About frames moving at constant velocity with respect to inertial ones

On 10 Aug, 17:20, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
It is well-known that in Newtonian mechanics, a system moving with
constant velocity with respect to an inertial one can be proved also
inertial. Have we a similar assertion valid in Einstein's 1905
Relativity (1905R)?

Certainly, in his 1905 paper itself. He discussed frames "in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good". Those equations "hold good"
only in what we now call inertial frames, so he was discussing the very
same frames you yourself point out can be shown to be inertial.

Einstein did not use the phrase "inertial frame". Today that's what we
call these frames.

Why you are so fixated on Einstein's 1905 paper is unclear. The theory
we call "SR" today is the same as initially discussed in that paper,
with considerable additional knowledge and understanding added, but no
new physical insights [#].

Why don't you just stop lying Roberts Roberts? Have you forgotten the
new physical insight that you plagiarized from the French hypnotist
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond? Einstein's second postulate is redundant, Jean-
Marc Levy-Leblond discovered, the first postulate (the principle of
relativity) is sufficient for building special relativity, and you
Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no
longer etc.), you made exactly the same discovery years later:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-
Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la
vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du
photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son
actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais
etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se
pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse
infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait plus a la
"vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la
lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse
limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le
"second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-
meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais,
pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus
solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier
postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 12, 12:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 10 Aug, 17:20, Tom Roberts wrote:



wrote:
It is well-known that in Newtonian mechanics, a system moving with
constant velocity with respect to an inertial one can be proved also
inertial. Have we a similar assertion valid in Einstein's 1905
Relativity (1905R)?

Certainly, in his 1905 paper itself. He discussed frames "in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good". Those equations "hold good"
only in what we now call inertial frames, so he was discussing the very
same frames you yourself point out can be shown to be inertial.

Einstein did not use the phrase "inertial frame". Today that's what we
call these frames.

Why you are so fixated on Einstein's 1905 paper is unclear. The theory
we call "SR" today is the same as initially discussed in that paper,
with considerable additional knowledge and understanding added, but no
new physical insights [#].

Why don't you just stop lying Roberts Roberts?

Tom Roberts didn't lie or reflect any misunderstanding in that
statement. Stop imitating those throlling hecklers Dono and Eric Gisse
and stay on topic.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On 12 Aug, 17:14, Shubee wrote:
On Aug 12, 12:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 10 Aug, 17:20, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
It is well-known that in Newtonian mechanics, a system moving with
constant velocity with respect to an inertial one can be proved also
inertial. Have we a similar assertion valid in Einstein's 1905
Relativity (1905R)?

Certainly, in his 1905 paper itself. He discussed frames "in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good". Those equations "hold good"
only in what we now call inertial frames, so he was discussing the very
same frames you yourself point out can be shown to be inertial.

Einstein did not use the phrase "inertial frame". Today that's what we
call these frames.

Why you are so fixated on Einstein's 1905 paper is unclear. The theory
we call "SR" today is the same as initially discussed in that paper,
with considerable additional knowledge and understanding added, but no
new physical insights [#].

Why don't you just stop lying Roberts Roberts?

Tom Roberts didn't lie or reflect any misunderstanding in that
statement.

Then why is Einstein zombie world unaware of Tom Roberts' breathtaking
discovery:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

As far as I know, you also ignore postulates in the deduction of your
special relativity so I suggest a paper should be published in both
Science and Nature and this paper should be entitled:

"A Special Relativity Deduced From Einstein's First Postulate Alone
(Einstein's Second Postulate Is Redundant)"
Authors: Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, Tom Roberts, Eugene Shubert

The only problem is that there are other University professors that
seem to have made the same discovery:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html

So I think Professor Jong-Ping Hsu (University of Massachusetts,
Dartmouth) should also be one of the authors:

"A Special Relativity Deduced From Einstein's First Postulate Alone
(Einstein's Second Postulate Is Redundant)"
Authors: Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, Tom Roberts, Eugene Shubert, Jong-
Ping Hsu

Pentcho Valev