The 14 postulates of Special Relativity

[grav]

These are really postulates of physics in general, but is aimed mostly toward the dynamics of space and time and of motion, specifically to that which is necessary to derive Special Relativity. This is not a theory, but a collection of postulates which serve as the foundation of many such theories, put together here in the fashion that they might normally be used in physics. As such, this thread is of course open to any discussion as to how they might be made more rigorous or to the consideration of any further postulates that might be added.

CONDITIONS

1) Local - It will be assumed that identical experiments can and will be performed under identical conditions at any location in any inertial frame, locally to the experiment, as with setting temperature for example, by applying the same local methods for achieving these conditions.

2) Ideal - It is assumed that the effects of any phenomenon that cannot be locally controlled and which might affect the experiment in some way but are not meant to do so, such as cosmic background radiation or universal expansion, will be negligible.

SPACE

3) Homogeneity - Any identical experiments performed under the same conditions and with the same dynamics applied in any direction relative to an inertial observer at any location in any inertial frame will attain the same results according to that observer.

4) Volume - If a large container of any shape is filled separately with two different sets of naturally occuring physical entities that take up space, such as between different types of atoms, then the average number ratio or proportion between those two sets will remain the same at any location in any inertial frame when placed under the same conditions.

5) Rigidity - Any sturdy materials, regardless of composition, will retain the same proportions to each other no matter which direction they are turned locally within a frame.

Test - This can easily be tested by placing two rigid rods of different composition side by side and cutting them to the same length, defined simply by having their ends meet, then turning them in various directions to test whether the ends no longer both meet.

A) Coordinate choice for rulers - As per postulate 5, even if rods were to contract or expand in different directions, they would all do so in the same way regardless of composition, so we could not directly measure a difference, so we will consider them to be rigid and to remain the same length in any direction. As per postulate 4, we will make a ruler according to a particular number of such physical entities placed one after another along a straight line (a staight line to be defined), and this shall be done the same in every frame.

GEOMETRY

6) Circle - In accordance with the third postulate of Euclidean geometry, a circle can be described with any center and radius.

B) Coordinate choice for spheres - We will apply postulates 5 and 6 to extend to spheres, whereby after identifying two random points upon a rigid body of any shape, we can then rotate the body in all directions about one of the points and mark the places in space that the second point coincides, which will enclose the surface of a sphere.

7) Line - In accordance with the first postulate of Euclidean geometry, a straight line can be drawn between any two points.

C) Coordinate choice for lines - We will define a straight line as the shortest distance between two points. Since distance is determined by a ruler and we have not yet determined how to make a straight line ruler to begin with yet, the procedure is as follows. We will identify two points in space which will be the endpoints of our ruler. We will then make many identical infinitesimal spheres which have been fashioned in the manner described by coordinate choice B and connect them along their outer surfaces as would be a string of beads. The path that lies between the two points in space that can be found by placing the least number of spheres between them will define a straight line between those two points, and that shall also be the edge of our ruler.

TIME

8) Periodicity - All physical processes, whether they be periodic as with atomic vibrations or a measure of change as with radioactive decay, for examples of such, will occur at the same rate locally in proportion to each other at any location in any inertial frame.

9) Locality - Identical physical processes will occur at the same rate at any location within the same inertial frame.

Test - We can test this by having two sets of identical periodic processes, then moving one to another location within the same frame while continuing to count its periodic rate of each, and after some time has passed, moving the other set to the same location in the same manner as the first while still continuing to count the periodic rates while doing so, and determining that the same count has occurred for both sets.

D) Coordinate choice for clocks - In accordance with postulates 8 and 9, since all local periodic processes occur at the same rate in proportion to each other, and since clocks should connect with these processes in order to have any physical meaning, we will set the timing of clocks in accordance with local natural periodic processes.

MOTION

10) Dynamics - An inertial body will travel at a constant and steady pace unless otherwise acted upon, as observed by an inertial observer.

