"So far from being right, it isn't even wrong!"

[modest]

If you followed the steps to relativity, you would see the definitions that lead to relativistic time relationships, under the requirement of self-coherency. The self-conflict is quite subtle and not readily apparent for intuitive thought, but what DD was saying was that the definitions that lead to those subtle problems, that lead to the necessity of relativistic time relationships, already existed at the time of Newton. Doesn't mean it would be easy to spot.

 

Doctordick's derivation of relativistic kinematics:

 

An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity!

 

The velocity in our four dimensional “wave equation” is fixed by the value of K in our representation. (Notice that, in my derivation of Schrödinger's equation, I set [imath]c=\frac{1}{K\sqrt{2}}[/imath].) For the moment (since K is actually a totally open parameter) I will set this constant velocity to v_?...

 

Since K is a "totally open parameter" make v_? infinite:

 

...At this point, we have solved the problem; from the above it is quite clear the only possible relationship which can exist between moving coordinate system (moving at constant velocity v) is given by;

[math]x'=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{v_?}\right)^2}}[x-vt]\quad \quad t'= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{v_?}\right)^2}}\left[t-\left(\frac{v}{v_?}\right)\left(\frac{x}{v_?}\right)\right][/math]

 

Setting v_? = ∞ gives:

 

[math]x'=x-vt\quad \quad t'= t[/math]

 

the Galilean transformations. Experiment rules out this possibility while DD's derivation does not.

 

~modest

[AnssiH]

Since K is a "totally open parameter" make v_? infinite:

 

 

Setting v_? = ∞ gives:

 

[math]x'=x-vt\quad \quad t'= t[/math]

 

the Galilean transformations. Experiment rules out this possibility while DD's derivation does not.

 

Hi Modest, I'm glad you've looked at the derivation, we could have a real discussion :)

 

Yeah, if you think about where [imath]v_?[/imath] came from, it's basically an expression of the velocity of defined elements in the [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space, it's meaning obviously tied to the scale of that space and "t". It being infinite would lead to, well, infinities; I think that would be quite useless view as nothing could be considered to be "changing" at all in any meaningful way.

 

Note that [imath]v_?[/imath] by itself is not yet conceived as the speed of light per se. It does turn out equal to the speed of defined massless elements, but setting it to infinity is not analogous to the idea of infinite light, as [imath]v_?[/imath] is related to the definitions of all the massive elements as well (via [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] and the smearing of [imath]\tau[/imath]).

 

So yes, perhaps it would make the derivation clearer, if this circumstance was pointed out when it is mentioned that K is an open parameter.

 

(I was thinking perhaps these 2 posts should be moved to that thread? Can you do that?)

 

-Anssi

[modest]

Anssi, I've replied here: 20650

 

~modest