I agree with David Hilbert, "Physics is too difficult for physicists"
Shubee
(1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b61f19ba40e7d06
(2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
of the isotropy of space and time.
http://axiom.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/Plone/Members/billpage/physics/berzi.pdf
Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding of
relativity. They need to abandon those two primitive and false
principles and adopt a logically correct foundation for spacetime:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Igor
> The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
Then show us one simple nonlinear transformation that doesn't generate
inertial forces.
> (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> of the isotropy of space and time.http://axiom.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/Plone/Members/billpage/physics/berzi...
So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
Shubee
> On Jun 15, 7:55 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> inertial forces.
The most general example is the simplest but only works for two
inertial frames of reference. That would be equation (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
An example of a nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation that works
for all inertial frames of reference would be the one given in
exercise 1 and 2 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
> > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
No; I'm saying that there are transformations that are perceived as
representing non-isotropic spacetimes but are physically
indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. The epsilon-Lorentz
transformation is the simplest example. The The epsilon-Lorentz
transformation is defined by equations (43) and (44) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
[snip whining]
What's the matter shooby, drop out of physics graduate school because
you couldn't hack it?
Do you have to call physicists stupid to preserve your huge ego?
Bill Hobba
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181908518.9...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b61f19ba40e7d06
Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
calculus.
> (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> of the isotropy of space and time.
> http://axiom.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/Plone/Members/billpage/physics/berzi.pdf
Not of isotropy - of the group postulate.
As usual you have zero idea what you are talking about.
>
> Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding of
> relativity.
Just as flat earth nuts think the rest of us are idiots.
> They need to abandon those two primitive and false
> principles and adopt a logically correct foundation for spacetime:
Like flat earth nuts you need psychiatric help - and soon
Bill
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
>
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181908518.9...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> calculus.
Garbage in. Garbage out. Anything can be proved with confused
definitions.
> > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> Not of isotropy - of the group postulate.
The set of epsilon-Lorentz transformations defined by equations (43)
and (44) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf forms a
mathematical group yet does not satisfy the reciprocity postulate.
Physicists routinely confuse the isotropic symmetry of transformations
with spacetime itself.
Shubee
Eric Gisse
[...]
Why did you flunk out of grad school, shooby?
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding
> > of relativity.
>
> Just as flat earth nuts think the rest of us are idiots.
Mathematicians are trained to think and prove theorems. Physicists are
trained to imitate chimpanzees and to obey the most dominant alpha
male.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
Says the guy who flunked out of physics grad school.
What'd you say to Rindler, shooby? You never expanded on that!
>
> Shubee
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b61f19ba40e7d06
>
> Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
> calculus.
Proof by chimpanzees waving their arms and even reaching a near
consensus is not a mathematical proof. In fact, the chimp reasoning
you cite and the physicists' inability to even listen to and respect
the opinions of mathematicians is the most obvious proof that
physicists are deeply confused.
So please try to contain your chimpanzee behavior for a moment and
consider what expert mathematicians have said.
"Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
Erlanger Program.
"Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.
"A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.
"The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré
group." (from Wekipedia).
The Lorentz group is isomorphic to the group of epsilon-Lorentz
transformations and Shubert's group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
transformations.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
So clearly, the published arguments of physicists are obviously wrong
when they insinuate that there is a geometric reason for accepting
Lorentz transformations and disallowing nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
transformations.
The only thing that I'm saying is that physicists need to abandon
their confused understanding of "all-at-once transformations" and
learn how to compute the invariants of the Lorentz group correctly.
Shubee
Igor
> On Jun 15, 10:48 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:55 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> > Then show us one simple nonlinear transformation that doesn't generate
> > inertial forces.
>
> The most general example is the simplest but only works for two
> An example of a nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation that works
> for all inertial frames of reference would be the one given in
> exercise 1 and 2 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
I don't think that you really understand the question. The problem is
that once you apply a nonlinear transformation, you always introduce
inertial forces so your frames are no longer inertial, and you step
outside the bounds of SR and into GR. I asked you to provide a
nonlinear transformation that doesn't do that. And you have not done
it. But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
> > > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> > So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
>
> No; I'm saying that there are transformations that are perceived as
> representing non-isotropic spacetimes but are physically
> indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. The epsilon-Lorentz
> transformation is the simplest example. The The epsilon-Lorentz
> transformation is defined by equations (43) and (44) ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Again, it sounds like you are confusing GR with SR.
Shubee
> > > On Jun 15, 7:55 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> > > Then show us one simple nonlinear transformation that doesn't generate
> > > inertial forces.
>
> > The most general example is the simplest but only works for two
> > inertial frames of reference. That would be equation (1) and (2)
> > An example of a nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation that works
> > for all inertial frames of reference would be the one given in
>
> I don't think that you really understand the question. The problem is
> that once you apply a nonlinear transformation, you always introduce
> inertial forces so your frames are no longer inertial, and you step
> outside the bounds of SR and into GR.
Your stated presupposition about nonlinear transformations, although
generally assumed by professional physicists to be unquestionably
true, is provably wrong.
> I asked you to provide a nonlinear transformation that
> doesn't do that. And you have not done it.
I have most certainly given you a precisely defined group of nonlinear
transformations, which is isomorphic to the Lorentz group. The problem
is that you don't know how to interpret it.
> But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
> else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
Isomorphic groups generate identical geometries and indistinguishable
physics. Don't you believe that? Is that nonsense to you? See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/3ad5b46369a7f8f1
It is obvious to me that you don't know how to compute the most
fundamental invariant of a spacetime transformation group.
> > > > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > > > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> > > So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
>
> > No; I'm saying that there are transformations that are perceived as
> > representing non-isotropic spacetimes but are physically
> > indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. The epsilon-Lorentz
> > transformation is the simplest example. The The epsilon-Lorentz
> > transformation is defined by equations (43) and (44) of
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Again, it sounds like you are confusing GR with SR.
If you could possibly identify what you don't understand about the
nonlinear equations (1) and (2) of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
, which describe inertial motion in the universe Xi_2, then the
confusion you speak of might be corrected.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
mike3
And do you need to make distasteful comments ("flames") to preserve
YOUR huge ego, instead of just posting a logical rebuttal?
mike3
> The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
>
> Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding of
> relativity. They need to abandon those two primitive and false
> principles and adopt a logically correct foundation for spacetime:
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
Hilbert's idea is interesting, but sorry, no sale, your
theory does not work.
Shubee
> On Jun 15, 5:55 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
> > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> > Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding of
> > relativity. They need to abandon those two primitive and false
> > principles and adopt a logically correct foundation for spacetime:
>
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > Shubee
>
> Hilbert's idea is interesting, but sorry, no sale, your
> theory does not work.
Do you have an informed, logical rebuttal that demonstrates a clear
understanding of the new definitions, concepts and mathematical
reasoning?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Denis Feldmann
rebuttal If you dont like flames, dont participate.
Eric Gisse
Logical rebuttal doesn't work - it has been tried.
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/7d699fc50668eb4c
>
> > > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> > Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
> > calculus.
>
> Proof by chimpanzees waving their arms and even reaching a near
> consensus is not a mathematical proof. In fact, the chimp reasoning
> you cite and the physicists' inability to even listen to and respect
> the opinions of mathematicians is the most obvious proof that
> physicists are deeply confused.
What a disgrace. Were you kicked out of graduate school or did you
leave on your own accord?
