HOW EINSTEINIANS CONTRADICT EINSTEIN
Pentcho Valev
http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~sonwm/fop07/
philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult. He has just discovered that "the idea that influences
propagate at most as fast as light" can be violated:
http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~viv/FoP07abstracts/Butterfield.pdf
Philosophers' main task will be to find the best language to present
the violation. Philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge has already
discovered this form of presentation:
http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/5570 : Jeremy Butterfield
"Reconsidering Relativistic Causality": "I discuss the idea of
relativistic causality, i.e. the requirement that causal processes
(signals) can propagate only within the light-cone. After briefly
locating this requirement in the philosophy of causation, my main aim
is to draw philosophers' attention to the fact that it is subtle, and
even problematic, in contemporary physics. For there are scenarios in
which it fails."
Other presentations may be offered and a poll in the relativity cult
will finally determine the best one. In any event, the world should
continue to sing "Divine Einstein" enthusiastically:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173515258.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Very carefully indeed. At the conference
>
> http://quantum.leeds.ac.uk/~sonwm/fop07/
>
> philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
> cult
... that, like every armchair physics philosopher, he is
not hindered by the slightest knowledge of physics?
It seems that Pentcho Valev ignores the difference
between physicists and philosophers, just like Pentcho
Valev persistently ignores the differences between
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
> philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
> cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
> difficult.
Pentcho,
There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly. The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.
Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173545371....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
>> cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
>> difficult.
>
> Pentcho,
>
> There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
> if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.
... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)
> The
> change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
> postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
> physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
> that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
> physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
> superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.
>
> Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
> required to derive everything known experimentally about special
> relativity.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
Everything Important, http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1173545371....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
> >> cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
> >> difficult.
>
> > Pentcho,
>
> > There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
> > if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.
>
> ... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
> slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)
>
> > The
> > change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
> > postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
> > physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
> > that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
> > physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
> > superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.
>
> > Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
> > required to derive everything known experimentally about special
> > relativity.
>
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
>
> like
> | The Everlasting Gospel
> | The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
> | ages past, is of infinite importance.
> |
> | High Ranking Revelation
> | Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
> | especially the testimony of Jesus.
> |
> | Midrange Controversy
> | This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
> | The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
> | gifts etc.
>
> Dirk Vdm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf speaks for
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173547210.6...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1173547210.6...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
> > understand.
>
> Imbecile.
> That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173549985....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1173549985....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Let's just agree that the Nobel Laureate thought that the 2005 version
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf was too
difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
the current edition.
Be careful with that mental retardation Dirk.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173553986.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Nobel Laureate was forced to be polite and diplomatic.
On this forum we're not forced to be polite or diplomatic, imbecile.
Take your junk and try to sell it in sci.physics.foundations. See
how long it takes before they throw you out - again.
Dirk Vdm
Shubee
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1173553986.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
> > the current edition.
>
> The Nobel Laureate was forced to be polite and diplomatic.
> On this forum we're not forced to be polite or diplomatic, imbecile.
> Take your junk and try to sell it in sci.physics.foundations. See
> how long it takes before they throw you out - again.
>
> Dirk Vdm
My promo for The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 may be found at
sci.physics.foundations. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_thread/thread/cecff497ba35ff23
Where is your informed rebuttal?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173556042....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
That you have been proven to be a deluded idiot during the last 5 years.
Since you are highly immune to informed rebuttal, I won't bother helping
you search the archives of sci.physics and schi.physics.relativity :-)
Bye, Shoob.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
[snip junk]
What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.
Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
land of group theory. General relativity is based in the land of four
dimensional Riemannian geometry. Quantum theory is based in the land
of group theory and Hilbert space. Physics has a very solid
mathematical basis, regardless of whether or not you are ignorant of
it.
Your attempts at working with special relativity are ham-handed and a
fantastic waste of time. I can derive all of special relativity by
digging up the only four dimensional group that is unitary,
orthogonal, orthochronus, and has a finite speed limit. It is called
the Lorentz group - also called SO(1,3). Furthermore, this method gets
me the metric formulation and does it in all four dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group
Very informative.
Yes, your 'formulation' is technically right. But as I have told you
many times before, it presupposes a specific form of the
transformations between frames. It is also inelegant, uninteresting,
and most of all the author is a conceited self-important twit.
Shubee
> On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip junk]
>
> What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
> axiomatic formulation.
Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass. If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
General relativity is also easily axiomatized but since GR is clearly
wrong on a galactic scale [4], its primary value is historical and
satirical, demonstrating a fool's paradise.
Shubee
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
4. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/c126c4bd712c18ce
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip junk]
>
> > What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
> > axiomatic formulation.
