Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Schoenfeld on 5 Aug 2006 09:20 Tom Roberts wrote: > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > >> Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > >> postulate of SR. <shrug> > > > > It was Einstein himself who has > > introduced the term "L-postulate". > > I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > <shrug> Yes he does. > > Tom Roberts
From: Sorcerer on 5 Aug 2006 12:32 "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154784026.799841.228490(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... Tom Roberts wrote: > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Tom Roberts ?????(?): > >> Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > >> postulate of SR. <shrug> > > > > It was Einstein himself who has > > introduced the term "L-postulate". > > I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > <shrug> Yes he does. Roberts has totally lost it forever. He may as well go home. "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... | This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant. Tom Roberts. There is zero point in debating anything with Roberts <shrug> Androcles.
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 5 Aug 2006 17:16 Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > >> Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > >> postulate of SR. <shrug> > > > > It was Einstein himself who has > > introduced the term "L-postulate". > > I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > <shrug> > > > Tom Roberts Specific, Tom, please be specific. Would you like to start an argument about the concept â??postulateâ??? I can point at once: â??Postulate is the judgement taken without proof as an initial statement of some theoryâ?? [Encyclopaedia]. So I would ask for citations. The Einsteinâ??s paper of 1905, as well as others, I have on my worktable. Let us check them. :) Sergey
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 7 Aug 2006 05:04 Peter Kinane пиÑ?ал(а): > pk: "[] causing him to count as one event, in his "rocket science" > navigation model, []": > In AE's system, he talks about seeing an event from the train and also from > the platform, so, 'it' involves for him, two "frames". > > "[]I do not subscribe to Einstein's idea of "one event". > > So, Einstein's concept of an event does not feature in my system. []". > > And, as I said before, "I have only one frame of reference: FoR-r." > > -- > Peter Kinane > http://www.effectuationism.com Dear Peter, you need not explain me what says Einstein. Kindly explain me your phrase 'effect through a force in relationship with'. Sergey
From: Harry on 7 Aug 2006 05:13
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:V80Bg.4398$gY6.3733(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > > postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] > > Tom Roberts ?????(?): > >> Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > >> postulate of SR. <shrug> > > > > It was Einstein himself who has > > introduced the term "L-postulate". > > I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > <shrug> > > Tom Roberts Although I tend to agree with you on this point, a number of physicists happen to disagree and read it roughly the way Sergey reads it. It's ambiguous for sure. Harald |