11) Path - An inertial body will continue to travel in the same direction along a straight line as observed by an inertial observer.

LIGHT

12) Aberration - If a light pulse is emitted from each of two sources as they coincide at the same point in space and the light pulses then travel to an observer at any other location in any frame, that observer will receive both pulses simultaneously, regardless of the motions of the sources.

13) Isotropy - It is assumed that the speed of light is not directly affected in any measurable way by any discernable medium. As such, postulates 2 and 3 will apply, whereby if a clock is placed at the end of a rigid rod and a light pulse is propagated from the clock to the other end of the rod and back, it will do so in the same two way time according to the difference in readings upon the clock, regardless of the direction of the rod in space.

14) Speed - When the lengths of identical rigid rulers and the timing of clocks are set according to the natural physical processes as per coordinate choices A and D, then by applying the method as described in postulate 13, the same difference in readings will be found to pass upon the clock at the end of the rod at any location in any inertial frame.

[grapes]

MOTION

10) Dynamics - An inertial body will travel at a constant and steady pace unless otherwise acted upon, as observed by an inertial observer.

11) Path - An inertial body will continue to travel in the same direction along a straight line as observed by an inertial observer.

What is an inertial body?

[grav]

What is an inertial body?

A body that is not acted upon by a force. I suppose I should have said "A body that travels inertially ..." .

[grapes]

A body that is not acted upon by a force.

An experiment falling in a gravity field can be considered to be in inertial frame

I suppose I should have said "A body that travels inertially ..." .

OK

What does it mean to "travel inertially"? Does it by any chance mean "at a constant and steady pace" "in the same direction along a straight line"?

[grav]

An experiment falling in a gravity field can be considered to be in inertial frame

We are not including gravitational fields for our purposes here with just SR, only inertial motion through the vacuum of space.

What does it mean to "travel inertially"? Does it by any chance mean "at a constant and steady pace" "in the same direction along a straight line"?

That is what we would assume, yes. I guess one would begin by defining "travelling inertially" as not being acted upon by a force, then the rest would follow as the ideal logical conclusions as to what would result.

[grapes]

We are not including gravitational fields for our purposes here with just SR, only inertial motion through the vacuum of space.

But your answer was "A body not acted upon by a force." So, you're ignoring all forces?

That is what we would assume, yes. I guess one would begin by defining "travelling inertially" as not being acted upon by a force, then the rest would follow as the ideal logical conclusions as to what would result.

What does that do to your postulates? If I'm following the last few posts, you'd change "inertial body" to "a body traveling inertially" which then would be changed to "a body traveling at a constant and steady pace in the same direction along a straight line."

MOTION

10) Dynamics - An inertial body will travel at a constant and steady pace unless otherwise acted upon, as observed by an inertial observer.

11) Path - An inertial body will continue to travel in the same direction along a straight line as observed by an inertial observer.

[grav]

But your answer was "A body not acted upon by a force." So, you're ignoring all forces?

I am ignoring all forces external to the body, such as gravity and friction, at least in terms of a body that travels inertially. Since freefall is inertial, I suppose it would require a different term for that.

What does that do to your postulates? If I'm following the last few posts, you'd change "inertial body" to "a body traveling inertially" which then would be changed to "a body traveling at a constant and steady pace in the same direction along a straight line."

Once those assumptions have been made, then we could combine them all together like that, but before then, we cannot, as they are separate aspects, although all related. The three postulates for light, for example, are each a separate issue in themselves, but are all related to light, so combined in the second postulate of SR.

You have me wondering, however, if the 11th postulate might not be gained from the 2nd and 3rd postulates for ideal conditions and the homogeneity of space, since if we are neglecting any possible curvature of the universe, for example, and a body that travels inertially is not acted upon by a force, then there is no reason for the direction of travel to change more in one direction than another, and therefore in any particular direction whatsoever, so continues to travel a straight line path. I suppose that's where the logic of the 11th postulate would originally come from.