>
> Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass. If you believe that
> physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
> sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
> is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
> facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
> reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
> the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
> the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
> assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
> space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
Hilbert's 6th problem is irrelevant to the discussion and I have no
idea why you brought it up.
Your work is wholly unimportant and uninteresting. You don't derive
anything. You postulate the form of a transformation equation, and you
run with it. That isn't axiomatic. It isn't interesting, and it
certainly isn't worth you yelling about it on USENET for 5 years.
You aren't being suppressed, you are being ignored. You will always be
ignored, because you have nothing worth listening to. You have your
head too far up your ass to see the flaws in your 'derivation', much
less see why people aren't interested. You are not educated enough to
know about alternative formulations of relativity, and you are too
conceited to learn.
>
> General relativity is also easily axiomatized but since GR is clearly
> wrong on a galactic scale [4], its primary value is historical and
> satirical, demonstrating a fool's paradise.
No, Eugene. You are even less familiar with cosmology than you are
special relativity. I will not discuss it with you because I will
simply end up pointing and laughing at your obvious ignorance.
Much like I am now, actually.
Isn't it sad that the only place that will even admit your work exists
outside of your self-administered web forum is this newsgroup? In 5
years, are you still going to be hawking your 'amazing revelation' on
USENET? Is that where you want to be?
>
> Shubee
> 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
> 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
> 3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
> 4.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/t...
jem
> On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[snip junk]
>>
>>What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
>>axiomatic formulation.
>
>
> Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.
Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,
If you believe that
> physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
> sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
> easy. The importance of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
> facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
> reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
> the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
> the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
> assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
> space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.
And don't point - put your proposed transformation right here --->
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>[snip junk]
>
> >>What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
> >>axiomatic formulation.
>
> > Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.
>
> Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,
Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.
> > If you believe that
> > physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
> > sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
> > easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
> > facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
> > reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
> > the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
> > the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
> > assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
> > space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
>
> then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
> and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
> homogeneous.
Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.
karand...@yahoo.com
Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
shit about your "work". Because it is shit.
Shubee
Thank you very much. I receive between 1,000 and 2,000 hits per month.
But there is no excuse for your blindness and willful stupidity.
Please understand that not everyone can do high school math so you,
like my other adversaries, are excused from entering a rational debate.
Eric Gisse
Yet you still haven't actually had your "work" published yet. What's
up with that?
> But there is no excuse for your blindness and willful stupidity.
> Please understand that not everyone can do high school math so you,
> like my other adversaries, are excused from entering a rational debate.
Why don't you explain why your derivation is better than Einstein's
derivation, or the modern group theory derivation?
karand...@yahoo.com
Hits but ZERO publications. Despite heavy and shameless
selfadvertising. Care to explain?
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip junk]
>
> What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
> axiomatic formulation.
>
> Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
> land of group theory.
Garbage. Group theory and Special Relativity are two totally separate
theories.
[1] Group theory describes a specific mathematical structure.
[2] Special Relativity describes a kinematical theory of physics.
That the Lorentz (or Poincare) transformations form a group does not
mean "SR is based on group theory". Any theory admitting a vector
space structure also admits a group structure as reflection
transformations form a group. Poincare transformations consist of
spatial translations, rotations and boosts which are fundamentally
composed of reflections.
> Your attempts at working with special relativity are ham-handed and a
> fantastic waste of time. I can derive all of special relativity by
> digging up the only four dimensional group that is unitary,
> orthogonal, orthochronus, and has a finite speed limit.
Garbage. A group or a group element cannot have a "finite speed
limit". Your other properties of the group are easily derived by basic
geometric formulations of the theory.
> It is called
> the Lorentz group - also called SO(1,3). Furthermore, this method gets
> me the metric formulation and does it in all four dimensions.
You can't move from a group structure to a vector space structure
without (various) hidden assumptions and axioms. It's not surprising
that you don't know this or that you don't understand this.
Eric Gisse
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Sounds like you hate group theory more than you hate relativity. Do
you shun all forms of mathematics higher htan algebra?
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 11, 9:50 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
>> land of group theory.
>
> Garbage. Group theory and Special Relativity are two totally separate
> theories.
Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.
> That the Lorentz (or Poincare) transformations form a group does not
> mean "SR is based on group theory".
He meant that a modern derivation of SR uses group theory in a
fundamental way. Specifically, all of SR can be derived from the following:
0) SR models the world as a 4-dimensional manifold involving 3-d
space and time
1) the Principle of Relativity (Einstein's version)
2) there is a finite upper bound on the relative speed of inertial
frames
3) the definition of inertial frames as coordinates on the manifold
plus the obvious requirement that the transformations among inertial
frames form a group.
