| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<_K2cndtm_dAoPYj6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:30:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Relativity theory from other angles Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <-uCcnXHlifVbnY76nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <671554a2$0$11253$426a34cc@news.free.fr> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:30:55 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <671554a2$0$11253$426a34cc@news.free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <_K2cndtm_dAoPYj6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 63 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-ss02fyGDTj6O2xwNHurjtEsW59QMZDE2ucWxgrjvnpLTj9gi98kHBlzgCoispK3KDjsJhHfzry75/BA!YTmXMRpv9xnzsuh5tnf9UDP8yuc/keg8HCE9U2oGPqaV4GJUvEZcH25DdLcyGoROQLzpdvSf33NG!FQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 3444 On 10/20/2024 12:06 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey, what if you derive >> light speed from the >> mass-energy equivalency >> instead of the other way around? > > A dead end, dead before you even get started. > The relativity postulate is about the geometry of space-time. > So it precedes all physical considerations, > like mass or energy. They must conform, > > Jan > The relativity postulate is just "motion is not absolute". That's not necessarily so having stuck space-time with the g_uv and so on as with regards to what may still make "a Lorentzian for a Minkowski space", for example with the Zollfrei (zoll-free) setting up an "asymptotic freedom" while still having Einstein's theory of Relativity as how he last put it, that the principle is that "motion is not absolute: a simple negative principle of relativity", and that Einstein is not an SR-ian in the sequel, has GR first, has SR local, has a _separate_ "spatial of GR" and "spacial of SR", and makes for that a Fitzgeraldian style of Lorentzian can make for a real space contraction then that, as in this line of posting and deriving from the other side: makes yet they all "conform", as with regards of course what must be to "the conformal". The tough part is figuring out how to start the little end of the infinite series. That's sort of simple, through, just like Einstein put it, "tensors make all these transforms coordinate-free, don't ask me how they're implemented though, that's just how they're defined". In the absolutes and ideals and absolutes and relative there are quite a few combinations of negative statements about the absolute what any one of those results a theory of "a relativism". I.e., the wider world of "relativity theories, plural", has that there are quite a few as they are sorts of "heno-theories", where what's primary and fundamental and absolute can sort of rotate around and each one of those yet a physics. That's it demands a bit of imagination, creativity, and as well a thorough mathematical development, which is ambitious, is a bit different than your "dead".