>
> So please try to contain your chimpanzee behavior for a moment and
> consider what expert mathematicians have said.
>
> "Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
> of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
> Erlanger Program.
>
> "Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
> transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
> space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.
>
> "A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
> everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
> group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.
You haven't studied the invariants of SR - you don't even know what
they are!
Anyway, your whining is irrelevant. In modern SR, the role of the
invariants is a central one. Furthermore, the group structure of
relativity has become central to physics - read about Lorentz
invariance.
Physics followed the heed of mathematicians but you have no idea
because you never studied physics at anything past a freshman level.
>
> "The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré
> group." (from Wekipedia).
This is wrong.
The Poincare group is the group of /all/ Lorentz transformations and
translations. Minkowski space is the subgroup of proper, orthochronus,
orthogonal Lorentz transformations - SO(3,1).
Why are you taking your cues from Wikipedia, shooby? Don't you have
any good physics texts?
>
> The Lorentz group is isomorphic to the group of epsilon-Lorentz
> transformations and Shubert's group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> transformations.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
You SAY it is but you haven't PROVEN it.
You were just talking about mathematical proofs - where is your
mathematical PROOF that that your nonlinear transformations are
isomorphic to the Lorentz group? PROOF, give us PROOF instead of
assertion.
>
> So clearly, the published arguments of physicists are obviously wrong
> when they insinuate that there is a geometric reason for accepting
> Lorentz transformations and disallowing nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> transformations.
Hey asshole - did you know it was Minkowski, a mathematician, who was
responsible for the modern version of SR? Did you know he was the one
who discovered SR's group structure?
>
> The only thing that I'm saying is that physicists need to abandon
> their confused understanding of "all-at-once transformations" and
> learn how to compute the invariants of the Lorentz group correctly.
Why don't you show us how to calculate the Lorentz group invariants?
>
> Shubee
Bilge
> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181908518.9...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
>> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
>> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>>
>> Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
>> calculus.
>
> Garbage in. Garbage out. Anything can be proved with confused
> definitions.
And that is exactly the point everyone is making about the garbage
you post.
bullnut
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181908518.9...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
> calculus.
but professor, if it is so easily provable even by first year
calculus, please
do the short derivations here so we can see and learn
>
> > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > of the isotropy of space and time.
> >http://axiom.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/Plone/Members/billpage/physics/berzi...
Igor
> > > On Jun 15, 10:48 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 15, 7:55 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > > > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>
> > > > Then show us one simple nonlinear transformation that doesn't generate
> > > > inertial forces.
>
> > > The most general example is the simplest but only works for two
> > > inertial frames of reference. That would be equation (1) and (2)
> > > An example of a nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation that works
> > > for all inertial frames of reference would be the one given in
>
> > I don't think that you really understand the question. The problem is
> > that once you apply a nonlinear transformation, you always introduce
> > inertial forces so your frames are no longer inertial, and you step
> > outside the bounds of SR and into GR.
>
> Your stated presupposition about nonlinear transformations, although
> generally assumed by professional physicists to be unquestionably
> true, is provably wrong.
The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel symbols
vanish everywhere in an inertial frame. They also transform in a non-
homogeneous fashion from frame to frame. The only transformations
that allow them to transform homogeneously are affine or linear
transformations. Thus, the only set of transformations that allow you
to have zero Christoffel symbols under transformation are linear
transformations. There's certainly nothing wrong with having nonzero
Christoffel symbols, but then, you take yourself out of the very
context of SR and into GR.
The bottom line is that there are no nonlinear transformations, not
even your's, that can maintain the inertial frames necessary for SR.
> > I asked you to provide a nonlinear transformation that
> > doesn't do that. And you have not done it.
>
> I have most certainly given you a precisely defined group of nonlinear
> transformations, which is isomorphic to the Lorentz group. The problem
> is that you don't know how to interpret it.
What are the Christoffel symbols associated with your transformation?
Please evaluate them. Once you do that, you'll see just how silly
your entire argument has been. That is, if you even understand what a
Christoffel symbol is and how to apply it.
> > But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
> > else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
>
> Isomorphic groups generate identical geometries and indistinguishable
> physics. Don't you believe that?
No, I don't necessarily believe that. A prime example is the physical
content of the isomorphic groups SO(3) and SU(2) as they relate to
angular momentum. One supports half integer spin, the other one
doesn't. So you have to be careful of how you interpret your
results.
>Is that nonsense to you? Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/3ad5b46369a7f8f1
> It is obvious to me that you don't know how to compute the most
> fundamental invariant of a spacetime transformation group.
Invariance is fine, and if it was all that SR was based on, you might
actually have a leg to stand on. But, as it is, you don't.
> > > > > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > > > > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> > > > So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
>
> > > No; I'm saying that there are transformations that are perceived as
> > > representing non-isotropic spacetimes but are physically
> > > indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. The epsilon-Lorentz
> > > transformation is the simplest example. The The epsilon-Lorentz
> > > transformation is defined by equations (43) and (44) of
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > Again, it sounds like you are confusing GR with SR.
>
> If you could possibly identify what you don't understand about the
> nonlinear equations (1) and (2) ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> , which describe inertial motion in the universe Xi_2, then the
> confusion you speak of might be corrected.
>
And if you could possibly generate the Christoffel symbols associated
with your nonlinear transformation and see that they are not zero, you
might actually learn something.
Bill Hobba
> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181908518.9...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
>> > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
>> > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
>>
>> Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
>> calculus.
>
> Garbage in. Garbage out. Anything can be proved with confused
> definitions.
Yea - the same as flat earth nuts say about the rest of us.
>
>> > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
>> > of the isotropy of space and time.
>>
>> Not of isotropy - of the group postulate.
>
> The set of epsilon-Lorentz transformations defined by equations (43)
> and (44) of
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf forms a
> mathematical group yet does not satisfy the reciprocity postulate.
So, by definition, the fact each element of a group has an inverse, does not
imply 'reciprocity'? Now I wonder who is using crazy definitions?
> Physicists routinely confuse the isotropic symmetry of transformations
> with spacetime itself.
No they don't. Unlike you they can tell the difference between something
(space-time) and a property it has (the transformations of the
representations of events in different inertial frames forms a group).
Bill
>
> Shubee
>
>
Bill Hobba
> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding
>> > of relativity.
>>
>> Just as flat earth nuts think the rest of us are idiots.
>
> Mathematicians are trained to think and prove theorems.
Correct.
> Physicists are
> trained to imitate chimpanzees and to obey the most dominant alpha
> male.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf
Incorrect. However such a view is a symptom of extreme envy.
Bill
>
> Shubee
>
Lester Zick
wrote:
>
>"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1181965434.6...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> > Primates and physicists do not have a proper understanding
>>> > of relativity.
>>>
>>> Just as flat earth nuts think the rest of us are idiots.
>>
>> Mathematicians are trained to think and prove theorems.
>
>Correct.
They just aren't trained to think and prove theorems true.
~v~~
Eric Gisse
Christoffel symbols are, loosely speaking, junk picked up from
parallel-transporting a vector along a path. They only exist in pseudo-
Riemannian geometry. He has no manifold - he has results from at least
3 non-isomorphic geometries running around in his paper depending on
the [arbitrary] choice of the constant k - the Euclid [rotation
group], Galilei [c-->\infty], and Lorentz [c finite, nonzero] groups.