(0)+(1)+(3)+group theory imply that only the following groups can be
admitted as transforms among inertial frames: Euclid(4-d), Galilei,
Poincare'. (2) further limits one to the Poincare' group. All of SR
follows from that (well, to get mechanics more postulates are needed...).
> You can't move from a group structure to a vector space structure
> without (various) hidden assumptions and axioms.
I didn't hide it -- that's all part of (0).
Indeed the Lorentz symmetry of SR has proved to be of fundamental
importance to theoretical physics. So this is a natural and appropriate
derivation.
Tom Roberts
schoenf...@gmail.com
That makes no sense. Group algebra is more primitive than normal
algebra.
The infinitely decreasing boundary of your competence becomes more
evident with each of your posts, Gisse. In fact, one could say your
incompetence has no boundaries at all.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.
I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
(without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).
> He meant that a modern derivation of SR uses group theory in a
> fundamental way.
SR as derived by Hermann Minkowski does not require group theory in
any fundamental way. The group structure arises trivially from
spacetime reflections.
> Specifically, all of SR can be derived from the following:
Specifically wrong. SR includes more than the underlying Minkowski
spacetime, it contains dynamical and mechanical considerations.
> I didn't hide it -- that's all part of (0).
Another mistake. A manifold is not a vector space. You need the
remaining postulates to recover a vector space (or Minkowski space in
this case).
> Indeed the Lorentz symmetry of SR has proved to be of fundamental
> importance to theoretical physics. So this is a natural and appropriate
> derivation.
That (clumsy) derivation may be "natural" and "appropriate" to you,
but it certaintly is not the way the founders of SR viewed the theory.
Quite the contrary, actually.
The group structure of SR is a (trivial) geometric consequence not a
fundamental axiom.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 12, 2:56 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Read what he said -- SR is _BASED_ON_ group theory.
>
> I did and it's still wrong, as are you. SR is not "based on group
> theory". Groups are an algebraic structure. The Poincare group of SR
> derives from geometric considerations. You cannot go the other way
> (without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).
Such as?
[...]
schoenf...@gmail.com
If you want me to teach you something, tell me specifically what it is
you want to learn.
Eric Gisse
If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
> wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
assumptions.
"What the fuck" the assumptions are irrelevant, that they exist is
trivially true.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
> > wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
> with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
> assumptions.
Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.
jem
> On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Shubee wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>[snip junk]
>>
>>>>What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
>>>>axiomatic formulation.
>>
>>>Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.
>>
>>Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,
>
>
> Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
> theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
> well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
> over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
> free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
> field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.
Idiot. The reciprocal function diverges at zero - do you think that
means arithmetic isn't axiomatized?
>
>
>>> If you believe that
>>>physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
>>>sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
>>>easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>>is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
>>>facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
>>>reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
>>>the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
>>>the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
>>>assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
>>>space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
>>
>>then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
>>and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
>>homogeneous.
>
>
> Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
> to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
> doesn't change its geometry.
What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173687934....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
>> > wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
>>
>> Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
>> with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
>> assumptions.
>
> Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.
He will not answer.
Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
See also
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EmployerHope.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Thanks.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Confusion.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisCont.html
In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
bump into on the streets when no one else is around.
Dirk Vdm
schoenf...@gmail.com
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1173687934....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
> >> > wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> >> Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
> >> with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
> >> assumptions.
>
> > Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.
>
> He will not answer.
I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.
Here it is again:
Structure A is a group.
Structure B is a group.
Start with a group and recover A (not B) without any assumptions. You
cannot. Therefore you need assumptions. Those assumptions must exist
as you could go the other way.
One more time:
A GROUP STRUCTURE IS AN INSUFFICIENT CONDITION TO RECOVER MINKOWSKI
SPACETIME
This is very basic stuff.
> Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
> In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
> bump into on the streets when no one else is around.
Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
(attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.
However, I have much confidence that common sense and reason will
eventually prevail.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 13, 2:56 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1173687934....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 11, 11:49 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
> > >> > wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> > >> Integer multiplication forms a group. Rotations form a group Start
> > >> with a group. Now get rotations not integer multiplication without
> > >> assumptions.
>
> > > Intellectual dishonesty - not just for breakfast anymore.
>
> > He will not answer.
>
> I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
> competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
> not understand the subject matter either.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> Structure A is a group.
> Structure B is a group.
>
> Start with a group and recover A (not B) without any assumptions. You
> cannot. Therefore you need assumptions. Those assumptions must exist
> as you could go the other way.
Of course you need assumptions, you dishonest moron.
