > I strongly recommend to carefully study Landau's book and follow Susskind lectures.
> Ahh, the eternal optimist. Tom Capizzi has been at it ("proving relativity wrong") for the last 30 years, do you have any illusion that he'll start studying it?

Not really!!! the same as Hertz

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 8:17:13 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 24 de octubre de 2021 a las 1:41:49 UTC-3, Dono. escribió:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 7:04:11 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > I strongly recommend to carefully study Landau's book and follow Susskind lectures.
> > Ahh, the eternal optimist. Tom Capizzi has been at it ("proving relativity wrong") for the last 30 years, do you have any illusion that he'll start studying it?
> Not really!!! the same as Hertz
exactly, you cannot fix fixed ideas

Op 23-okt.-2021 om 20:01 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:34:34 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:16:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> I AM AN IMBECILE
>>
>> Agreed
>
> To Townes:
> It isn't grown-ups who insist on "note that β=v in units with c=1." It's anal retentives. Most people do not use units where c=1. Prove otherwise.
>

See https://www.google.com/search?q="units+where+c=1"&tbm=bks
How many years have you been studying special relativity?
50?
Fifty??
FIFTY???

Dirk Vdm

Op 26-okt.-2021 om 16:21 schreef Dirk Van de moortel:
> Op 23-okt.-2021 om 20:01 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:34:34 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:16:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> I AM AN IMBECILE
>>>
>>> Agreed
>>
>>   To Townes:
>> It isn't grown-ups who insist on "note that β=v in units with c=1."
>> It's anal retentives. Most people do not use units where c=1. Prove
>> otherwise.
>>
>
>
> See https://www.google.com/search?q="units+where+c=1"&tbm=bks

https://www.google.com/search?q="units+where+c%3D1"

> How many years have you been studying special relativity?
> 50?
> Fifty??
> FIFTY???
>
> Dirk Vdm