[korjik]

These are really postulates of physics in general, but is aimed mostly toward the dynamics of space and time and of motion, specifically to that which is necessary to derive Special Relativity. This is not a theory, but a collection of postulates which serve as the foundation of many such theories, put together here in the fashion that they might normally be used in physics. As such, this thread is of course open to any discussion as to how they might be made more rigorous or to the consideration of any further postulates that might be added.

CONDITIONS

1) Local - It will be assumed that identical experiments can and will be performed under identical conditions at any location in any inertial frame, locally to the experiment, as with setting temperature for example, by applying the same local methods for achieving these conditions.

This is called space translational invariance. It is also the cause of the conservation of momentum

2) Ideal - It is assumed that the effects of any phenomenon that cannot be locally controlled and which might affect the experiment in some way but are not meant to do so, such as cosmic background radiation or universal expansion, will be negligible.

This is not a postulate. For theory it is irrelevant. For experiment it must be confirmed. More than one experiment has turned out to be wrong when this wasnt true

SPACE

3) Homogeneity - Any identical experiments performed under the same conditions and with the same dynamics applied in any direction relative to an inertial observer at any location in any inertial frame will attain the same results according to that observer.

You already said this. Technically it applies to any observer

4) Volume - If a large container of any shape is filled separately with two different sets of naturally occuring physical entities that take up space, such as between different types of atoms, then the average number ratio or proportion between those two sets will remain the same at any location in any inertial frame when placed under the same conditions.

This isnt a postulate either. Simple logic says if you have 8 nitrogen atoms and 8 oxygen atoms, you have 8 nitrogen atoms and 8 oxygen atoms no matter where you look at it from

5) Rigidity - Any sturdy materials, regardless of composition, will retain the same proportions to each other no matter which direction they are turned locally within a frame.

This is incorrect. If you have a V and two observers moving at different velocities, they will measure a different angle to the bend

Test - This can easily be tested by placing two rigid rods of different composition side by side and cutting them to the same length, defined simply by having their ends meet, then turning them in various directions to test whether the ends no longer both meet.

A) Coordinate choice for rulers - As per postulate 5, even if rods were to contract or expand in different directions, they would all do so in the same way regardless of composition, so we could not directly measure a difference, so we will consider them to be rigid and to remain the same length in any direction. As per postulate 4, we will make a ruler according to a particular number of such physical entities placed one after another along a straight line (a staight line to be defined), and this shall be done the same in every frame.

This is a bad assumption. See above

GEOMETRY

6) Circle - In accordance with the third postulate of Euclidean geometry, a circle can be described with any center and radius.

B) Coordinate choice for spheres - We will apply postulates 5 and 6 to extend to spheres, whereby after identifying two random points upon a rigid body of any shape, we can then rotate the body in all directions about one of the points and mark the places in space that the second point coincides, which will enclose the surface of a sphere.

Except that the sphere isnt a sphere in all frames

7) Line - In accordance with the first postulate of Euclidean geometry, a straight line can be drawn between any two points.

C) Coordinate choice for lines - We will define a straight line as the shortest distance between two points. Since distance is determined by a ruler and we have not yet determined how to make a straight line ruler to begin with yet, the procedure is as follows. We will identify two points in space which will be the endpoints of our ruler. We will then make many identical infinitesimal spheres which have been fashioned in the manner described by coordinate choice B and connect them along their outer surfaces as would be a string of beads. The path that lies between the two points in space that can be found by placing the least number of spheres between them will define a straight line between those two points, and that shall also be the edge of our ruler.

not all observers will agree that you have spheres, and if you go general relativistic, the shortest distance is most definitely not a straight line

TIME

8) Periodicity - All physical processes, whether they be periodic as with atomic vibrations or a measure of change as with radioactive decay, for examples of such, will occur at the same rate locally in proportion to each other at any location in any inertial frame.