You are thinking too hard - these are concepts shooby will NOT
understand. It doesn't matter if you really do prove it with first
year calculus - he will not accept the answer. He doesn't understand
what is important in SR, and he has zero understanding of GR.
>
> The bottom line is that there are no nonlinear transformations, not
> even your's, that can maintain the inertial frames necessary for SR.
>
> > > I asked you to provide a nonlinear transformation that
> > > doesn't do that. And you have not done it.
>
> > I have most certainly given you a precisely defined group of nonlinear
> > transformations, which is isomorphic to the Lorentz group. The problem
> > is that you don't know how to interpret it.
>
> What are the Christoffel symbols associated with your transformation?
> Please evaluate them. Once you do that, you'll see just how silly
> your entire argument has been. That is, if you even understand what a
> Christoffel symbol is and how to apply it.
Dude, -thinking too hard-.
Ask him for something smaller and watch him fail to deliver on that.
How about....the invariants associated with SR? Or a treatment of
energy/momentum? Or _SOME_ reference to physics?
I have been asking for months and he still hasn't done any of that. He
claimed he did energy/momentum, and was going to "write it up".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/94038e97d9ba2f02?dmode=source
>
> > > But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
> > > else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
>
> > Isomorphic groups generate identical geometries and indistinguishable
> > physics. Don't you believe that?
>
> No, I don't necessarily believe that. A prime example is the physical
> content of the isomorphic groups SO(3) and SU(2) as they relate to
> angular momentum. One supports half integer spin, the other one
> doesn't. So you have to be careful of how you interpret your
> results.
But SO(3) and SU(2) aren't isomorphic...?
What he is leading to is his /assumption/ that his nonlinear
transformations are equivalent and indistinguishable from the Lorentz
group. I have told him it was incorrect and requested his proof - he
has yet to provide anything other than assertion.
>
> >Is that nonsense to you? Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/3ad5b46369a7f8f1
> > It is obvious to me that you don't know how to compute the most
> > fundamental invariant of a spacetime transformation group.
>
> Invariance is fine, and if it was all that SR was based on, you might
> actually have a leg to stand on. But, as it is, you don't.
He has yet to even talk about the invariants of SR, but that doesn't
stop him from talking about how important invariants are.
[...]
Shubee
Christoffel symbols are associated with a metric. No metric structure
has been assumed in the counterexample I offered. Since the nonlinear
transformation I gave you is defined with an arbitrary function that
need not be differentiable or even continuous at any point, I doubt
that a metric structure as you perceive it even exists.
> Please evaluate them. Once you do that, you'll see just how silly
> your entire argument has been. That is, if you even understand what a
> Christoffel symbol is and how to apply it.
If you think that you can attach a metric structure and Christoffel
symbols to a group of nowhere differentiable functions, I'd like to
see your definition.
> > > But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
> > > else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
>
> > Isomorphic groups generate identical geometries and indistinguishable
> > physics. Don't you believe that?
>
> No, I don't necessarily believe that. A prime example is the physical
> content of the isomorphic groups SO(3) and SU(2) as they relate to
> angular momentum. One supports half integer spin, the other one
> doesn't. So you have to be careful of how you interpret your
> results.
The groups SO(3) and SU(2) are very similar and are indeed
indistinguishable locally but they are not isomorphic.
> >Is that nonsense to you? Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/3ad5b46369a7f8f1
> > It is obvious to me that you don't know how to compute the most
> > fundamental invariant of a spacetime transformation group.
>
> Invariance is fine, and if it was all that SR was based on, you might
> actually have a leg to stand on. But, as it is, you don't.
>
> > > > > > (2) The reciprocity principle of special relativity is a consequence
> > > > > > of the isotropy of space and time.
>
> > > > > So are you saying spacetime is not isotropic in SR?
>
> > > > No; I'm saying that there are transformations that are perceived as
> > > > representing non-isotropic spacetimes but are physically
> > > > indistinguishable from the Lorentz transformation. The epsilon-Lorentz
> > > > transformation is the simplest example. The The epsilon-Lorentz
> > > > transformation is defined by equations (43) and (44) of
> > > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > Again, it sounds like you are confusing GR with SR.
>
> > If you could possibly identify what you don't understand about the
> > nonlinear equations (1) and (2) ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > , which describe inertial motion in the universe Xi_2, then the
> > confusion you speak of might be corrected.
>
> And if you could possibly generate the Christoffel symbols associated
> with your nonlinear transformation and see that they are not zero, you
> might actually learn something.
You are insisting on nonsense. Thanks for demonstrating the
correctness of Hilbert's statement ("Physics is too difficult for
physicists") and for manifesting total confusion, misunderstanding and
the inability to grasp a simple set of axioms which nowhere
presupposes anything about the existence of a spacetime metric.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> has been assumed in the counterexample I offered. Since the nonlinear
> transformation I gave you is defined with an arbitrary function that
> need not be differentiable or even continuous at any point, I doubt
> that a metric structure as you perceive it even exists.
But shooby, you repeatedly claim that your nonlinear transformations
are equivalent in every way to the Lorentz group!
If that is true, you have a metric.
[...]
Shubee
Here's the difference between a mathematician and a physicist. A
physicist would assume that my nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
transformation is differentiable. He would do the substitution for dx'
and dt' and then insert the differentials into the invariant
(c^2)dt'^2 - dx'^2. I figure that most physicists would be finished
computing the Christoffel symbols for the derived metric in about a
week. If they do all the computations correctly and can solve the
geodesic equation, they will see that dx'/ds = a constant. It takes
just seconds for a mathematician to reach the same conclusion with
equations (1) and (2) of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > The set of epsilon-Lorentz transformations defined by equations
> > (43) and (44) of
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfforms a
> > mathematical group yet does not satisfy the reciprocity postulate.
>
> So, by definition, the fact each element of a group has an inverse,
> does not imply 'reciprocity'?
That is exactly correct. Furthermore, the definition of 'the
reciprocity principle' by physicists and physicists believing this
'principle' to be a law of physics demonstrates their confusion and
inability to distinguish between a true law of physics and a
coordinate-dependent, non-invariant quantity.
http://axiom.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/Plone/Members/billpage/physics/berzi.pdf
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 17, 3:43 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 2:31 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Christoffel symbols are associated with a metric. No metric structure
> > > has been assumed in the counterexample I offered. Since the nonlinear
> > > transformation I gave you is defined with an arbitrary function that
> > > need not be differentiable or even continuous at any point, I doubt
> > > that a metric structure as you perceive it even exists.
>
> > But shooby, you repeatedly claim that your nonlinear transformations
> > are equivalent in every way to the Lorentz group!
>
> > If that is true, you have a metric.
>
> > [...]
>
> Here's the difference between a mathematician and a physicist.
[...]
You are neither.
Shubee
> The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
That is plainly incorrect. Inertial motion definitely exists in an
accelerated rocket.
To find the inertial equations of motion for the obvious case of
geodesic motion in an accelerating rocket, the metric of choice is the
Rindler metric:
(1+gz)dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
If you calculate the Riemann Curvature tensor and the Christoffel
symbols for this metric, you'll find the Riemann tensor is zero and
the Christoffel symbols are not.
> There's certainly nothing wrong with having nonzero
> Christoffel symbols, but then, you take yourself out
> of the very context of SR and into GR.
