Re: Gravity, relativity, and the nature of the hypothesis
Koobee Wublee
> Newton: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these
> properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It
> is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the
> laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for
> all the motions of celestial bodies."
>
> Einstein: "[Relativity] puts forward no specific hypothesis."
>
> And yet these two are different somehow...
Nonsense, both are merely models to describing the phenomena of
gravitation. <shrug>
Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.
Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
speculations which I have proudly discovered.
Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
relativity.
Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
mechanism to explain the null results of the MMX is the constancy in
the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity
holds or not.
Koobee Wublee: The Lorentz transform does not satisfy the principle
of relativity right from the very start besides the interpretations of
the null results of the MMX must always reference to the stationary
background of the Aether. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and talk about
General Relativity. I personally discovered the principle of
equivalence by picturing myself as that falling apple trapped in the
gravitational field.
Newton: That is very stupid. Gravity can only be characterized by
observing how an object would behave not through your experience.
Galileo: I had already discovered the principle of equivalence.
Einstein: I have personally discovered spacetime.
Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who wrote down all the equations of
the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then only
becomes very obvious from that on.
H. G. Wells: I don’t know if you have read my book “The Time
Traveler”. In it, I have already described time and space from into a
single entity.
Einstein: I am the one who suggested gravity as a curvature in
spacetime.
Riemann: I have already suggested that gravity is caused by curved
space. But since the mathematical concept of time and space forming
into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went
nowhere.
Koobee Wublee: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes,
but as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or
gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity. <shrug>
Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime. I personally
derived the field equations and beat Hilbert to it.
Hilbert: That is not true. <shrug>
Christoffel: I was the one who came up with the Christoffel symbols.
Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Christoffel, I was able to invent something
called the covariant derivative. By taking the double covariant
derivative of the spatial distance between two points in either space
or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-dimensional matrix now called
the Riemann curvature tensor.
Riemann: I just want to get this thing straight. Although I was the
first one to mathematically describe what the curvature of space is,
Riemann tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me.
Koobee Wublee: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the
connection coefficients in which now is called the Christoffel symbols
of the second kind, there is another arrangement.
Ricci: Ooops. There is another possible covariant derivative
different from what I have invented.
Levi-Civita: But who cares, as long as the metric is diagonal, they
are the same. I was able to reduce the 4-dimensional Riemann tensor
into a 2-dimensional matrix which is now called the Ricci tensor.
Koobee Wublee: You guys are just playing in the sand box. There are
four ways to arrange the connection coefficients in which Mr. Ricci’s
Riemann tensor is only one such possibilities. <shrug>
Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only
discussing the diagonal metric, all these variables of tensors should
be identical. So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor describes
gravity.
Hilbert: Well, it certainly would work in vacuum, thus the Laplace
equation. However, it does not explain the more general Poisson
equation. I had a better idea. I will throw in a square root of the
negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci scalar.
Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be stationary,
the result would be the set of field equations.
Koobee Wublee: But why the stationary condition to this action? How
did you come up with the square root thing?
Hilbert: <shrug>
Schwarzschild: Hey, look, guys. I have discovered the first solution
to the field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat.
Hilbert: That is great, Karl. Here is another such solution which is
now named after you, the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must
be total nonsense.
Einstein: Great. Now, I can claim sole proprietor of the field
equations.
Self-styled physicists: Do you see the Schwarzschild metric manifests
black holes? Wow!!!
Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not do such things.
Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since
the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate
system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same.
Koobee Wublee: The concept that the metric is the geometry is fatally
flawed. The mathematical description of the thing called the metric
alone is not enough to describe the invariant geometry. You need to
specify the choice of coordinate system. <shrug>
Grade school children: We can all understand what Koobee Wublee is
talking about.
College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs.
Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled
physicists.
Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for
ourselves.
Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no
understanding in, I have discovered by adding the Cosmological
constant to the field equations, I can halt the gravitational
collapse.
Poisson: Yeah, I thought about it too but dismissed it as stupid.
Self-styled physicists: What do you mean stupid?
Koobee Wublee: Suggesting negative mass density in vacuum is indeed
stupid. <shrug>
Self-styled physicists: But Cosmological constant deals with energy
not mass. So, you have negative energy. <shrug>
Einstein: Even I see the stupidity since E = m c^2. It is the
biggest blunder in my life. Well, my only blunder. I am indeed a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
I can see the audience at your play trowing rotten tomatoes.
And with considerable justification.
Dirk Van de moortel
a9357f61-70ba-406b...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com
> On Nov 16, 12:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Newton: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these
>> properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It
>> is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the
>> laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for
>> all the motions of celestial bodies."
>>
>> Einstein: "[Relativity] puts forward no specific hypothesis."
>>
>> And yet these two are different somehow...
>
> Nonsense, both are merely models to describing the phenomena of
> gravitation. <shrug>
An advanced course in Entirely Missing The Point And Making
A Giant Fool Of Oneself.
Brilliant.
Dirk Vdm
eric gisse
[...]
> I can see the audience at your play trowing rotten tomatoes.
