In the story below, where would you see possible alternatives, or where would you see a problem?

(01) Let us consider a set of physicists {P0, P1, P2, P3, ...} each at rest in their own inertial frames.
(02) Let us elect one of them (P0) as the boss to manage an experiment.
(03) Let us assume the velocities of each physicist with respect to the boss are {v1, v2, v3, ...}.
(04) The boss asks each physicist to measure in his own frame the spacetime coordinates E(x,t) of a large number of events he has scheduled, something like sparkles a firework.
(05) All the physicists are using the same measuring instruments.
(06) All physicist "zero" their coordinate systems on the origin of the boss coordinate system.
(07) All the physicsit must return their result to the boss for analysis.
(08) The boss is now looking for a relation between all these measurements.
(09) The boss choses for a linear relation between the coordinates measured by all physicists.
(10) The boss assumes this linear relation depends on the velocities of his colaborators.
(11) In summary he assumes: E1=T(v1)E0, E2=T(v2)E0, where T(vi) is a 2x2 matrix depending on vi
(12) The boss organizes a meeting with his collaborators.
(13) He asks them: "What should be the properties of these matrices T(vi)"?
(14) One of them, called René, writes these properties on the black board:
(15) >> a. T(0) should be the unit matrix such that T(0)Ei=Ei
(16) >> b. Inverse(T(v))=T(-v) to assure forward and backward transformations are similar
(17) >> c. T(vi).T(vj) should also be a transformation matrix, or in other words:
(18) >> d. T(vi).T(vj)=T(vij) without prejudice about how vij should be calculated
(19) >> He concludes saying:
(20) The set of matrices T(v) is a one-parameter matrix group.
(20) The parameter involved is the relative velocity v.

Assume you are one of the other physicists and you are invited to express your opinion:

- What do you think about the overall experiment?
- Is the experimental protocol correctly defined?
- What do you think about the properties suggested by René?
- Do you think all properties should be needed?
- Do you think each property has a physical meaning? And which one?
- Do you agree with each physical?
- Do you think these properties might not all be really verified experimentally?
- In summary, according to you, should T(v) be a one-parameter matrix group?

Assuming the conclusion by René is right:

- Do you think there are many different such groups (one-parameter 2x2 matrix group)
- How many could you lists?
- Are some of them already familiar to you?
- To finish the job of the boss, which group would you suggest?
- Write a formula for T(v).
- Would you have ideas for further experiments?

In the 1960's, technicians at JPL used c+v approaching and c-v receding for the time delay in the radar ranging experiments with Venus.

Spacetime is a joke. We are dealing only with the time delays. Why try to bend the fourth dimension around to each of the three real dimensions under consideration, when each distance dimension is also a time delay dimension?

Answer: That would be too easy.

Curt,

Could you be a little bit more explicit about this:

In the 1960's, technicians at JPL used c+v approaching and c-v receding for the time delay in the radar ranging experiments with Venus.

Later we can discuss also, if you wish, why spacetime would be a joke.
For me spacetime is simply a word that represent the sets of all events. And an event is somthing that happens at a certain time and at a certain place. I don't see any joke there. I don't see anything emotional there either.

Sorry you don't get it. A forth axis perpendicular to the three of Cartesian fame is going to end up on one of the already existing axis. If that isn't a joke, it's a spoof.

You brought up the emotion subject. Are you getting emotional?

Spacetime is the set of all events? Does this include those that have not come to pass? Onestoians seem to think so.

People who do spacetime transformations make a group. It's a group that doesn't allow criticism of itself. It's a group that intelligent people should ignore.

Curt,

Your allusion to JPL Venus radar ranging, is that related to the paper below?

http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=N6828254

Otherwise, could you provide me a relevant reference?

that site requires the article to be bought; could yoy provide a better site please (i.e free)

I don't have a copy.
I was asking before I buy or (hopefully) before I find a free reference.

Curt,
All interrested,

Would you know more about this remarks by Curt:

In the 1960's, technicians at JPL used c+v approaching and c-v receding for the time delay in the radar ranging experiments with Venus.

Thanks

Without more information from Curt we can assume this was only more bluff.
Nevertheless, I will spend some time to see if the JPL has some useful data from Venus ranging.
More probably this is the case, since the Lunar ranging is one of the most detailled test of GR.
Maybe Venus ranging has more to say about SR than about GR.
I don't know if the distance would make ranging more appropriate for testing SR than GR.

Anyway this is an interresting topic.