Nonsense. It's very easy to have non-vanishing Christoffel symbols in
flat spacetime.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 17, 10:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> > symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
>
> That is plainly incorrect. Inertial motion definitely exists in an
> accelerated rocket.
Wrong.
Review the definition of "nertial".
[...]
Shubee
To build such a rocket, start with a very long tube, open at the top
and bottom, and add thrusters to the outside of it. Let the rocket
accelerate along the z-axis of an "inertial frame of reference."
Objects at rest in this inertial frame of reference are moving,
indisputably, under their own inertia without any external forces
being applied to them. Now do the calculations in rocket coordinates.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Still wrong.
Accelerated frames, by definition, are NOT INERTIAL.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
I did not say that accelerated frames are inertial frames. I said
inertial motion definitely exists in an accelerated rocket. Didn't I
also say that it's very easy to have non-vanishing Christoffel symbols
in flat spacetime? Why is this utter triviality so difficult for you
to understand? You must be a physicist.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Still wrong.
Inertial motion cannot exist in an accelerated frame.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
It's easy to insist on definitions that protect the errors of
glaringly inept conclusions.
To refute my first proposition in my opening post, you are required to
prove that my group of nonlinear transformations between inertial
frames of reference disturbs the homogeneity of space and time. I
don't believe that you can do that by presupposing a definition of
inertial motion that can't be derived from the inherent meaning and
the physics of the given inertial frames of the Lorentz group. My
group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations is isomorphic to
the Lorentz group. It should therefore be physically indistinguishable
from the Lorentz group.
Inertial motion clearly exists in a spacetime where the Riemann
Curvature tensor is zero, and in a frame where only the spatial
components of the Christoffel symbols are zero, but where the time
components of the Christoffel symbols are not zero.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Igor
So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
> > Please evaluate them. Once you do that, you'll see just how silly
> > your entire argument has been. That is, if you even understand what a
> > Christoffel symbol is and how to apply it.
>
> If you think that you can attach a metric structure and Christoffel
> symbols to a group of nowhere differentiable functions, I'd like to
> see your definition.
That's your problem. I didn't construct them. You did.
> > > > But then, I know you don't understand what I am talking about,
> > > > else you wouldn't have responded with all that nonsense.
>
> > > Isomorphic groups generate identical geometries and indistinguishable
> > > physics. Don't you believe that?
>
> > No, I don't necessarily believe that. A prime example is the physical
> > content of the isomorphic groups SO(3) and SU(2) as they relate to
> > angular momentum. One supports half integer spin, the other one
> > doesn't. So you have to be careful of how you interpret your
> > results.
>
> The groups SO(3) and SU(2) are very similar and are indeed
> indistinguishable locally but they are not isomorphic.
>
Depends on what you mean by isometric. SU(2) covers SO(3) and that's
sufficient for what I was talking about.
Then you're not even anywhere near SR. SR has a well-defined metric
everywhere. If you don't understand that. that's your problem.
Igor
> On Jun 17, 10:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> > symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
>
> That is plainly incorrect. Inertial motion definitely exists in an
> accelerated rocket.
No it doesn't. There will be inertial forces acting on test bodies
inside the rocket.
> To find the inertial equations of motion for the obvious case of
> geodesic motion in an accelerating rocket, the metric of choice is the
> Rindler metric:
>
> (1+gz)dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> If you calculate the Riemann Curvature tensor and the Christoffel
> symbols for this metric, you'll find the Riemann tensor is zero and
> the Christoffel symbols are not.
An elementary exercise that proves absolutely nothing related to what
I was talking about.
> > There's certainly nothing wrong with having nonzero
> > Christoffel symbols, but then, you take yourself out
> > of the very context of SR and into GR.
>
> Nonsense. It's very easy to have non-vanishing Christoffel symbols in
> flat spacetime.
>
Nobody said you couldn't. But there's a big difference between flat
spacetime and inertial frames. I can have a noninertial frame in a
flat spacetime. A simple rotating frame in flat spacetime kills your
whole premise.
Igor
You're forever hopeless. You seem to know a bit of math, but are
tremendously clueless about real elementary physics. Math does not
dictate to physics. It's used only as a tool, and then only after
certain fundamental physical principles independent of the math are
clearly understood. You must have been out sick that particular day.
However it happened, you lack the fundamental physical principles
necessary prior to applying the math. Good luck in your ignorance,
and hopefully it can be cured.
Michael Press
<1182184829.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
,
Igor <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
> So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
There is no metric in SR.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
--
Michael Press
Eric Gisse
> In article
> <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> ,
>
> Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
>
> There is no metric in SR.
Wrong.
www.google.com "Minkowski metric"
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
Did you even read it? Look near the bottom.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
stuff
e.g.) is completely lacking.
as for Minkowski, he died too young to give any ultimatum
upon phase-spaces; eh?
what would the recent/alleged proof of Poincare's conjecture say
about this, if true?
> > > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b61f19ba40...
> The Poincare group is the group of /all/ Lorentz transformations and
> translations. Minkowski space is the subgroup of proper, orthochronus,
> orthogonal Lorentz transformations - SO(3,1).
> > The Lorentz group is isomorphic to the group of epsilon-Lorentz
> > transformations and Shubert's group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> > transformations.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfhttp://www.e...
>
> You SAY it is but you haven't PROVEN it.
> > The only thing that I'm saying is that physicists need to abandon
> > their confused understanding of "all-at-once transformations" and
> > learn how to compute the invariants of the Lorentz group correctly.
>
> Why don't you show us how to calculate the Lorentz group invariants?
anyone recall this?...
mine is a lot simpler & analogous
to the trilateral ineq.
(we uncovered this in a Buckafka Fullofit maillist,
which has since been made more private;
one of the correspondents spent some hours
to derive it by programming,
which was kinda strange .-)
I am still not sure,
how many sets of the the basic tetrahedral inequality,
it has to satisfy, but probably six.
> No, but I think there's a recent thread about it here.
thus:
subclinical aperger's ...
uncontrollably swearing sotto voce, or
just always thinking like that?...
would you buy a used Delorean from JS,
two, to cancel that thread?
> which include the words: "In the future, Humanity will see in our
> Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially associated with the
> names of Marx, Freud and Einstein.. in which the last seven
> decades of the 20th century will be characterized in history as the
> dark ages of physics, which cannot be based on the field concept"
> (the latter part & view is by Einstein himself, some 25 years later)
thus:
ah, this looks like a good exercise
for comprehending "absolute value" function,
as well as of the trilateral inequality....
> | x - y | >= | |x| - |y| |
> means these two things:
> | x - y | >= |x| - |y|
> | x - y | >= |y| - |x|
thus:
according to _17 Essays on the Fermat Numbers_
from the SMC, Fermat retracted this conjecture
in a letter to Frenecle (sp.?).
> false. Fermat numbers are of the form 2^2^n+1 and the
thus:
in Sudan, Iran and possibly all other once and
future British quagmires.... Belize, Canada, Trinidad
AND Tobago; when we get there,
be sure to ask if it's more than one country, and
did we miss Trinidad andOR Tobago?
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_s
tudy_says_oil_reliance_strains_military?mode=PF
thus:
look, up in the sky -- it's Googoltude (TM) ?!?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
--n~nerfman~n!