Different frames will measure different times for the period. cosmic ray Muon decay shows this quite clearly

9) Locality - Identical physical processes will occur at the same rate at any location within the same inertial frame.

not a postulate

Test - We can test this by having two sets of identical periodic processes, then moving one to another location within the same frame while continuing to count its periodic rate of each, and after some time has passed, moving the other set to the same location in the same manner as the first while still continuing to count the periodic rates while doing so, and determining that the same count has occurred for both sets.

Only if they move at the same velocity. Even then, the in transit period is going to be different than the stationary period.

D) Coordinate choice for clocks - In accordance with postulates 8 and 9, since all local periodic processes occur at the same rate in proportion to each other, and since clocks should connect with these processes in order to have any physical meaning, we will set the timing of clocks in accordance with local natural periodic processes.

Very circular reasoning. A clock has to time a process that will set the timing of the clock.

MOTION

10) Dynamics - An inertial body will travel at a constant and steady pace unless otherwise acted upon, as observed by an inertial observer.

Newtons 1st, and conservation of momentum. not a postulate

11) Path - An inertial body will continue to travel in the same direction along a straight line as observed by an inertial observer.

Dosent have to be straight to be inertial

LIGHT

12) Aberration - If a light pulse is emitted from each of two sources as they coincide at the same point in space and the light pulses then travel to an observer at any other location in any frame, that observer will receive both pulses simultaneously, regardless of the motions of the sources.

This is meaningless. Two objects travelling at the same speed from the same source reach the same location at the same time. two sources at the same spot isnt really possible, or can be treated like the same source.

13) Isotropy - It is assumed that the speed of light is not directly affected in any measurable way by any discernable medium. As such, postulates 2 and 3 will apply, whereby if a clock is placed at the end of a rigid rod and a light pulse is propagated from the clock to the other end of the rod and back, it will do so in the same two way time according to the difference in readings upon the clock, regardless of the direction of the rod in space.

This is just wrong. the speed of light in a medium is c/n, where n is the index of refraction

14) Speed - When the lengths of identical rigid rulers and the timing of clocks are set according to the natural physical processes as per coordinate choices A and D, then by applying the method as described in postulate 13, the same difference in readings will be found to pass upon the clock at the end of the rod at any location in any inertial frame.

Just plain wrong again.

Most of this is in direct contradiction with special relativity.

[grav]

Thanks for your input, Korjik, but I don't see where you are coming from with all of this. As I said, some of these postulates may be open to interpretation, so they might need to be made more rigorous and so forth, or perhaps worded better in some places as Grapes has already helped to do, but these are the basically the postulates of physics, more specifically SR. Some assumptions must be made in order to do physics, so the only real questions here should be which of these are postulates, which are actually definitions, and which can be deduced logically or from the assumptions already made with other postulates, making it repetitive, for instance.

This is called space translational invariance. It is also the cause of the conservation of momentum

I think you are referring to the 3rd postulate for the homogeneity of space here. The 1st postulate is just for how local conditions should be set for identical experiments. For instance, temperature affects the outcome of many experiments, so it is assumed that if a particular temperature produces some result locally in one inertial frame, that the temperature can also be set in a similar manner in another inertial frame by following the same procedure for how temperature is to be measured, and that should produce the same outcome for the same experiment.

This is not a postulate. For theory it is irrelevant. For experiment it must be confirmed. More than one experiment has turned out to be wrong when this wasnt true

When we perform an experiment, we must assume that there aren't any significant unforeseen factors that will affect the outcome. This is especially true for thought experiments more than real experiments where the expected result and the actual result might be seen to differ. The original mathematical prediction might be obtained without consideration of friction, gravitational influences, etc., and we expect the result of a real experiment to come close to this. If it doesn't, then we have the problem of having to sort out whether the initial conditions are much less than ideal for some unforeseen reason, or whether the original prediction is simply incorrect, but originally we would assume ideal conditions.

You already said this. Technically it applies to any observer

I don't think I already said it, but right, it applies to any observer.