Curt,

Einstein in OEMB (1) calculated times of flight (2) using c+v and c-v.
This is from the OEMB:

. . . . . [1]

Everybody can read OEMB and see the meaning very easily.
These two equations were the first step in deriving the Lorentz transformation.
The second step was to translate (write) the constancy of the speed of light in an equation for the Lorentz transformation:

. . . . . [2]

On this photographed equation above, you can easily see where the receding and approching speed stand.
From equation [2] you are already midway from deriving the Lorentz transformation.

Therefore, Curt, I still do not see your point.
And your second point is even more obscure, since it looks very much like an ukaze or fatwha.

(1) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The topic is discussed at http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

I typed up the details, then didn't hit the "respond to this message" button, and the whole thing disappeared. So you'll justy have to read his whole story.

Onestonians try to repudiate Brian's work, but it stands on it;s own.

Onestonians confuse the passage of time with the time delay in the observance of events. The forth axis time scale just obfuscates the simple truth.

Jose: ...........Onestonians..........

cinci: Gee Jose, you lasted 4 whole messages before you descended into name calling.
****************************

I can only observe that Curt has no scientific answer.

He can only reffer to name as "Pathological Physics" (1), physics that has been verified experimentally with a precision that had never been matched before.

He can only name Special Relativity as "Mathematical Magic" (2) while Einstein based the whole STR on sound physical argument: he simply started from the assumption that space and time are measured quantities.

And even if modern physics was "Mathematical Magic", what would be the problem, actually?
Should that hurt the ego of the physicists?
Personally I preffer modesty, and learning from facts.
If some people want a "deeper understanding" they should work instead of complaining.


(1) http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C2_PP.HTM
(2) http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C3_MM.HTM

I found the reference fro the Curt story (1).
Unfortunately, it is not available online.
Therefore I wil not be able to analyse this paper.

My best guess is that the situation calculated in the paper (1) is exactly the same as in Einstein's paper OEMB (2), except for the measurement method.
Therefore the reasoning by Einstein should apply.
The most likely is a misunderstanding of SR by Wallace.

If the paper is made availalable to me, I will try to check my best guess.
Also, Curt could express his view in more detail. (except for name calling)

(1) RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, B. G. Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361(1969)
(2) ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

To be called a Onestonian is the same as being called a dumberton or sh^thead? I guess you know what you are. I won't argue.

Jose, here's an excerpt from the site you posted:

"Prof. Petr Beckmann, who I mentioned earlier, was the US co- chairman of the Conference Scientific Organizing Committee and one of the chairmen for the Wednesday Plenary Session, and he announced that unlike the previous sessions, he intended to rigidly follow the schedule. He said that each speaker would have 20 minutes to talk, even though the program listed 30 minute sections, and the previous talks had been 25 minutes to talk, and 5 minutes for questions and comments? Svetlana Tolchelnikova's paper titled VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE BY MEANS OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS was the second one for the session, and she had been left a full blackboard from the previous speaker. As she was cleaning the board Beckmann announced that the time would be deducted from her talk. I mounted the platform and told Beckmann that I was donating the time for my talk to Svetlana. He announced this, and Svetlana and many other participants protested my decision, since they wished to hear what I had to say. I went to the floor microphone and stated that my talk was merely an abstract of my book THE FARCE OF PHYSICS, that I had plenty of condensed preprints for anyone that wanted them, and that Svetlana had shown me the material she would present and that in my opinion her talk would eventually be considered to be the most important event in science in the 20th century. Svetlana then had plenty of time to give her presentation that was essentially an indepth confirmation by a professional astronomer and mathematician of my 1969 paper on this question. Her evaluation of the published mathematics used by the professionals who had analyzed the modern solar system signal data, was that the classical theory was confirmed since the equations with the second order terms empirically found by investigators coincide with the classical formulae, and not the relativistic ones! Prof. Beckmann later made a translation of her talk from Russian to English, and published it in his journal GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS. [151] The Cultural program that night was in the Grand Hall and consisted of singing, music, and Russian folk dancing."

It reads like a soap opera. If you found some science in it, then extract it for us. I probably won't live long enough to find it.
****************************

E = mc^2 in chapter 7

cinci: "It reads like a soap opera. If you found some science in it, then extract it for us. I probably won't live long enough to find it."

Jose: You have a mental block. You are right. You won't live long enough. You have no common sense. You cannot think on your own.

cinci: "It reads like a soap opera. If you found some science in it, then extract it for us. I probably won't live long enough to find it."

Jose: You have a mental block. You are right. You won't live long enough. You have no common sense. You cannot think on your own.

cinci: In other words, you can't find any science in it to discuss either. You produce nothing but insults....no science.
****************************************

example of science is-

E = mc^2 in chapter 7

cinci: In other words, you can't find any science in it to discuss either. You produce nothing but insults....no science.