Shubee
Your lack of appreciation for clear thinking in relativity reminds me
of the time I shared my discovery of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
transformations with Wolfgang Rindler. It was about 11 years ago. The
professor's attitude was that my discovery was obvious and
uninteresting and therefore not worthy of being published, even though
there are many physicists that are totally confused by the subject. My
strongest recollection of Rindler's reaction is that all physics
journals should only publish on important theories and that all
physicists who couldn't figure out the meaning of a nonlinear version
of the Lorentz transformation are insufferably stupid and that no time
should be devoted to try to educate them.
So while you may believe that your opinion is valid and representative
of the expertise of a professional relativist, I think you've made it
clear that you are one of those mediocre to average physicists that
are confused about simple things.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
[snip historical hilarity]
hahah
Rindler called you stupid.
>
> So while you may believe that your opinion is valid and representative
> of the expertise of a professional relativist, I think you've made it
> clear that you are one of those mediocre to average physicists that
> are confused about simple things.
Is this how you have rationalized your failure, shooby? By projecting
_YOUR_ fuckups upon every other professional physicist in existence?
Just because you flunked out [or were you kicked out?] of grad school,
does not mean everyone else is equally worthless.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 18, 8:40 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip historical hilarity]
>
> hahah
>
> Rindler called you stupid.
No. Rindler called everyone who disagreed with my theorem stupid.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/595a46d99fa75e34
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Igor
> In article
> <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> ,
>
Igor
> In article
> <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> ,
>
> > So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
>
> There is no metric in SR.
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
>
> --
> Michael Press
What is this then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold
The only difference is that in GR, it can be locally constant, while
in SR it's globally constant.
Igor
I just love it when the confused call me confused.
Shubee
Do you think that you're more knowledgeable about relativity than
Wolfgang Rindler?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Igor
No, probably not, but when YOU say that an inertial frame is
equivalent to a flat spacetime, I have to really wonder about you.
mark...@yahoo.com
> > "The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré
> > group." (from Wekipedia).
>
> This is wrong.
Actually, this is correct. It's a more or less standard prescription
for extracting a geometry from its transformation group. In the case
at hand, Minkowski space is extracted as the quotient of the Poincare'
group and the homogeneous part of the group (the Lorentz group).
> The Poincare group is the group of /all/ Lorentz transformations and
> translations. Minkowski space is the subgroup of proper, orthochronus,
> orthogonal Lorentz transformations - SO(3,1).
You had the right idea, but this is backwards. It should read that
Minkowski space is what is *acted on* by the Lorentz group. It is not
the Lorentz group, itself. In fact, topologically, the Lorentz group
is just PS_3 x R^3 (PS_3 is the projective 3-sphere, effectively: S_3/
Z_2). Poincare' is PS_3 x R^7, so that it is an R^4 bundle over
Lorentz. Euclidean bundles are always trivial, therefore Poincare'
factors into (Poincare' = Lorentz x R^4). The R^4 part gives you
Minkowski space.
> Why are you taking your cues from Wikipedia, shooby? Don't you have
> any good physics texts?
> You were just talking about mathematical proofs - where is your
> mathematical PROOF that that your nonlinear transformations are
> isomorphic to the Lorentz group? PROOF, give us PROOF instead of
> assertion.
Actually, this is a more or less standard result that goes back, I
think, to the 1960's. It is known that the most general transformation
that preserves the light cone structure is a combination of a
Poincare' transformation and a global change of scale. This is closely
connected with the fact (first discovered by A.A. Robb in the 1910's)
that one can reconstruct the entire structure of Minkowski geometry
solely from the temporal logic of the "before-after" relation (where
before-after is taken in the sense of timelike/lightlike
connectivity). In the 1960's this was extended to a construction of
Minkowski geometry from the lightlike connectivity relation, alone.
(For instance, there exists a rather complicated definition of
congruence stated solely in terms of the primitive "is lightlike
separated from"; and even a definition of angles and orthogonality
constructued in a similar fashion).
Given the ability to reconstruct the geometry from the light cone
structure (particularly including a notion of congruence and
orthogonality), this forces the issue: any light-cone preserving
transformation has to preserve congruence relations and orthogonality.
This makes it, in the most general case, a combination of an isometry,
a time reversal, a parity reversal and global change of scale.
In contrast, going from A.A. Robb's "before-after" primitive, one has
all the above, except time-reversal, since time orientation is already
encoded in the before-after relation. For the more general
construction from light-like intervals, one has to select out a pair
of events at light-like separation and designate one as the "before"
and the other as the "after". The two choices correspond to the time-
reversal operation.
If one allows the light-cone transformations to be singular (i.e. for
the light cone at infinity to be transformable to/from ordinary light
cones), then the above result extends to include also the conformal
transformations.
Don Stockbauer
I agree with David Hilbert, "Physics is too difficult for physicists"
**************
Self-evident. As judged by these endless discussions. Needs a few
general systems thinkers.
Bill Hobba
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182128365.1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 8:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > The set of epsilon-Lorentz transformations defined by equations
>> > (43) and (44) of
>> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfforms a
>> > mathematical group yet does not satisfy the reciprocity postulate.
>>
>> So, by definition, the fact each element of a group has an inverse,
>> does not imply 'reciprocity'?
>
> That is exactly correct. Furthermore, the definition of 'the
> reciprocity principle' by physicists and physicists believing this
> 'principle' to be a law of physics
They do not believe it to be a law of physics - it is however required to
have a reasonable physical interpretation in many cases eg if you go to a
third frame in SR frame then T1-2*T2-3 = T1-3 or you will have physical
nonsense. That is not to say it is not possible - it is just so counter to
the experience of an objective 'reality' (I really hate using such terms
because it carries so much philosophical baggage that armchair philosophy
types pounce on it - but can not think of a better term) independent of
frames few would doubt it. Nor is its use confined to physics - I recently
saw a proof of the Erodos, Feller, Pollard theorem that implicitly made use
of it. It examines ensembles starting at different points in time and made
use of the group property in transforming between ensembles. Thanks to Tom
Roberts for pointing out how pervasive it is to physics - it is pervasive
through mathematics as well.
Bill
Androcles
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182287066.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Despite all that verbal diarrhoea, the time for light to travel from A to B
does NOT equal the time it takes for light to travel from B to A no matter
how Einstein defines it or Minkowski plays with it. You are spewing
nonsense.
Common sense and empirical data is too difficult for fuckheads.
Shubee
[Plagiarism snipped].
[Tired old refrain snipped]. (Get a new song).
> Common sense and empirical data is too difficult for fuckheads.
Your self-portrait is incomplete. You should also demonstrate your
inability to do high school algebra.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 18, 12:35 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> > > symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
>
> > That is plainly incorrect. Inertial motion definitely exists in an
> > accelerated rocket.
>
> No it doesn't. There will be inertial forces acting on test bodies
> inside the rocket.
>
> > To find the inertial equations of motion for the obvious case of
> > geodesic motion in an accelerating rocket, the metric of choice is the
> > Rindler metric:
>
> > (1+gz)dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> > If you calculate the Riemann Curvature tensor and the Christoffel
> > symbols for this metric, you'll find the Riemann tensor is zero and
> > the Christoffel symbols are not.
>
> An elementary exercise that proves absolutely nothing related to what
> I was talking about.
>
> > > There's certainly nothing wrong with having nonzero
> > > Christoffel symbols, but then, you take yourself out
> > > of the very context of SR and into GR.
>
> > Nonsense. It's very easy to have non-vanishing Christoffel symbols in
> > flat spacetime.
