Galileo

I love the way one physicist has mixed the Santa Claus fantasy with the legend of Albert Einstein and put it on the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory website. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/santa/ For a sober myth-busting presentation of special relativity, see http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100

Einstein wasn't the first to call it relativity. Einstein learned of the relativity principle from reading the works of Henri Poincaré. http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Relativity/Special_Relativity/

How are you going to evade the equation for proper time in a gravitational field being directly comparable with the topologically distinguished, universally applicable background time that characterizes spatially compact spacetime? Take the spacetime cylinder for example. All observers agree on the simultaneity of events. Clock rates everywhere, in this instance, are all physically tied together. Why should a global sense to the order of all spacetime events for all observers miraculously disappear in a spatially compact universe if we were to add the extremely faint gravitational field of an electron to it? Let the radius of the electron shrink to zero. At what step in the limiting process does the universally agreed upon cosmic everywhere present "now" suddenly disappear?

The first reference says it best: Colloquium for 13-NOV-97 Abstract Absolute Space and Time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity The Special Theory of Relativity, we teach our students, did away with Absolute Space and Absolute Time, leaving us with no absolute motion or rest, and also no absolute time order. General Relativity is viewed as extending the "relativity of motion" applicable to curved spacetimes, and General Relativity's most probable models of our actual spacetimes (the big-bang models) appear to re-introduce a privileged "cosmic" time order, and a definite sense of absolute rest. In particular, some of the same kinds of effects whose *absence* led to rejection of Newtonian absolute space are present in these models of GTR.

The last paragraph of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0006/0006039.pdf states this conclusion: See these references also: http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79 http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503070.pdf http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605 http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm I'm delighted that common sense is finally being recognized in the physics community. When do you think it will be realized that an absolute time order precludes the possibility of anything falling into a black hole?

You have probably noticed that the full force of Poincaré's relativity principle isn't necessary to derive the Lorentz transformation and the essence of special relativity: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/ http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf You are also very likely aware of the well-known fact that spatially compact spacetimes break global Lorentz invariance and define absolute inertial frames of reference: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e19ac8581a6148f2 Since SR is easily generalized so as to include this interesting class of spacetimes, it's reasonable, then, to amend the relativity principle also. I propose that it be reduced to a tautology. Proposition: All physical laws can be divided into two categories. The two great divisions are the laws that are true in all inertial frames of reference and those that aren't. There are many conjectures, proposed experiments and searches for possible violations of Lorentz invariance. What are the possibilities? Is there a catalog of current conjectures? Let me list a few ideas and concepts based on possible laws from the second category. 1. Superluminality (a popular favorite) 2. Perfect matter-antimatter symmetry 3. Object length dependence on frame of reference I'm especially interested in the observed asymmetry between kaons and antikaons and whether or not their asymmetric decay is a consequence of a preferred frame. Has a test for this possibility been seriously considered?

I view the light clock as a riddle that justifies mumbo-jumbo mysticism and irrational twin paradox confusion. I can't improve on the most beautiful approach to special relativity ever published by a mathematician, so why should I try? I have no doubt that special relativity is valid as far as simple classical physics goes but I'm always hopeful of reading about or stumbling upon someone's quantum-spacetime version of a generalized Lorentz transformation.

Nor did I state your insinuation. I claim it's a conspiracy between snobbery, ignorance, and ego. Snobbery and ego are content to let the herd wallow in their ignorance. Ignorance is outraged that clarity should be published. All the links are highly competent. The refereed paper cited in post 19, Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185), is amazingly incompetent.

I don't deny that the AJP is a highly respected physics journal. My point was that the AJP exists for the sole purpose of catering to the herd mentality. Compare the reference mentioned with other sources and see that what the herd understands about special relativity in one spatially compact dimension is downright incompetent.

Why concern yourself with ancient and muddled derivations of the Lorentz transformation when many clear and modern expositions are readily available? http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/ http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf

swansont, You're too trusting in blind and bigoted human beings. Consider all the trash that's published by professional physics journals generally. If you can, please answer this question: "Why are referees for professional physics journals so hopelessly confused about special relativity in 1+1 dimensions?" The physicist Freeman Dyson gives a hint on how the pretense of scientific makebelieve perpetuates itself: Physics is out of control. Instead of wanting to explain things clearly, many physicists, if they're not praising Einstein or promoting some other potential physics superstar, are in a race to create grandiloquent theories. They all believe that they can attain immortality among the gods by mimicking the smarter, more successful gods. This is so obvious: The real deciding factor in determining who gets published and who doesn't depends on the ability to conform to the herd mentality:

Typically, all journals focus on only publishing the philosophy of the journal. It's unreasonable to expect a thoughtful creationist viewpoint in a journal that's dedicated to opposing belief in intelligent design.

The facts surrounding Einstein's Alleged Plagiarism are fascinating. I have a degree in math and wonder why light velocity in Einstein's original derivation of the Lorentz transformation is c-v and c+v. Let's just say that there are better and clearer derivations of special relativity today. The link you provided says nothing that questions Einstein's conclusions.

If you want to learn special relativity, it's sometimes helpful to begin with familiar concepts and then transition slowly toward the new ideas. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/