This isnt a postulate either. Simple logic says if you have 8 nitrogen atoms and 8 oxygen atoms, you have 8 nitrogen atoms and 8 oxygen atoms no matter where you look at it from

I thought about including a postulate for existence, that a number of objects would remain the same, but radioactive atoms decay and particles can be destroyed, so did not include it. Even macroscopic objects will decay over time. In any case, this postulate is something different. It means that the proportion of natural entities, such as two different types of atoms, or even apples and grapes grown under identical local conditions in each frame, will have the same average proportion to each other with large numbers when a large container is filled. If physics were to operate differently in different frames, then whereas we might have 8 oxygen and 8 nitrogen atoms that fill a container, in another frame we might have 20 oxygen and 15 nitrogen, but we are assuming them to be the same, so that if we have a 1:1 ratio in one frame, we will also have a 1:1 ratio in another.

This is incorrect. If you have a V and two observers moving at different velocities, they will measure a different angle to the bend

Here again, I thought about including another postulate about position, whereas the positions of atoms within a rigid body would remain at the same relative psotions to each other, but atoms might still move around somewhat, so perhaps macroscopic parts of the body would remain in the same relative positions. By "locally within a frame", though, I mean that the object is within the same frame as the observer, so is stationary.

This is a bad assumption. See above

Again, this is when the ruler is stationary to the observer.

Except that the sphere isnt a sphere in all frames

Right, this is to be performed always locally, and so stationary as well. Although I didn't state it every time, these postulates are to be taken that way unless otherwise stated.

not all observers will agree that you have spheres, and if you go general relativistic, the shortest distance is most definitely not a straight line

A straight line here is defined as the shortest distance between two points. I'm not sure, but I would think that would also be the case for a non-inertial observer according to their own coordinate system as well, although a non-inertial observer and an inertial observer might then disagree about whether a particular path is straight or not.

Different frames will measure different times for the period. cosmic ray Muon decay shows this quite clearly

Here we are comparing the periodic rates of different types of atoms in relation to each other when stationary to each other, and assuming that the ratio of these rates will remain the same in any frame. That is, if 1/2 of a particular isotope decays while 1/4 of another decays in one frame, then that should be the case at any location in any arbitrary frame.

not a postulate

Has it been proven with a high degree of accuracy, or is it just taken for granted?

Only if they move at the same velocity. Even then, the in transit period is going to be different than the stationary period.

Right. They would both have to be moved from one location to another in the same manner so that the count during transit remains the same for both, so all that is left would be a difference between their counts at each location.

Very circular reasoning. A clock has to time a process that will set the timing of the clock.

Not necessarily. We can simply count natural periodic processes. The number of times the Earth rotates we consider days, the moon going around the Earth is months, etc. In this case, we would want something like a number of atomic vibrations we would define as a second or even some portion of radioactive isotope decay as defined for a particular time would do.

Newtons 1st, and conservation of momentum. not a postulate

That might be open to interpretation. Some might deem it a postulate, others a law, others a definition, and still others a coordinate effect. In a way it is a combination of all four.

Dosent have to be straight to be inertial

Well then it probably wouldn't proceed at a constant and steady pace either then, but we can still consider that it has to be inertial to be straight. We are just not including external influences, at least in regards to SR and the type of inertial motion referred to here.

This is meaningless. Two objects travelling at the same speed from the same source reach the same location at the same time. two sources at the same spot isnt really possible, or can be treated like the same source.

No reference is made to the speed of the light pulses. Massive objects travelling from the sources will contain some ballistic component, dependent upon the motions and directions of the sources. With light pulses, however, aberration tells us that the light pulses will always travel together from the sources to the receiver when the sources coincide in the same place, no matter how the sources travel.

This is just wrong. the speed of light in a medium is c/n, where n is the index of refraction

Again, nothing about the speed. Only that a light pulse travelling away and back along the same length of rod in any direction will do so in the same time according to the reading on a clock. In general also, these postulates apply to the vacuum of space, but I would think this particular postulate would also apply to a medium, or else we would measure an isotropic speed for light in different directions.

