**Full Text of Emails with Professor ****Warren Siegel (Nov 25 – Dec 2, 2015). **

*Professor
Siegel was replying to this email which was sent in Nov 2015 to those teaching Special
Relativity and to others.*

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Wednesday,
November 25

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Maybe you have used too weak a definition of special
relativity.

One that is sufficient for most purposes is that the only
observer-independent quantity relating 2 spacetime events in terms of position
& time, due to Minkowski, is

c²(t-t')² - (x-x')² - (y-y')² - (z-z')²

Lorentz transformations leave this quantity invariant, but
are a less useful way to state this result.

I see nothing in your theory that requires something as
difficult & inaccurate to observe as quasars to test it.

In fact, the theory of quasars requires understanding of
astrophysics & cosmology, theories that are much less well verified than
special relativity, so those theories would be modified well before special
relativity.

You might as well say that because your car broke down a
year before you expected it to that Newton's laws are invalid.

Special relativity has been proven in the extreme situations
of particle accelerators, where massive particles travel @ close to the speed
of light, & behave similarly to light under even those conditions.

Special relativity has
been verified to 12 decimal places by measurement of the anomalous magnetic
moment.

This is the most
accurate verified prediction in all of science.

It requires Lorentz
invariance for both light & massive particles.

In that light, it's hard
to see how teaching Lorentz transformations could be "unethical".

If you want to throw out
Lorentz invariance, you must replace it with something that still agrees to 12
decimal places.

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Thursday, November
26, 2015

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

You say: In that light, it's hard to see how
teaching Lorentz transformations could be "unethical".

I never said the above, that is your version of
what I said.

In my email I said:

However, the Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations
that you teach to students is based on unstated and incorrect assumptions.
Given that attached counter-example to the derivation exists it would be
unethical for you to continue to teach an incorrect derivation.

Can you plainly answer this question (without
making your own version of the quesion): Does the paper give a counter-example
to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily
lead to the Lorentz transformations?

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Friday, November
27, 2015

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Are you complaining
about Einstein's derivation, or my (Minkowski's) derivation?

What do you call Einstein's 2 assumption's?

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Thursday, November
27, 2015

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Both. Existence of a counter-example means that
any derivation which shows that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily
lead to the Lorentz Transformations has to be wrong.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Friday, November
27, 2015

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Where did I use 2
postulates? I used only 1.

It is trivial to show
that proper time (the expression I wrote) is invariant under only Poincaré
transformations, i.e., space time translations & Lorentz transformations
(incl. rotations).

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Saturday, November 28, 2015

**Subject:** Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

There are derivations out there that claim to
show that just one postulate is enough to derive the Lorentz Transformations.

Existence of my counter-example means that any
derivation which shows that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily
lead to the Lorentz Transformations has to be wrong.

I can re-state as below:

Existence of my counter-example means that any
derivation which shows that Special Relativity's postulates (one postulate
alone or both combined) necessarily lead to the Lorentz Transformations has to
be wrong.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make
and why it is relevant to whether I have a counterexample as explained above.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Saturday, November 28, 2015

Please read what I
wrote.

I wrote my 1 postulate,
& I asked you what 2 postulates you assumed.

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Saturday, November 28, 2015

Saturday, November
28, 2015

You have to address my paper and tell me what is
wrong with it. You (and Minskowski) are looking for transformations between
coordinates.

In general Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare,
Minkowski, all start with this wrong conclusion: since speed=distance/time the
only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving
observers is if there existed formulas (coordinate transformations) by which
distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these
observers.

Please note from my paper.

p. 5

Thus, in our velocity-centric theory, these
distance-time relations are not transformations from one set of coordinates to
another.

p. 7

We emphasize again that, unlike relativity, we
do not interpret these to be transformations between coordinates. The
quantities represent distance travelled as measured by the observers and time
for this travel.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Saturday, November 28, 2015

No, I have no need to address your paper because
it takes an obsolete approach to relativity. You have to address my
points because that is the approach that led to general relativity, so you need
to understand it in any case. Special relativity is not about just
velocity. Velocity is derived from coordinates. Velocity is the
time derivative of spatial position, so you can't even discuss velocity without
first discussing space and time position. In my statement of special
relativity, Lorentz invariance is obvious. And you have consistency
avoided giving the "2 postulates" you claim relativity is based on,
as is your entire proof.