>
I'm amused by your presumptuous assertion that you have annihilated my
proper definition of an inertial frame of reference before I have even
stated my definition of it.
It's nonsensical to define an inertial frame of reference by requiring
Christoffel symbols to vanish because such a definition is not
invariant, as I have demonstrated. One obvious, invariant and proper
definition of an inertial frame of reference would be an extended body
of points that satisfy the geodesic equation for each point. Nearby
geodesics would also be required to have zero geodesic deviation but
this constraint would disappear in flat space as the Riemann curvature
tensor is zero so the geodesic deviation equation says nothing in this
instance.
I honestly don't know what the tensorial equations are to require
rigid motion for a body of points in pseudo-Riemannian space. Provided
that these equations are known, add that constraint to my other
equations and that's my definition of an inertial frame of reference.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Michael Press
<1182271130.0...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
,
Igor <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> >
> > Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
> >
> > There is no metric in SR.
> > <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
>
>
> What is this then:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold
>
> The only difference is that in GR, it can be locally constant, while
> in SR it's globally constant.
Did you read the definition of metric, d(x,y)?
d(x,y) >= 0.
d(x,y) = 0 -> x = y.
--
Michael Press
Androcles
: On Jun 20, 3:45 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
Despite all that verbal diarrhoea, the time for light to travel from A to B
does NOT equal the time it takes for light to travel from B to A no matter
how Einstein defines it or Minkowski plays with it. You are spewing
nonsense.
Common sense and empirical data is too difficult for fuckheads.
[deliberate wilful ignorance snipped].
Fuck off until you can reason, shithead.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> I honestly don't know what the tensorial equations are to require
> rigid motion for a body of points in pseudo-Riemannian space. Provided
> that these equations are known, add that constraint to my other
> equations and that's my definition of an inertial frame of reference.
Rigid motion is incompatible with relativity.
No wonder you dropped out of grad school.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> ,
Michael,
The word metric isn't always a reference to a metric space. Often,
"metric" is short for "metric tensor," which is related to a metric as
you understand it. A Riemannian manifold is a special kind of metric
space and the metric tensor is a special multilinear function of
vectors that determines distances in a special way. The problem is
that a pseudo-Riemannian manifold is not a metric space but has a
structure so similar to an ordinary Riemannian manifold that much of
the same language is used. It's simply practical to use identical
terminology because the two structures are very similar.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
jem
Using your own definition for a commonly used term isn't a very good
idea, Shooby, particularly when you can't even state your own
definition. :)
Bilge
> In article
><1182271130.0...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> Igor <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 18, 11:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
>> > ,
>> >
>> > Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>> > > So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
>> >
>> > There is no metric in SR.
>> > <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
>>
>>
>> What is this then:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold
>>
>> The only difference is that in GR, it can be locally constant, while
>> in SR it's globally constant.
>
> Did you read the definition of metric, d(x,y)?
> d(x,y) >= 0.
> d(x,y) = 0 -> x = y.
Here in physics land, distinguishing between a metric and pseudometric
is pointless, since we only have this universe to worry about. While this
might tic mathematicians off, the usage of the term ``metric'' to mean
the pseudometric of minkowski space, is ubiquitous in the physics
literature. Quite honestly, I would think picking this up from context
would not be that difficult.
Shubee
> On Jun 20, 8:31 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I honestly don't know what the tensorial equations are to require
> > rigid motion for a body of points in pseudo-Riemannian space. Provided
> > that these equations are known, add that constraint to my other
> > equations and that's my definition of an inertial frame of reference.
>
> Rigid motion is incompatible with relativity.
The problem with chimpanzees trying to learn physics is that they are
all provably confused by physics at the high school level but believe
the myth that they are on the verge of understanding "the theory of
everything."
"Born rigidity" in special relativity is a very elementary concept.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/25/6B/001
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
zzbu...@netscape.net
> ,
>
>
>
>
>
> Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 11:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1182184829.397410.308...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
>
> > > Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > So you're saying there's no metric in SR?
>
> > > There is no metric in SR.
> > > <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29>
>
> > What is this then:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold
>
> > The only difference is that in GR, it can be locally constant, while
> > in SR it's globally constant.
>
> Did you read the definition of metric, d(x,y)?
> d(x,y) >= 0.
> d(x,y) = 0 -> x = y.
Many people have read that, since it's not a metric, as mathema-
crapheads are told all the time.
It's Algebraic Geometry for you Erdo^s wannabees.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shubee
You don't understand my dispute with Igor <thoov...@excite.com>. I
have asserted that professional physicists misunderstand physics at
the high school level. Incredulous Igor insisted that I answer his
rebuttal by translating the elementary physics that I'm talking about
into the language of tensor calculus. Evidently, the high and mighty
are far too exalted to debase themselves with the most relevant and
easy to understand language to see their mistakes. The problem is Igor
plainly demonstrated that his definition of an inertial frame of
reference, i.e., the vanishing of Christoffel symbols, is not
invariant. Frankly, I don't believe that anyone has published a
definition of an inertial frame of reference in terms of tensorial
equations. At least I was moving in the right direction.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Jun 15, 7:23 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > The two primitive assumptions of modern chimpanzee relativity are:
> > > (1) Nonlinear transformations between inertial frames of reference
> > > disturb the homogeneity of space and time.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b61f19ba40...
>
> > Hey Mr Mathematician this is rigourously proveable using first year
> > calculus.
>
> Proof by chimpanzees waving their arms and even reaching a near
> consensus is not a mathematical proof. In fact, the chimp reasoning
> you cite and the physicists' inability to even listen to and respect
> the opinions of mathematicians is the most obvious proof that
> physicists are deeply confused.
>
> So please try to contain your chimpanzee behavior for a moment and
> consider what expert mathematicians have said.
>
> "Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
> of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
> Erlanger Program.
>
> "Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
> transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
> space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.
>
> "A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
> everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
> group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.
>
> "The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré
> group." (from Wekipedia).
>
> transformations and Shubert's group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
>
> So clearly, the published arguments of physicists are obviously wrong
> when they insinuate that there is a geometric reason for accepting
> Lorentz transformations and disallowing nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> transformations.
The reason is quite simple. Since the Lorentz' linear
transformation
is based on Maxwell's transformation. And the non-linear
transformations are based on math shitheads seriously
confused notion of Hamiltonians.
>
> The only thing that I'm saying is that physicists need to abandon
> their confused understanding of "all-at-once transformations" and
> learn how to compute the invariants of the Lorentz group correctly.
>
> Shubee
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
>
> > So clearly, the published arguments of physicists are obviously wrong
> > when they insinuate that there is a geometric reason for accepting
> > Lorentz transformations and disallowing nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> > transformations.
>
> The reason is quite simple. Since the Lorentz' linear
> transformation
> is based on Maxwell's transformation. And the non-linear
> transformations are based on math shitheads seriously
> confused notion of Hamiltonians.
Or since mathies use modal logic more than anything else
these days, it's not required to specify Turing
functionality, since that's automatically spawned
to your bro' tarts at Exxon.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The only thing that I'm saying is that physicists need to abandon
> > their confused understanding of "all-at-once transformations" and
> > learn how to compute the invariants of the Lorentz group correctly.
>
> > Shubee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 20, 2:00 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 8:31 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > I honestly don't know what the tensorial equations are to require
> > > rigid motion for a body of points in pseudo-Riemannian space. Provided
> > > that these equations are known, add that constraint to my other
> > > equations and that's my definition of an inertial frame of reference.
