Re: Paper Series: Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s Universe

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:53, Mikko said:

That is not new and not really unusual. Already when there was no
Einstein's
universe, Poincaré had analysed those symmetries. The first postulate of
Special Relativity, the equivalence of inertial frames, is a statement
about symmetry ...

Hi Mikko!
If you read the intro paper, you'll see that these papers are not about
"symmetry" in the sense of the equivalence of frames: they are about
="shift symmetry"= ... the idea that when we flip the polarity of the
velocity, the shift equation inverts.
Shift symmetry is required if you want perfectly lossless equations, and
under gravitational theory, is required if you want the gravitational
shift between two locations to be route-independent.
Shift symmetry in inertial physics and gravitational physics are also
BOTH required if you want the resulting equations to be
time-symmetrical.
Under time-reversal, a valid SR recession redshift becomes a valid SR
approach blueshift, and a valid Schwarzschild gravitational blueshift
under time-reversal becomes a valid Schwarzschild gravitational
redshift.
Within relativity theory, that property of shift-symmetry and
time-reversal is unique to the SR equations.
So if you WANT relativity plus shift-symmetry and/or lossless equations
and/or route-independent gravitational shifts, and/or time-symmetry,
then you have to accept that ALL of these things are compulsory, and
that the equations of special relativity are provably the only possible
solution.
----
That may well be a novel result, as in all the years I've spent hanging
out on relativity fora, I've never yet seen any defender of Einstein's
system using that argument to defend it. IMO, it seems to be the
STRONGEST POSSIBLE DEFENCE of Einstein's special and general theories.
----
The power that comes with obtaining the most minimalist definition and
description of a theory, and of the laws that it must obey, is that
once we HAVE these operating characteristics defined, the definitions
immediately suggest the opposing laws that must be obeyed by any
competing theory or system.
One can draw a comparison with the development of non-Euclidean
geometry.
It was our understanding of the strict rules of Euclidean geometry (e.g.
properties of parallel lines) that let us suppose the existence of other
geometries that broke those rules.
Similarly, this series aims to specify the defining interlocked rules
of Einstein's system (in the introductory paper), so that we know the
alternative set of violating rules that must all automatically apply
under any potential competing system of post-Einstein relativity.
Even if you think that there's no possibility that current theory can
be wrong, you might still want to look at the first paper, just to see
current mainstream relativity redefined. It sets the minimal
characteristics and laws that are the hallmarks of an Einstein-based
SR-centric system, which must ==ALL== be wrong under any competing
system.
Regards,
Eric