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Sunday,
November 29, 2015

You say: No, I have no need to address your
paper because it takes an obsolete approach to relativity.

Can you plainly answer this question regarding
Einstein’s derivation which you now call "obsolete": Does my paper
give a counter-example to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two
postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations?

You say: “Velocity is the time derivative of
spatial position, so you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing
space and time position.”

Does the first phrase of this statement,
"Velocity is the time derivative of spatial position", imply
the second phrase "you can't even discuss velocity without first
discussing space and time position." It does not.

In fact starting with velocity is the deliberate
approach of my paper. Why this approach? Because the second postulate is about
the speed of light and my paper explains why light is seen at same speed by all
observers (without deriving this from distance and time formulas).

You say: And you have consistency avoided giving
the "2 postulates" you claim relativity is based on, as is your
entire proof.”

I give those below. But let us see what you are
avoiding addressing. Please address below which I repeat from my previous
email.

In general Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare,
Minkowski, all start with this wrong conclusion: since speed=distance/time the
only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving
observers is if there existed formulas (coordinate transformations) by which
distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these
observers.

Please note from my paper.

p. 5

Thus, in our velocity-centric theory, these
distance-time relations are not transformations from one set of coordinates to
another.

p. 7

We emphasize again that, unlike relativity, we
do not interpret these to be transformations between coordinates. The
quantities represent distance travelled as measured by the observers and time
for this travel.

You say: "You have to address my points
because that is the approach that led to general relativity..."

Minkowski reformulation of Special Relativity is
based on same above “wrong conclusion". If Lorentz Transformations are not
reality then there is no need to understand "in any case" what
approach led to general relativity.

The two postulates remain today as Einstein
stated them in 1905, and this 1905 paper is cited in my paper. From p. 5
of my paper "Reputable physics textbooks derive the Lorentz
transformations, in a claimed mathematically rigorous manner, from the two
postulates (assuming homogeneity and isotropy of space)."

Check a standard textbook, for example the
textbook mentioned at this course-link at you university. http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~joanna/Lectures/PHY-251-252/

Special Relativity by A.P. French, p. 68

Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent
with respect to all laws of physics.

Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space
always has the same value c.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Sunday,
November 29, 2015

[Note
that Siegel replies by inserting comments within the text I had written; *I have put his comments in italics*]

You say: No, I have no need to address your paper because it takes
an obsolete approach to relativity.

Can you plainly answer this question regarding Einstein’s
derivation which you now call "obsolete": Does my paper give a
counter-example to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two
postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations?

You say: “Velocity is the time derivative of spatial position, so
you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing space and time
position.”

Does the first phrase of this statement, "Velocity is the
time derivative of spatial position", imply the second phrase
"you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing space and time
position." It does not.

*Of course it does!*

* Velocity is DEFINED in terms of space &
time.*

*Do you know what a
definition is?*

In fact starting with velocity is the deliberate approach of my
paper. Why this approach? Because the second postulate is about the speed of
light and my paper explains why light is seen at same speed by all observers
(without deriving this from distance and time formulas).

You say: And you have consistency avoided giving the "2
postulates" you claim relativity is based on, as is your entire proof.”

I give those below. But let us see what you are avoiding
addressing. Please address below which I repeat from my previous email.

In general Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, all start with
this wrong conclusion: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light
would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there
existed formulas (coordinate transformations) by which distance and time
measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers.

*No,
Minkowski starts with the Minkowski metric.*

*All of special
relativity follows from there.*

Please note from my paper.

p. 5

Thus, in our velocity-centric theory, these distance-time
relations are not transformations from one set of coordinates to another.

p. 7

We emphasize again that, unlike relativity, we do not interpret
these to be transformations between coordinates. The quantities represent
distance travelled as measured by the observers and time for this travel.

You say: "You have to address my points because that is the
approach that led to general relativity..."