>
> > Rigid motion is incompatible with relativity.
>
> The problem with chimpanzees trying to learn physics is that they are
> all provably confused by physics at the high school level but believe
> the myth that they are on the verge of understanding "the theory of
> everything."
No, Shooby, the problem with you is that you think you have a special
grasp of physics even though you dropped out of graduate school. You
still have difficultly with the simplest of concepts, and you refuse
to consider parts of special relativity that physicists actually need
- like energy/momentum, and the precious invariants you fawned over.
>
> "Born rigidity" in special relativity is a very elementary concept.
Born rigidity implies something very different from regular rigid
motion.
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/25/6B/001
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Michael Press
<slrnf7ks3o....@iris.lebesque-al.net>,
Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
The message appears in sci.math.
In regards to physics, asserting that space-time has a
metric confuses people, even those who should know
better. For instance, many people conversant with
physics maintain an interior model where light travels
through space; a model completely at odds with the
mathematical model of space-time. According to the
avowed model, an EM interaction between two physical
bodies is the same event; indivisible and unobservable.
--
Michael Press
jem
right direction ->
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=inertial%20reference%20frame
right direction -> http://www.psychforums.com/viewforum.php?f=146
Don Stockbauer
>
>
>
> Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
> > On 2007-06-20, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > ,
So.....when one says "the speed of light", what is the speed measured
in relation to (after all, it IS the "Theory of Relativity")
And another thing - this "General Theory of Relativity" --- to be
truly general, shouldn't it cover all relationships in the Universe
(out to the causal horizon, n e weigh)? I mean, like the relationship
between my dog and the gopher she's eating? My windmill and the
Andromeda galaxy? "General Theory of Relativity". Sure. Wait?
Maybe cybernetics already has that covered???????
As my father would have said,
"Maybe so.
Maybe no?
I dro, dro, dro know."
Shubee
I now recall a third invariant equation that can be used to decide
which geodesic paths belong to the same inertial frame of reference.
This takes me back to when I was taking Ted Frankel's differential
geometry class at UCSD more than 20 years ago. The good professor
mentioned a simple but general formula for Doppler shifts in pseudo-
Riemannian space. One observer on a spacetime path emits a photon,
which is received by another observer on another path. This simple
formula for Doppler shifts, which I need to look up, can be exploited
to identify sets of geodesics that represent the same inertial frame
of reference. There can not be any Doppler shifts between distinct
points in the same inertial frame of reference. I have now completely
solved the problem.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
>
> I now recall a third invariant equation that can be used to decide
> which geodesic paths belong to the same inertial frame of reference.
> This takes me back to when I was taking Ted Frankel's differential
> geometry class at UCSD more than 20 years ago.
Why did you drop out of grad school, shooby?
[...]
Bilge
> The message appears in sci.math.
You'll have to take that up with shubee, who crossposts all of
his articles to both math and physics newsgroups in the hope some
mathematician will adopt him and his idiotic ideas. I typically set
followups on his posts, but he generally changes the newsgroups line
back. I usually don't set followups on posts from people I don't
recognize as trolls, kooks, crackpots, etc., so even though this
thread was started by the imbecile mentioned earlier, I didn't
change the newsgroups line or set followups.
> In regards to physics, asserting that space-time has a metric confuses
>people, even those who should know better. For instance, many people
>conversant with physics maintain an interior model where light travels
>through space; a model completely at odds with the mathematical model of
>space-time.
I have no idea what you mean by ``interior model.''
> According to the avowed model, an EM interaction between two
>physical bodies is the same event; indivisible and unobservable.
Huh? The spacetime interval between the two events is zero, but the
events are at different spacetime coordinates. Why is that a problem?
The colloquial meaning of ``indivisible and unobservable'' are too
loaded with semantic baggage, but if you use the quantum mechanical
definition of an observable, again, I don't see the problem.
Shubee
> On Jun 18, 11:21 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > The problem that you are ignoring is that the Christoffel
> > > symbols vanish everywhere in an inertial frame.
>
> > glaringly inept conclusions.
>
> > To refute my first proposition in my opening post, you are required to
> > prove that my group of nonlinear transformations between inertial
> > frames of reference disturbs the homogeneity of space and time. I
> > don't believe that you can do that by presupposing a definition of
> > inertial motion that can't be derived from the inherent meaning and
> > the physics of the given inertial frames of the Lorentz group. My
> > group of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations is isomorphic to
> > the Lorentz group. It should therefore be physically indistinguishable
> > from the Lorentz group.
>
> > Inertial motion clearly exists in a spacetime where the Riemann
> > Curvature tensor is zero, and in a frame where only the spatial
> > components of the Christoffel symbols are zero, but where the time
> > components of the Christoffel symbols are not zero.
>
> > Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> You're forever hopeless. You seem to know a bit of math, but are
> tremendously clueless about real elementary physics. Math does not
> dictate to physics. It's used only as a tool, and then only after
> certain fundamental physical principles independent of the math are
> clearly understood. You must have been out sick that particular day.
> However it happened, you lack the fundamental physical principles
> necessary prior to applying the math. Good luck in your ignorance,
> and hopefully it can be cured.
In David Hilbert's view of physics, math does indeed dictate to
physics. And all mathematicians should recognize that your
"fundamental physical principles," which we both agree are independent
of math, are merely instances of illogic and indefensible self-
contradictions.
Your greatest self-contradiction so far is in thinking that inertial
frames of reference have no recognizable physical properties and
therefore are not describable in terms of mathematically invariant
quantities but are instead to be characterized, in the great wisdom of
physicists, by non-invariant equations.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On 2007-06-21, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > The message appears in sci.math.
>
> You'll have to take that up with shubee, who crossposts all of
> his articles to both math and physics newsgroups in the hope some
> mathematician will adopt him and his idiotic ideas.
You obviously refuse to recognize the superb comments by the
mathematician markw...@yahoo.com who defended my most abstract
mathematical reasoning in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/1426c9632d70e1fd
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 19, 2:08 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:41 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > of the time I shared my discovery of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
> > > > transformations with Wolfgang Rindler. It was about 11 years ago. The
> > > > professor's attitude was that my discovery was obvious and
> > > > uninteresting and therefore not worthy of being published, even though
> > > > there are many physicists that are totally confused by the subject. My
> > > > strongest recollection of Rindler's reaction is that all physics
> > > > journals should only publish on important theories and that all
> > > > physicists who couldn't figure out the meaning of a nonlinear version
> > > > of the Lorentz transformation are insufferably stupid and that no time
> > > > should be devoted to try to educate them.
>
> > > > So while you may believe that your opinion is valid and representative
> > > > of the expertise of a professional relativist, I think you've made it
> > > > clear that you are one of those mediocre to average physicists that
> > > > are confused about simple things.
>
> > > I just love it when the confused call me confused.
>
> > Do you think that you're more knowledgeable about relativity than
> > Wolfgang Rindler?
>
> No, probably not, but when YOU say that an inertial frame is
> equivalent to a flat spacetime, I have to really wonder about you.
> No, probably not, but when YOU say that an inertial frame is
> equivalent to a flat spacetime, I have to really wonder about you.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating how deeply confused physicists are
about inertial frames of reference. I most certainly didn't say that
an inertial frame is equivalent to a flat spacetime.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bilge
> On Jun 22, 8:00 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-21, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > The message appears in sci.math.