Just plain wrong again.

Most of this is in direct contradiction with special relativity.

It's strange that you should say that right here at the end, especially with these last three postulates. These three are taken directly from Einstein's 1905 paper in which SR is derived, from the second postulate and the first section about the simultaneity of clocks. The postulates here are separated accordingly into each of the distinct aspects of the nature of light.

[korjik]

I am not going to debate you. Most of your postulates are not postulates, several of them are wrong and several are not relevant.

[grav]

I am not going to debate you. Most of your postulates are not postulates, several of them are wrong and several are not relevant.

There might be one or two that could conceivably be derived from the others or might be deduced on its own merit, maybe, but I don't see how any of them are wrong except perhaps in the amount of rigorousness of the wording applied in terms of the interpretation, and all are relevant as far as I can see. If you wish to discuss how they might be made more rigorous if you think they should be, then please feel free. If you feel that any are not relevant, then I would be interested to see how you would alternately build up the foundations of physics to the point where SR can be derived.

[grav]

There may be a couple of loose terms floating around, sorry. I should have included some definitions beforehand, so here are a couple for now as they have been applied here. Please let me know if any others need to be cleared up.

Inertial - Travelling freely through the vacuum of space without any external influences.

Local - In close proximity to an observer and generally stationary to the observer as well.

[Sam5]

Maybe in the future this work will become known as Grav’s Principia.

There is a handy Latin term that you might want to use occasionally. Newton and old-time physicists used it in their writings a lot. The term is “Dico eum”. It’s usually used at the beginning of a sentence or a paragraph.

[korjik]

There might be one or two that could conceivably be derived from the others or might be deduced on its own merit, maybe, but I don't see how any of them are wrong except perhaps in the amount of rigorousness of the wording applied in terms of the interpretation, and all are relevant as far as I can see. If you wish to discuss how they might be made more rigorous if you think they should be, then please feel free. If you feel that any are not relevant, then I would be interested to see how you would alternately build up the foundations of physics to the point where SR can be derived.

Grav, you have proven pretty well that you are either incapable or unwilling to learn enough physics to know what you are talking about. I am not going to waste my time discussing it with you because you have already been told what your problems with relativity are, but you will not accept them and learn.

[korjik]

There may be a couple of loose terms floating around, sorry. I should have included some definitions beforehand, so here are a couple for now as they have been applied here. Please let me know if any others need to be cleared up.

Inertial - Travelling freely through the vacuum of space without any external influences.

Local - In close proximity to an observer and generally stationary to the observer as well.

This is an example of what I am talking about in my last post. There are definitions used by physicists for these terms, yet you still need to define your own. Why dont you go back and learn the actual physics and physics terminology instead of badly defining your own?

[grav]

Maybe in the future this work will become known as Grav’s Principia.

There is a handy Latin term that you might want to use occasionally. Newton and old-time physicists used it in their writings a lot. The term is “Dico eum”. It’s usually used at the beginning of a sentence or a paragraph.

[grav]

Grav, you have proven pretty well that you are either incapable or unwilling to learn enough physics to know what you are talking about. I am not going to waste my time discussing it with you because you have already been told what your problems with relativity are, but you will not accept them and learn.

Where do you get this idea? I understand SR just fine and work with it (on my own) in some respect almost every day.

[grav]

This is an example of what I am talking about in my last post. There are definitions used by physicists for these terms, yet you still need to define your own. Why dont you go back and learn the actual physics and physics terminology instead of badly defining your own?

Well, if you are only here to argue, so be it. You could be constructive and try to help make this all more rigorous, but it seems you'd rather just say it is all wrong, which it is not. There's not much to even be wrong about it in the general sense as it is not a hypothesis, just some basics about the foundations of physics and SR.