> And with considerable justification.
If you ignore him he will go away.
Koobee Wublee
* * *
Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.
Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
assumptions which I have proudly speculated.
Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
relativity.
Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
mechanism to explain the null results of the MMX as the constancy in
the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity
holds or not.
Koobee Wublee: The Lorentz transform does not satisfy the principle
of relativity right from the very start besides the interpretations of
the null results of the MMX must always reference to the stationary
background of the Aether. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and talk about
General Relativity. I personally discovered the principle of
equivalence by picturing myself as that falling apple trapped in the
gravitational field.
Newton: That is very stupid. Gravity can only be characterized by
observing how an object would behave under the influence of
gravitation not through how you have experienced.
Galileo: Not only that, I had already discovered the principle of
equivalence.
Einstein: Well then, I have personally discovered spacetime.
Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who wrote down all the equations of
the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then only
becomes very obvious from then on.
H. G. Wells: I don’t know if you have read my book “The Time
Machine”. In it, I have already described time and space forming a
single entity in which a time traveler can travel from one set of time
and space to another.
Einstein: Oh, excuse me. I am the one who suggested gravity as a
curvature in spacetime.
Riemann: I have already suggested that gravity is caused by curved
space. But since the mathematical concept of time and space forming
into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went
nowhere.
Koobee Wublee: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes,
but as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or
gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity. <shrug>
Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime. I personally have
derived the field equations and beat Hilbert to it.
Hilbert: That is not true. <shrug>
Christoffel: I was the one who came up with the Christoffel symbols
not Einstein.
Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Mr. Christoffel, I was able to invent
something called the covariant derivative. By taking the double
covariant derivative of the spatial distance between two points in
either space or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-dimensional matrix
now called the Riemann curvature tensor.
Riemann: I just want to get this thing straight. Although I was the
first to mathematically describe what the curvature of space is, the
Riemann tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me.
Koobee Wublee: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the
connection coefficients in which now is called the Christoffel symbols
of the second kind, there is another arrangement. <shrug>
Grossmann: Yes, I have also noticed the other arrangement of the
connection coefficients that Koobee Wublee has brought up.
Ricci: Ooops. There is another possible covariant derivative
different from what I have invented. Hey, nobody is perfect. <shrug>
Levi-Civita: But who cares, as long as the metric is diagonal, they
are the same. I was able to reduce the 4-dimensional Riemann tensor
into a 2-dimensional matrix which is now called the Ricci tensor.
Koobee Wublee: You guys are just playing in the sand box. There are
four ways to arrange the connection coefficients in which Mr. Ricci’s
Riemann tensor is only one such possibilities. <shrug>
Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only
discussing the diagonal metric, all these tensors should be
identical. So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor would fully
describe gravitation.
Newton: <clearing his throat>
Hilbert: Well, it certainly would work in vacuum, thus the Laplace
equation. However, it does not explain the more general Poisson
equation. I have a better idea. I will throw in the square root of
the negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci scalar.
Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be stationary,
the result would be the set of field equations.
Koobee Wublee: But why the stationary condition to this action? How
did you come up with the square root thing?
Hilbert: I don't know that myself. <shrug>
Schwarzschild: Hey, look, guys. Having a metric with a determinant
of -1 would result in drastically simplified field equations. In
doing so, I have transformed the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate into one that would yield -1 to the determinant of its
metric. Thus, trivially, I have discovered the first solution to the
field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat.
Hilbert: That is great, Karl. Here is another such solution which is
now named after you, the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must
be total nonsense. I regret to get involved such deeply in this
fiasco.
Einstein: Great! Now, I can claim sole proprietorship to the field
equations.
Self-styled physicists: Wow, folks. Do you see the Schwarzschild
metric manifests black holes? We could get a lot of attention and
grant money to perpetuate our welfare by elaborating on these heavenly
objects created through mathemagical nonsense that we do not even
understand.
Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not do such things.
Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since
the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate
system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same.
<shrug>
Riemann: That is not what I have described of curved space. You guys
are just a whole bunch of clowns.
Koobee Wublee: To elaborate with Mr. Riemann, the concept that the
metric is the geometry is fatally flawed. The mathematical
description of the thing called the metric alone cannot possibly be
enough to describe the invariant geometry. You need to specify the
choice of coordinate system. Each set of coordinate system would
require another unique metric to describe the same, invariant
geometry. <shrug>
Hilbert: <applaud>
Grade school children: Even, we can all understand what Koobee Wublee
is talking about.
College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs.
Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled
physicists. Whatever they say must be correct despite we don't know
what they are saying.
Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for
ourselves without any poison from Einsteinian thinkings.
Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no
understanding of, I have discovered the Cosmological constant. By
adding the Cosmological constant to the field equations, I can halt
the gravitational collapse.
Poisson: Yeah, I thought about the negative mass density in vacuum
too but dismissed it as stupidity of the utmost.
Self-styled physicists: But Cosmological constant deals with energy
not mass. So, you have negative energy, and that is OK we think.
