Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
energy-mass conversion formula.

Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?

--
Rich

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> energy-mass conversion formula.
>
> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>
> --
> Rich
The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate

Le 22/06/2022 à 23:54, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
>> energy-mass conversion formula.
>>
>> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
>> can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
> The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations that use
> only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate

No, I don't believe that one postulate is enough.

Two are needed.

1. "In any inertial frame of reference, the notion of absolute
simultaneity does not exist. Two benches in the same park, two stations on
the same railway network, will have a very personal notion of universal
simultaneity".
Consequently, the transverse speed of light will take on an impassable
value there for all the particles and the laws of physics.
2. "There is no preferred reference frame, the ether does not exist, and
the effects of physics are equivalent by permutation of reference frame."

R.H.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:54:24 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> > energy-mass conversion formula.
> >
> > Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> > can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate
You fool Dono. The first postulate is utterly dependent on the second. "All laws of science...[so on and so forth]...have the same form in all FoRs. The very possibility of there existing another FoR, other than one's own, requires the silly second postulate's hocus pocus.

I challenge anyone in this Forum to state the first postulate as comprehensively & completely as possible and then provide examples of it--explicit examples. Go.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the energy-mass conversion formula.
> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly, can one derive the
> constant speed of light as a theorem?

Sure, it's well known that the the principle of relativity (along with homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, etc.) suffices to determine the relationship between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates with just one degree of freedom, that can be characterized by a constant k. Furthermore, the energy E has the inertia kE, so if we stipulate that k=1/c^2 we get the Lorentz transformation, which entails all of special relativity. This approach to deriving special relativity was first discussed around 1910.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 22/06/2022 à 23:54, "Dono." a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>>> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the energy-mass conversion
>>> formula.
>>> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly, can one
>>> derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>>> --
>>> Rich
>> The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations
>> that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate
>
> No, I don't believe that one postulate is enough.

It is not a question of believing or not. It has been PROVEN, asshole!

Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302045v1.pdf

Now go fuck yourself, Lengrand, you won't feel anything, cause you have
such a microscopic penis.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-7, crank pat dolan inserted both feet into his mouth:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:54:24 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> > > energy-mass conversion formula.
> > >
> > > Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> > > can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> > The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate
>The first postulate is utterly dependent on the second.

Your imbecility is surpassed only by your utter ignorance

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 02:00:04 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > Replace Einstein's second postulate with the energy-mass conversion formula.
> > Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly, can one derive the
> > constant speed of light as a theorem?
> Sure, it's well known that the the principle of relativity (along with homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, etc.) suffices to determine the relationship between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates with just one degree of freedom,

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

Le 23/06/2022 à 02:23, Python a écrit :

>>> The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many derivations
>>> that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE postulate
>>
>> No, I don't believe that one postulate is enough.
>
> asshole!

> microscopic penis.

No comment.

R.H.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> energy-mass conversion formula.
>
> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>
> --
> Rich

What do you have in mind?

On 6/22/22 2:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> energy-mass conversion formula.
>
> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>
> --
> Rich

How many theorems can dance on the head of a pin?

How many postulates?

When does one theorem end and another one begin?

Can one assign a valid number to the theorems and
postulates?

So next question - does 1 + 1 + 1 + 7 = 9 ?

Yes - eastern Arabic numerals
No - western Arabic numerals

Does 9 + 9 = 2 ?

Yes - Devanagari numerals
No - western Arabic numerals

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > Replace Einstein's second postulate with the
> > energy-mass conversion formula.
> >
> > Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly,
> > can one derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> What do you have in mind?

The way I read it is from a recent discussion about the photon,
and mass-energy equivalence, figuring contributions to either
the kinetic and optical, that happen to zero out in the classical.

On June 22, Python wrote:
>>>> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the energy-mass conversion
>>>> formula.
>>>> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly, can one
>>>> derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
>
> Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302045v1.pdf

That's a nice piece of work.

However, it focuses on the velocity transform, with parameter K,
and concludes that the Galilean and Einstein formulas are the
only possibilities. It doesn't explicitly mention the energy-mass formula.

Presumably, postulating E = mc² should then determine K.

--
Rich

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:07:16 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On June 22, Python wrote:
> >>>> Replace Einstein's second postulate with the energy-mass conversion
> >>>> formula.
> >>>> Can one derive all of special relativity? More pointedly, can one
> >>>> derive the constant speed of light as a theorem?
> >
> > Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302045v1.pdf
>
> That's a nice piece of work.
>
> However, it focuses on the velocity transform, with parameter K,
> and concludes that the Galilean and Einstein formulas are the
> only possibilities. It doesn't explicitly mention the energy-mass formula..
>
> Presumably, postulating E = mc² should then determine K.
>
> --
> Rich

(Also there's "from the left" and "from the right".)

On 6/22/22 4:54 PM, Dono. wrote:
> The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many
> derivations that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE
> postulate

This is not true. Einstein's first postulate alone, with the definition
of inertial frames, is sufficient to prove that the transform group
among inertial frames can only be one of the Galilei, Lorentz, or Euclid
groups. To derive the equations of SR requires an additional postulate
to eliminate the Galilei and Euclid groups. This could be any
appropriate experimental result, or the SR energy-mass conversion
equation, or any of many other suitable postulates such as "there is a
finite upper bound on the speed of the transfer of energy" -- this last
is an attractive postulate as without it we could not have a causal
universe (energy could "zoom in from infinity" and disrupt any causal
chain).

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 10:34:04 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> ...other suitable postulates such as "there is a finite upper bound on
> the speed of the transfer of energy" -- this last is an attractive postulate
> as without it we could not have a causal universe (energy could "zoom
> in from infinity" and disrupt any causal chain).

That isn't a valid argument, because it only excludes infinite speeds, which does not imply a finite upper bound on speeds. Saying that all propagation speeds must be finite is not the same as saying there is a finite upper bound on those speeds.

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 19:34:04 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/22/22 4:54 PM, Dono. wrote:
> > The second postulate is not even necessary, there are many
> > derivations that use only the first postulate, i.e. only ONE
> > postulate
> This is not true. Einstein's first postulate alone, with the definition
> of inertial frames, is sufficient to prove that the transform group
> among inertial frames can only be one of the Galilei, Lorentz, or Euclid
> groups. To derive the equations of SR requires an additional postulate
> to eliminate the Galilei and Euclid groups. This could be any
> appropriate experimental result, or the SR energy-mass conversion
> equation, or any of many other suitable postulates such as "there is a
> finite upper bound on the speed of the transfer of energy" -- this last
> is an attractive postulate as without it we could not have a causal
> universe (energy could "zoom in from infinity" and disrupt any causal
> chain).

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your insane religion "improper" TAI and GP keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.