>>
>> You'll have to take that up with shubee, who crossposts all of
>> his articles to both math and physics newsgroups in the hope some
>> mathematician will adopt him and his idiotic ideas.
>
> You obviously refuse to recognize the superb comments by the
> mathematician markw...@yahoo.com who defended my most abstract
> mathematical reasoning in this thread:
Oh, boy! Why don't you write to the editors of the physics journals
who rejected your crap and tell them that shubonics has been vidicated
by a fan on usenet. I'm sure that will show everyone... Yawn...
Now you can find time to get that psychiatric help.
Shubee
> On 2007-06-23, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 8:00 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
> >> On 2007-06-21, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> > The message appears in sci.math.
>
> >> You'll have to take that up with shubee, who crossposts all of
> >> his articles to both math and physics newsgroups in the hope some
> >> mathematician will adopt him and his idiotic ideas.
>
> > You obviously refuse to recognize the superb comments by the
> > mathematician markw...@yahoo.com who defended my most abstract
> > mathematical reasoning in this thread:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/1426c9632d70e1fd
>
> Oh, boy! Why don't you write to the editors of the physics journals
> who rejected your crap and tell them that shubonics has been vidicated
> by a fan on usenet. I'm sure that will show everyone... Yawn...
> Now you can find time to get that psychiatric help.
My purpose in this thread is to demonstrate that professional
physicists misunderstand physics at the high school level. Your
purpose is to prove that you are a shit-throwing chimpanzee. "Most of
the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected,
not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is
possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
[...]
Why did you drop out of grad school, shooby?
Shubee
> On Jun 16, 9:22 am, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And do you need to make distasteful comments ("flames") to preserve
> > YOUR huge ego, instead of just posting a logical rebuttal?
>
> Logical rebuttal doesn't work - it has been tried.
Get a life and make yourself useful. You are obviously too preoccupied
with your primary pastime as a professional shit-thrower.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bilge
>> On 2007-06-23, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 22, 8:00 pm, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-06-21, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > The message appears in sci.math.
>>
>> >> You'll have to take that up with shubee, who crossposts all of
>> >> his articles to both math and physics newsgroups in the hope some
>> >> mathematician will adopt him and his idiotic ideas.
>>
>> > You obviously refuse to recognize the superb comments by the
>> > mathematician markw...@yahoo.com who defended my most abstract
>> > mathematical reasoning in this thread:
>
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/1426c9632d70e1fd
>>
>> Oh, boy! Why don't you write to the editors of the physics journals
>> who rejected your crap and tell them that shubonics has been vidicated
>> by a fan on usenet. I'm sure that will show everyone... Yawn...
>> Now you can find time to get that psychiatric help.
>
> My purpose in this thread is to demonstrate that professional
> physicists misunderstand physics at the high school level.
Then, you can add one more item to your collection of failures
based on a psychiatric disorder for which you haven't sought
professional help. Does anyone in real life actually put up
with your bullshit, or do you regularly get fired, get your ass
kicked, etc., because you have no talent that would mitigate your
generally offensive and pretentious attitude?
> Your purpose is to prove that you are a shit-throwing chimpanzee.
No, my ``purpose'' has nothing to do with your overly-inflated conception
of your abilities. The fact that you think anone's purpose has something
to do with your idiotic posts to usenet, only indicates the extent to which
you are narcissistic and delusional. Soesn't the fact that you are reduced
to promoting a pdf file on usenet and your entire ego is tied up in pretending
you've convinced lurkers that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot,
suggest you ought to take a trip to the psychiatrist?
> "Most of
> the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected,
> not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is
> possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
> published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
So, are there any other well-known people you would like to
portray as shubonics supporters?
Bilge
Hilbert had enough credibility to make such a statement, based
on his track record for linking physical principles to an appropriate
mathematical formalism from which the math must indeed dictate physics
which follows. On the other hand, you have no such credibility and you've
proven repeatedly that you have exactly zero intuition for connecting
rote mathematical manipulation to any physical phenomena or even
figuring out how to connect some mathematical formalism to a physical
principle.
> And all mathematicians should recognize that your
> "fundamental physical principles," which we both agree are independent
> of math, are merely instances of illogic and indefensible self-
> contradictions.
>
> Your greatest self-contradiction so far is in thinking that inertial
> frames of reference have no recognizable physical properties and
> therefore are not describable in terms of mathematically invariant
> quantities but are instead to be characterized, in the great wisdom of
> physicists, by non-invariant equations.
I have no idea where you come up with this crap, since what you just
stated (badly, and as if it was your own novel idea), is and has been
known by physicists for ages. The only reason you could possibly think
that physicists characterize physical quantities by ``non-invariant
equations'' would be due to your complete lack of familiariaty with
physics and mathematics. (Unless of course you really think that there
is some definition of ``inertial frame'' that doesn't depend upon a
theory to define it. If you think that there is, you've merely failed
to recognize the circularity in your argument.)
In any case, anyone who had bothered to read any of the physics literature
or even a physics textbook would discover right away that the properties
physicists consider to be physical, are precisely those which are the
invariants of a theory. (Apparently, it never occured to you that all of
fuss over Poincare invariance, the Poincare group and the definitions of
physical properties like mass and spin in terms Casimir operators, might
have something to do with invariance. Really, this is not a recent
development.) Of course, your out-of-hand rejection of quantum theory might
have something to do with you not understanding what an observable is, but I
assume you don't see any problem in asserting some physical meaning to
something for which you can't define a procedure to measure. What do
you think motivated the concept of gauge theories?
Shubee
>
> the properties physicists consider to be physical, are
> precisely those which are the invariants of a theory.
Don't tell me. Tell Igor, who is genuinely confused by the principle.
I tried to persuade him of the correctness of it, just as Max von Laue
tried to persuade Einstein that his definition of gravity wasn't
invariant. Einstein protested:
..."what characterizes the existence of a gravitational field from the
empirical standpoint is the non-vanishing of the [components of the
affine connection], not the non-vanishing of the [components of the
Riemann tensor]."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s5-06/5-06.htm
Igor believes the exact same nonsense as Albert Einstein.
Einstein's protest is dated 1950. Like Einstein, Igor too will
probably die before admitting his mistake and, out of sheer arrogance
and pride, never acknowledge misunderstanding simple things.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bilge
> On Jun 24, 7:18 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
>>
>> the properties physicists consider to be physical, are
>> precisely those which are the invariants of a theory.
>
> Don't tell me. Tell Igor, who is genuinely confused by the principle.
> I tried to persuade him of the correctness of it, just as Max von Laue
> tried to persuade Einstein that his definition of gravity wasn't
> invariant. Einstein protested:
>
> ..."what characterizes the existence of a gravitational field from the
> empirical standpoint is the non-vanishing of the [components of the
> affine connection], not the non-vanishing of the [components of the
> Riemann tensor]."
So basically, you just don't get the point.
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s5-06/5-06.htm
>
> Igor believes the exact same nonsense as Albert Einstein.
Unfortunately, you don't know enough about the subject to
discuss it and your personality will prevent you from ever
studying it.
> Einstein's protest is dated 1950. Like Einstein, Igor too will
> probably die before admitting his mistake and, out of sheer arrogance
> and pride, never acknowledge misunderstanding simple things.
The irony here is too much. You seem to be the only one on
the wrong page.