The definitions I supplied are how they are used here. If I knew of any better terms that might be closer to the true meaning, I would use them. In any case, I don't see anything wrong with them. One definition of inertia is resistance to a change in motion, but I didn't want to use that because it refers to mass, and I didn't include mass in the OP as it isn't necessary for SR. Webster's dictionary defines inertia as "the tendency of matter to remain at rest (or continue in a fixed direction) unless affected by an outside force". Although I didn't look it up until your statement, I would say that is pretty much the definition I used, wouldn't you?

[tusenfem]

And here I thought that Einstein only needed 2 postulates for SR.

[grav]

And here I thought that Einstein only needed 2 postulates for SR.

Yes, that is basically the case for the "condensed" version , but I expanded upon every aspect of the two postulates and physics in general that I could think of that leads up to SR. The first eleven deal with time, space, and motion which are generally incorporated into the first postulate of SR. The last three involve properties of light which are stated more directly in the second postulate of SR. Besides, the "14 postulates of SR" makes for an eye-catching title, don't you think?

[Strange]

I didn't read very far, I'm afraid. I found it rather "sloppily" written and hard to understand. For example:

1) Local - It will be assumed that identical experiments can and will be performed under identical conditions at any location in any inertial frame, locally to the experiment, as with setting temperature for example, by applying the same local methods for achieving these conditions.

Why "It will be assumed"; why the future tense and not "is"?

Why "assume"; if it is a postulate, shouldn't it just say "Experiments can be ..."

Why "can and will be performed"; I would have thought it is only the principle that an experiment could be performed under certain conditions that is relevant. Surely, you don't need to dictate that any particular experiment will be performed.

What does "locally to the experiment" mean; what verb is "locally" modifying? It sounds as if it is saying "the experiment will be performed locally to the experiment", which is a tautology, surely?

And what does "as with setting temperature for example" mean or refer to?

And what are "the same local methods"; the same as what and local to what?

I'm not really sure what the whole sentence is supposed to say. And it seems it doesn't say anything about the results of the experiments; just that they can be done under some ill-defined conditions. Would you expect them to give similar results, or are the results dependent in these conditions. Does it just mean all experiments will be (or can be?) performed under the same conditions? Isn't that a bit of an empty statement? Or, at least, an obvious statement of experimental procedure.

And (2) also simply sounds like a rather obvious statement of experimental procedure/analysis.

I found the rest equally confused or confusing (as far as I read).

[grav]

I didn't read very far, I'm afraid. I found it rather "sloppily" written and hard to understand.

Okay, I'm getting that idea from some of the posts so far . I spent a couple of weeks thinking about it and finally forced myself to go ahead and write it down. It was slightly hurried and difficult to keep track of some of the wording, but I didn't think it would cause this much problem, sorry.

For example:

Why "It will be assumed"; why the future tense and not "is"?

It will be assumed whenever an experiment is performed, but that is otherwise just a general statement.

Why "assume"; if it is a postulate, shouldn't it just say "Experiments can be ..."

Sure yes, I almost dropped that part, but I wanted to start the first couple off stating them as assumptions.

Why "can and will be performed"; I would have thought it is only the principle that an experiment could be performed under certain conditions that is relevant. Surely, you don't need to dictate that any particular experiment will be performed.

I did that on purpose as well, because the postulate states that they can be performed under identical conditions, but of course, that doesn't mean they will, so I just added that to ensure that they are. No other reason, really.

What does "locally to the experiment" mean; what verb is "locally" modifying? It sounds as if it is saying "the experiment will be performed locally to the experiment", which is a tautology, surely?

The local conditions are the same where the experiment is performed in each frame.

And what does "as with setting temperature for example" mean or refer to?

It means that the procedure for setting the local temperature is the same in each frame. It is used as an example of conditions that might affect the outcome of the experiment.

And what are "the same local methods"; the same as what and local to what?

It means the same procedure will be used in each frame for setting temperature and other local conditions that would affect the experiment.

I'm not really sure what the whole sentence is supposed to say. And it seems it doesn't say anything about the results of the experiments; just that they can be done under some ill-defined conditions. Would you expect them to give similar results, or are the results dependent in these conditions. Does it just mean all experiments will be (or can be?) performed under the same conditions? Isn't that a bit of an empty statement? Or, at least, an obvious statement of experimental procedure.

