Q-Q

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Q-Q 2y ago

   I'm surprised some people think this is a matter of checking whether formal sentences match some English sentences lol It is a matter of checking whether formal sentences match mathematical statements, which are written in natural lan
2. 2.▲
   by Q-Q 3y ago

   >to see why you would assume an invariant speed, the assumption isn't just pulled out of thin air at the start It's not out of thin air, it's from a very empirically successful theory: Maxwell's electrodynamics. The p
3. 3.▲
   by Q-Q 3y ago

   What are you guys on about >if A sees B at speed v, then B sees A at the same speed v is directly derivable from the Lorentz velocity addition formula which is the result of the usual two postulates. Why would you want that as an extra a
4. 4.▲
   by Q-Q 3y ago

   Within historical context: This was said after Minkowski introduced the geometry for special relativity, which can be visualized on the `spacetime diagram`, now recognized as the vastly simpler and more efficient approach than the wall-of-t
5. 5.▲
   by Q-Q 3y ago

   I find it not believable that - You derived the theory correctly (end result should match textbook result) and thought what you were doing were wrong. - No physicist you asked could explain where you were wrong - No physicist you encountere
6. 6.▲
   by Q-Q 3y ago

   Did you even read his post? what you are calling the "right" path is the "mathematician" path, assuming relativity + group structure. What he complained about, the Physics textbook approach was the path taken by Einstein