<shrug>
Einstein: Being no fucking good in any mathematics, even I see the
stupidity in the Cosmological constant since E = m c^2. My God, it
was the biggest blunder in my life. I am indeed a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
Self-styled physicists: Even if you Einstein are a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar, we would continue to worship you. In doing
so, we will continue to find the last drop of your fermented diarrhea
and lick it all up.
hanson: That is the spirit among the Einstein Dingleberries. Thanks
for the laughs, guys. Ahahahaha...
Androcles: kji94nm tdfji84m ajfj ...
Stockbaurd: Here is your check and your fortune cookie. This one
reads "Did you know that the IRS D-1 schedule (Capital Gains or
Losses) is the continuation of the D schedule???"
Wormley: Wow, that is nice to know.
Orwell: I told you so.
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
Androcles
Here is a more refined play.
* * *
Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.
Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
assumptions which I have proudly speculated.
Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
relativity.
Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
mechanism to explain the null results of the MMX as the constancy in
the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity
holds or not.
Isaac Newton:
What fuckin' "observed" speed of light?
Galileo Galilei: Yeah, I aska too. Whata observa speed ofa lighta?
Youa measure speed relativea toa sourcea, you get speed relative
to sourcea.
Inertial
> Koobee Wublee: The Lorentz transform does not satisfy the principle
> of relativity right from the very start
Wrong
> besides the interpretations of
> the null results of the MMX must always reference to the stationary
> background of the Aether. <shrug>
Wrong
You must be a high-school drop out who thinks he knows physics. Hilarious.
BURT
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Einstein was wrong to say the Gamma factor made everything work for
him. It did no such thing.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:a472bcd9-8ae1-4713...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yeup .. you're a moron alright
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein was a better scientist because of the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
What he said could be called 'aether' was space-time itself.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c5a6658f-8667-4e0b...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a472bcd9-8ae1-4713...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Nov 18, 12:30 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:cd8aa634-9ff8-4a24...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > Koobee Wublee: The Lorentz transform does not satisfy the principle
> >> >> > of relativity right from the very start
>
> >> >> Wrong
>
> >> >> > besides the interpretations of
> >> >> > the null results of the MMX must always reference to the stationary
> >> >> > background of the Aether. <shrug>
>
> >> >> Wrong
>
> >> >> You must be a high-school drop out who thinks he knows physics.
> >> >> Hilarious.
>
> >> > Einstein was wrong to say the Gamma factor made everything work for
> >> > him. It did no such thing.
>
> >> Yeup .. you're a moron alright- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Einstein was a better scientist because of the aether.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether is the flow of time and is immaterial.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
How can time 'flow' .. things only flow if they change position over time ..
gow cna time change position over time? It makes no sense. Time cannot
flow or have motion.
spudnik
of Minkowski's silly statement about phase-space;
died too young, to take it back!
Martin
1. Nothing exists;
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;
3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it
can't be communicated to others.
spudnik
of Russells sillygistic paradoxes, dood!
> 3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it
> can't be communicated to others.
--l'Ouvre!
http://wlym.com
Martin
Russel? Who cares about old BR?!
Gorgias lived 2400 years ago. Maybe Russel borrowed from him :)
BradGuth
This could go on and on, as a perpetual stupidity form of a
cosmological brain fart. Face it, China and their Drops/Dzopa wizards
discovered everything as of thousands of years before, possibly even
before we realized that we had a moon and a seasonal tilt.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Here is a more refined play.
>
> * * *
>
> Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
> does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.
>
> Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
> I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
> assumptions which I have proudly speculated.
>
> Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
> relativity.
>
> Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
> mechanism to explain the null results of the MMX as the constancy in
> the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity
> holds or not.
>
> Koobee Wublee: The Lorentz transform does not satisfy the principle
> of relativity right from the very start besides the interpretations of
> the null results of the MMX must always reference to the stationary
> background of the Aether. <shrug>
>
** BROWN-NOSING IS GOOD FOR THE KOSHER SOUL
** BEING A PARROT WITH A BROWN-NOSE IS EVEN BETTER
~ BG
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity is space flow with geometry. This is primary flow. God is
doing gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
he also made me realize that "silly" must be derived from syllogism;
apparently, he was completely fried by Godel's thing, although
Whitehead would not have been.
> Gorgias lived 2400 years ago. Maybe Russel borrowed from him :)
thus:
I have always meant to study difference equations, alas. anyway,
I never googol anything that I am dyscussing online,
particualry when using the googol front-end for Usenet
at some public terminal. I recently saw who owned altavista.com, but
I forgot, though I've used it, when needed.
> A new verb, "google," a synonym for search, has
thus:
the original poster had mentioned 754 and 854,
which latter I'd seen mentioned, somewhere on the IEEE website, but
I wasn't a member. anyway, 754 is an article in Computer (magazine),
from 1980; its implimentation is quite variable, I think.
anyone got a reference to link?
> The current IEEE 754 standard is IEEE 754-2008. Last year, not a
--l'Ouvre: www.wlym.com
Stop the second cap & trade rip-off;
install a tariff on imported oil -- dumb-*** "republicans R Them!"