I didn't want to get into all of the different conditions that might affect the outcome of an experiment and the procedures by which they should be set the same in each frame as I couldn't possibly contemplate all of the requirements for such conditions with any experiment, so simply stated that they can be and will be set in the same way.

And (2) also simply sounds like a rather obvious statement of experimental procedure/analysis.

Right. Most of these postulates are pretty obvious.

I found the rest equally confused or confusing (as far as I read).

Sorry about that, I didn't think it would be that difficult, although I figured they could be made more rigorous. These are just some basic postulates, to be read in general at this point, I guess. After reading some of the replies, though, I might try to form a second draft, but I can't promise it will be worded much better.

[grav]

It has been brought to my attention here that I would also need to add a postulate that identifies the three axes of space. (So far, it seems for the most part that they don't have a problem understanding what I wrote. )

[tusenfem]

Yes, that is basically the case for the "condensed" version , but I expanded upon every aspect of the two postulates and physics in general that I could think of that leads up to SR. The first eleven deal with time, space, and motion which are generally incorporated into the first postulate of SR. The last three involve properties of light which are stated more directly in the second postulate of SR. Besides, the "14 postulates of SR" makes for an eye-catching title, don't you think?

Maybe, but some of your postulates are not postulates, like the "ideal" thingy, does not really make sense.
You say you want to take "all" the postulates of physics, that lead to SR and then you want to live in a world without any forces? I think not.

[Sam5]

Maybe some people here can help him with his wording and his definitions.

[grav]

Maybe, but some of your postulates are not postulates, like the "ideal" thingy, does not really make sense.

Yes, well, I see your point. I did have trouble at first determining which were postulates and which were actually definitions. Depending upon how they are taken, some can be considered postulates, laws, definitions, or something else. I started by tearing down the various aspects of the postulates of SR, but I suppose that doesn't make them all postulates in themselves, so due to this complication, hereafter I will just consider them all to be principles rather than postulates. Even a couple of Euclid's postulates might be taken more as definitions, I noticed. For instance, one says that a straight line can be drawn between any two points. But if we define a straight line to be the shortest distance between two points to begin with, then of course a straight line can be drawn between two points, so its no longer really a postulate.

The ideal conditions thing is somewhat two-fold. One part determines how we would normally work through predictions under ideal circumstances in the usual way in order to simplify the predicted outcome without including insignificant factors, but also based upon the assumption that there will be nothing unforeseen that affects an experiment in any significant way, nothing extraneous that would be contributed to the outcome, such as an aether or aether drag to explain the result of the M-M experiment, for example, if a more direct solution is available, or if the additional physics is considered unnecessary. Sort of "the simplest solution is the best solution" type of thing, reducing the results of experiments to their simplest terms. But you're right, I should probably try to find a better way to word it.

You say you want to take "all" the postulates of physics, that lead to SR and then you want to live in a world without any forces? I think not.

I want to take "only" the postulates of physics that lead directly to SR.

[grav]

Maybe some people here can help him with his wording and his definitions.

Yes please, thanks. I'm starting to feel a little self-conscious here.

[Sam5]

Yes please, thanks. I'm starting to feel a little self-conscious here.

I know the feeling.

I’ve been on the Baut board for the past 10 years, since the old days of dial-up, when it was known as the “Bad Astronomy” board, and when BA himself would answer questions every day, debate, and respond to people’s posts.

During the past year or so, I think the board has reached a new era. An era in which people can post their own ideas, hypotheses, and “theories”, and get some good responses and feedback from some of the most intelligent combination of scientists and professors in the world, as long as they aren’t promoting a crackpot theory.

I think this type of discussion helps people think, and reason, and find out where their ideas are right or not quite right. I think it especially helps out young students who aren’t yet completely familiar with all the standard wording of all the standard science theories.