Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

On Jul 26, 8:08*pm, "K_h" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in messagenews:GeidnZgZCPsIUrPTnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@gigan ews.com...









On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:20:43 -0700, K_h wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:07:33 -0700, K_h wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:t_WdnW8aC4d_f7HTnZ2dnUVZ5qydnZ2d@giganews .com...
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:44:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Damn it!!

Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.

* *Wanna bet, Marvin!

The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by
Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to
be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the
symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later
re-derived the transformation from his postulates of special
relativity. The Lorentz transformation supersedes the Galilean
transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space
and time (see Galilean relativity). See:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

He didn't "re-derive" ****.

Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations)
from the two postulates of special relativity. *Historically, though,
he was not the first to write down those transformations.

He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz
transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's
paper

Einstein showed that the Lorentz transformations are a consequence of
the two postulates. *All physical laws are the same in all reference
frames and that includes Maxwell's laws.

No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations
(which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was
confused.

Wrong. *Einstein was not confused. *Einstein realized that physical laws
are the same in all frames of reference.

The idea that physical laws are the same in all frames of reference goes
back to Galileo and Newton. Newton's laws are invariant under a Galilean
transformation.

Einstein didn't invent it. If Einstein had bothered, and he should have
checked to see that the Lorentz transformation is the transform under
which Maxwell's equations are invariant. (it is an exercise in upper
division undergrad E&M).

Einstein did this in his 1905 paper.



Since Maxwell's equations are invariant, both of his 'postulates' can be
concluded from the transform and Maxwell's equations and they're not
postulates at all.

No. The relativity principle cannot be deduced from Maxwell's equations
themselves. *The principle of relativity is a law of physics itself.











Too bad if you can't see that.

snip irrelevant stuff

You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep
Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant.
That, I find amusing.

It is not just Maxwell's laws but all physical laws. *Why do you think
that I am "impressed" by anything? *I never posted anything about being
"impressed".

You're impressed by it because you keep making the same reference to the
greatness of Einstein's postulates even though both postulates are a
direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transform. Someone
who argues against reason is "impressed".

I never posted anything about `greatness'. *Where are you getting this? *The
postulates themselves are not a result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz
transformations. *It is easy to put non-covariant transformations into the
Lorentz transformations and have the transforms fail covariance. *The Lorentz
transformations are a consequence of the two postulates and the Maxwell equations
satisfy both postulates.



was an exercise in non-science. He clearly didn't have a very good grasp
of the what was scientific and what wasn't when he went down the path of
Voo-Doo-fizicks.

Stop insulting Einstein.











transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate
at all, it is a theory.

Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. *The term "postulate" is just a linguistic
remnant; a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a
speculative idea.

Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't
overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time
dilation has been shown experimentally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

Your wikipedia article supports my statement that length contraction has
never been demonstrated experimentally.

They reference the Trouton-Rankine experiment, which was an attempt to do
so, but the results were negative.

Check it out again. *The way protons smash together, and how the debris moves,
suggests the proton is essentially a flat disk at collision -- i.e. length
contraction. *There was an article in Scientific American about this a number of
years ago.











The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also
a direct result of Maxwell's equations.

It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of
Maxwell's equations.

The hell it isn't.

It is not a direct result of solving Maxwell's equations. *Maxwell's
equations predict speed c for electromagnetic radiation for the frame of
reference in which those equations are valid. *It takes the relativity
principle to say that those equations, of Maxwell, are valid in all
frames of reference.

I'm sorry you're ignorant of physics and don't know were velocity appears
in the wave equation. :-D

Why do you think this?



Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave equation, the speed of
the wave, c, falls right out.

Yes, but only in the coordinate system where the equations are solved.

No, under all coordinate systems.

Only because that is a consequence of the principle of relativity.

of equations with a Galilean transformation when you know damned well
they are not invariant under that transform?! It's the WRONG transform.

Exactly the point. *Relativity replaced the Galilean transformations with the
correct transformations.