Minkowski reformulation of Special Relativity is based on same
above “wrong conclusion". If Lorentz Transformations are not reality then
there is no need to understand "in any case" what approach led to
general relativity.

*No, Minkowski's
approach is based on the metric.*

*The need to
understand is the basis of science.*

The two postulates remain today as Einstein stated them in 1905,
and this 1905 paper is cited in my paper. From p. 5 of my paper
"Reputable physics textbooks derive the Lorentz transformations, in a
claimed mathematically rigorous manner, from the two postulates (assuming
homogeneity and isotropy of space)."

Check a standard textbook, for example the textbook mentioned at
this course-link at you university.http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~joanna/Lectures/PHY-251-252/

Special Relativity by A.P. French, p. 68

Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to
all laws of physics.

Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same
value c.

*I'll have to check
the particular book you reference.*

*I don't know how you
define "standard".*

*Certainly my textbook
doesn't start there.*

*Those 2 postulates are
insufficient to define special relativity as it is understood today.*

*E.g., conformal
transformations, which include Lorentz transformations, also preserve those
principles.*

*In fact,
"postulate 1" is just a definition of inertial frames, so is
irrelevant.*

*"Postulate
2" then only refers to invariance of vanishing proper time, not
non-vanishing.*

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Sunday,
November 29, 2015

I take back what I said
about postulate 1.

If inertial frames are
defined to be @ constant velocity with respect to 1 another, then conformal
transformations are restricted to Poincaré transformations, so the result is
uniquely special relativity.

**From:** Ashish Sirohi

**To:** Warren Siegel

**Date:** Tuesday,
December 1, 2015

I hope
you will continue this discussion by replying soon. Thanks again for your time.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Tuesday,
December 1, 2015

"Velocity" is defined as change in position per unit
time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Lorentz transformations are defined as transformations of space
& time coordinates.

From a standard textbook, Landau & Lifschitz:

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date: **Wednesday, December 2, 2015

[Note
that Siegel replies by inserting comments within the text I had written; *I have put his comments in italics*]

You say: No, I have no need to address your paper because it takes
an obsolete approach to relativity.

Can you plainly answer this question regarding Einstein’s
derivation which you now call "obsolete": Does my paper give a
counter-example to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two
postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations?

You say: “Velocity is the time derivative of spatial position, so
you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing space and time
position.”

Does the first phrase of this statement, "Velocity is the
time derivative of spatial position", imply the second phrase
"you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing space and time
position." It does not.

In fact starting with velocity is the deliberate approach of my
paper. Why this approach? Because the second postulate is about the speed of
light and my paper explains why light is seen at same speed by all observers
(without deriving this from distance and time formulas).

You say: And you have consistency avoided giving the "2
postulates" you claim relativity is based on, as is your entire proof.”

I give those below. But let us see what you are avoiding
addressing. Please address below which I repeat from my previous email.

Please note from my paper.

p. 5

p. 7

You say: "You have to address my points because that is the
approach that led to general relativity..."

Minkowski reformulation of Special Relativity is based on same
above “wrong conclusion". If Lorentz Transformations are not reality then
there is no need to understand "in any case" what approach led to
general relativity.

*Because special &
general relativity both agree with experiment, so it's important to understand
them.*

The two postulates remain today as Einstein stated them in 1905,
and this 1905 paper is cited in my paper. From p. 5 of my paper
"Reputable physics textbooks derive the Lorentz transformations, in a
claimed mathematically rigorous manner, from the two postulates (assuming
homogeneity and isotropy of space)."

Check a standard textbook, for example the textbook mentioned at
this course-link at you university. http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~joanna/Lectures/PHY-251-252/

Special Relativity by A.P. French, p. 68

Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to
all laws of physics.

Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same
value c.

**From:** Warren Siegel

**To:** Ashish Sirohi

**Date:** Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Please note from my paper.

p. 5

p. 7

*They transform in
exactly the same way under Lorentz transformations.*

*So you don't gain
anything by using 1 in place of the other.*

Check a standard textbook, for example the textbook mentioned at
this course-link at you university.http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~joanna/Lectures/PHY-251-252/

Special Relativity by A.P. French, p. 68

Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to
all laws of physics.

Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same
value c.