Jose: In other words: Why should I waste my pearls before swine? I was hoping to engage someone who can actually think. Your "science" is the unthinking repetition of some shoddy logic you embedded in your body somewhere.

cinci: In other words, you can't find any science in it to discuss either. You produce nothing but insults....no science.

Jose: In other words: Why should I waste my pearls before swine? I was hoping to engage someone who can actually think. Your "science" is the unthinking repetition of some shoddy logic you embedded in your body somewhere.

cinci: I was hoping to engage you too. But apparently you have nothing to engage. If E=mc^2 is it, I believe that.

If you ask, I'll derive Einstein's transformations for you. I'll derive the time dilation, length contraction, and addition of velocities formulas also. I'll also work out the so-called twin paradox for you and if you'll state it I'll explain why stating it as aparadox doesn't make sense. But my guess is that you'll just SAY they are all wrong. Why do I think this? Because I've done all these things before on this site and others and that's what always happens....folks like you just SAY they are wrong. No discussion, no alternative derivations, they just say it's wrong and that it's a hoax that some mysterious relativist are paying people to perpetuate.

So if you want to have a discussion then put some meat on the table. Don't just quote some jargon filled paper so devoid of science that you and Anon can only come up with a formula developed by the guy you say is wrong about everything.
************************

cinci: you and Anon can only come up with a formula .... E=mc^2



I can come up with more than that; that was an example; you wanted an example; there is more like:


D = t(c+v)/2 - tv/2 = tc/2


Jeez, you are just not worth talking to; you just totally ignore what is said to you.

To: Jose-- do you really want to talk to this guy cinci; you are just wasting your time; same with others like him on this forum. There is no point trying to be serious with these guys around.

Apparently, cinci thinks he owns this site. As far as I can determine it is owned by a very generous fellow who thinks the open discussion of anomalies in the explanation of reality should face the criticism of the common man, not just the prejudiced opinion of a group of elitist snobs.

The common man, while temporarily ignorant, can understand logic, the partially educated, (who think that they are far above everyone else) can successfully ignore explicit logic. [for example: cinci, iggy liggety, stanley16, possibly lal..
These guys certainly make a group. They should pose together.]

Curt confuses physics with politics, sociology and phychology.
Bad reading prints bad minds.

Jose: Apparently, cinci thinks he owns this site. As far as I can determine it is owned by a very generous fellow who thinks the open discussion of anomalies in the explanation of reality should face the criticism of the common man, not just the prejudiced opinion of a group of elitist snobs.

The common man, while temporarily ignorant, can understand logic, the partially educated, (who think that they are far above everyone else) can successfully ignore explicit logic. [for example: cinci, iggy liggety, stanley16, possibly lal..
These guys certainly make a group. They should pose together.]


Translation: Jose isn't going to put anything on the site with any substance. I wonder why?

cinci
*************************

Yes cinci, Curt is this sort of guy who confuses physics with religious freedom.
The business of religious freedom in US has inspired others to created their own version of science where they wipe out what the wish and introduce their latest wishes in place, like "energy for free". Like the financial freedom, this will only lead to a crash of values.

Re: Cincirob, Should spacetime transformations make a group? March 15 2009, 10:29 PM

Cinci,
"Translation: Jose isn't going to put anything on the site with any substance. I wonder why?"

Because Jose, like me, can not find an adversary on this site worthy of anything any better than they get.

Bob S: Because Jose, like me, can not find an adversary on this site worthy of anything any better than they get.

cinci: Why does it have to be adversarial. I'd be interested in learning new things.....aren't you?
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, Should spacetime transformations make a group? March 16 2009, 6:17 PM

cinci: "I'd be interested in learning new things..."

Really! Why not try a Dictionary.

Bob S: Really! Why not try a Dictionary.

cinci: Every time I do I find something you had wrong. I don't need to find any more of that.
***********************

Re: Cincirob, Should spacetime transformations make a group? March 16 2009, 11:06 PM

Bob S: "Really! Why not try a Dictionary."

cinci: "Every time I do I find something you had wrong. I don't need to find any more of that."

You're giving up on me then! So much for learning new things eh!

cinci: "I'd be interested in learning new things..."

Jose: When? You are lazy. You want us to post the links. Then, you gloss them and claim they are full of crap. You are full of crap. You need to change the water in your hot tub. And next time, get out before you let go.

Cogent you said?

When? You are lazy. You want us to post the links.

Jose: When? You are lazy. You want us to post the links. Then, you gloss them and claim they are full of crap. You are full of crap. You need to change the water in your hot tub. And next time, get out before you let go.

cinci: You haven't been able to counter my arguments. If posting links is all that counts, I can flood you with articles supporting relativity and the big bang.
*********************************