*

Dear K_h: Your talk like an expert, but are out of touch with
reason. First, SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass
by getting out more energy than the force causing the velocity
increase has put in. Since I have invalidated the M-M experiment for
having no control, or unchanging light course, there is no rationale
for Lorentz's rubber ruler that supposedly corresponds to his "beta"
part of Einstein's SR: [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2. Know this fellow:
Science is NEVER a mathematical derivation! Science is looking at and
understanding the data, then expressing what is happening as a concept
in words, first. Much later, that verbal theorem can be written as an
equation—no derivation of anything is ever required! Both Maxwell and
Lorentz were idiots! — NoEinstein —

On Jul 27, 6:24*am, harald wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:43*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

why is "electromagnetism" not a feature
of the atoms & electrons (i.e. plasma;
see Alfven) in "free space," which is also
consdiered to be approx. the properties of air,
in terms of permitivity & permeability?

Electromagnetism also exists in "free space" that does not contain
atoms & electrons.

anywy, electrodynamics was born
with Ampere's longitudinal force,
as taken-up by Weber et al et sequentia;
seehttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com

That's another topic...

Harald

Harald: The only requirement is that there be ether in space to have
electromagnetism. The IOTAs are polar and can join end-to-end in
lines of EM flux that can circle the Universe! But such lines can be
broken by intense photon/charged-particle emission near massive
objects. The important thing to know is that EM force is not a wave
in the ether, nor is gravity a wave. — NoEinstein —

you posit a truly isolated volume
which contains no *electronics* per se, although
that doesn't sound like a do-able viz uncertainty.

no different than Pascal's assumption
about his experiment (that there was no mercury (or
water) in the column (in the maximum stage
of a suction-pump)).

That's another topic...

On Jul 28, 7:21*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
you posit a truly isolated volume
which contains no *electronics* per se, although
that doesn't sound like a do-able viz uncertainty.

no different than Pascal's assumption
about his experiment (that there was no mercury (or
water) in the column (in the maximum stage
of a suction-pump)).







That's another topic...

1tree: Your topic is wandering. What point of science are you trying
to make? And how does that relate to the title of this post? — NE —

it's not even grammatical,
let-alone a theory of any thing.

the only requirement for electromagnetism is electrons and
atoms in "free space," but you would never even try
to comprehend such evidence as permitivity & permeability
"of free space," or just air.

The only requirement is that there be ether in space to have
electromagnetism. *The IOTAs are polar and can join end-to-end in
lines of EM flux that can circle the Universe! *But such lines can be
broken by intense photon/charged-particle emission near massive
objects. *The important thing to know is that EM force is not a wave
in the ether, nor is gravity a wave. --Neinsteinmania

On Jul 28, 7:21*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
you posit a truly isolated volume
which contains no *electronics* per se, although
that doesn't sound like a do-able viz uncertainty.

no different than Pascal's assumption
about his experiment (that there was no mercury (or
water) in the column (in the maximum stage
of a suction-pump)).







That's another topic...

1tree: Your topic is wandering. What point of science are you trying
to make? And how does that relate to the title of this post? — NE —

why could you say that?... for instance,
the acceleration could be constant,
typically meaning diminishing use of fuel
for the whole flight (say,
roundtrip, with equal acceleration & deceleration
on both "legs."

you do not really respond to any questions,
such as "M the M's" -- not that I'm not technically a part
of the Einstrin cult.

thus quoth:
SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass
by getting out more energy than the force causing the velocity
increase has put in.

the real problem is that
you really have not comprehended what you've read,
either in the original sources, or
with us in this alleged forum --
where you proclaim your wonderfulness.

On Aug 1, 5:15*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
why could you say that?... *for instance,
the acceleration could be constant,
typically meaning diminishing use of fuel
for the whole flight (say,
roundtrip, with equal acceleration & deceleration
on both "legs."

you do not really respond to any questions,
such as "M the M's" -- not that I'm not technically a part
of the Einstrin cult.

thus quoth:
SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass
by getting out more energy than the force causing the velocity
increase has put in.

1tree: Please explain what you mean by "M the M's". Morley was a
"chemist" of all things. He was Michelson's hey boy in constructing
an improperly designed experiment. Michelson was a TECHNICIAN who
wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on in any of his nil-
result experiments. You "quoth" me right. Do that more often and
your mental status will go up! — NoEinstein —

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
1tree: Please explain what you mean by "M the M's". Morley was a
"chemist" of all things. He was Michelson's hey boy in constructing
an improperly designed experiment. Michelson was a TECHNICIAN who
wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on in any of his nil-
result experiments.
================================================
You ****ing rude, pig-ignorant worthless *******!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E