>
> One more time:
>
> A GROUP STRUCTURE IS AN INSUFFICIENT CONDITION TO RECOVER MINKOWSKI
> SPACETIME
Tom Roberts gave you the conditions necessary to recover special
relativity from group theory.
Intellectual dishonesty is more than a hobby for you - it is a
defining characteristic!
>
> This is very basic stuff.
>
> > Schoenfeld is a troll of the schizopheric paranoic kind.
> > In short, the kind of person you definitely do not want to
> > bump into on the streets when no one else is around.
>
> Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
> (attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
> away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
> don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.
Yes, you are the oooonnnllyy one who can see the truth. You are the
chosen one.
Do the voices tell you what you need to know, or do they simply keep
you company?
>
> However, I have much confidence that common sense and reason will
> eventually prevail.
They already have.
Shubee
Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.
Ask Tom Roberts to explain why.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Lorentz transformations are linear, dude.
It is hard to have homogeneity of space and time with nonlinear
functions of both.
Shubee
Correct. By definition, Lorentz transformations are linear.
> It is hard to have homogeneity of space and time with nonlinear
> functions of both.
Nonsense. It's easy to define "nonlinear Lorentz transformations."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
schoenf...@gmail.com
The Poincare group of SR derives from geometric considerations. You
cannot go the other way (without hidden assumptions and/or axioms).
[Gissed]
If I knew what you thought were 'hidden assumptions and/or axioms' I
wouldn't be asking you to explain what the fuck you are talking about.
[Schoenfeld explains hidden assumptions]
[Deranged Dork]
He will not answer.
[Schoenfeld]
I did answer but it's obvious that he, and you, don't have the
competence to understand the answer. This is not surprising as you do
not understand the subject matter either.
[Schoenfeld explains again]
[Gissed]
Of course you need assumptions, you dishonest moron.
> > Since you are implicitly referring to my many previous posts where I
> > (attempt) to reveal the 9/11 and Apollo Hoaxes, you can probably get
> > away with those sorts of insults and innuendo as most people simply
> > don't have the honesty or competence to look at the data objectively.
>
> Yes, you are the oooonnnllyy one who can see the truth. You are the
> chosen one.
Many more people more intelligent than me discovered most of the flaws
in those hoaxes long before I came along. Although, I'll admit, I
never saw any Solomon Brothers Building free fall physics analysis and/
or calculations being discussed in blogs / videos until after I posted
some stuff on usenet several years ago. Same goes for momentum
conservation violation. I'm sure I wasn't nearly the first to discover
these baby-physics facts, but that people like you and Dork who after
all these years still don't understand is indicative of something.
Eric Gisse
You just can't stop bringing up 9/11 and Apollo as if they some how
make you less insane and stupid.
davee
infinite zero wave space. all side bands and harmonics in quantised
space where we are are balanced somewhere else and are mutually
exclusive to our quantum space but the sum total of all things is zero.
John Christiansen
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1173743133.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Since a Lorentz transformation by definition is linear then a non linear
transformation is not a Lorentz transformation.
John Christiansen
jem
Don't appoint others to defend the things you say, Shooby. Come on out
from behind your Mommy's skirt, little boy - let's hear *you* try to
jem
Just like it's easy to define "curved Euclidean space" - right, genius?
Eric Gisse
Dude...do you even read what you write?
Read your first sentence, then read your second. They contradict
eachother.
Shubee
<superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1173743133.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Note that there are nonlinear transformations that are physically
indistinguishable from Lorentz transformations. [1]. Since they
predict the same physics, I don't see a problem calling them nonlinear
Lorentz transformations.
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
karand...@yahoo.com
BS, prove that T(T^-1)=I where I is the identy matrix.
Eric Gisse
Ignorance is not an asset. Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone. That is a bad thing.
>
> 1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Shubee
That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].
If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.
Shubee
0. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fd7ad4b9e1b42b34
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
4. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
karand...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nonlinear transformations means that the
> > homogenity of space and time is gone.
>
> That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
> alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
> have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
> Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
> [2][3].
>
> If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
> formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
> Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
> your mistake.
>
> Shubee
> 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
> 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
> 3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
> 4.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.
Eric Gisse
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nonlinear transformations means that the
> > homogenity of space and time is gone.
>
> That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
> alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
> have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
> Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
> [2][3].
>
> If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
> formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
> Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
> your mistake.
Why is it you call your paper "The Axiomatization of Physics" when you
don't actually write down what your axioms are?
Shubee
You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm merely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears. I don't expect that any of my pompous
critics could prove the group structure by doing the actual
calculation directly but if Tom Roberts or any other capable physicist
denies my group structure, then I would be happy to prove that these
transformations form a group when I get some time.
Note: If anyone wants to prove that my inverse doesn't work, then
select any set of constants at random with any arbitrary function and
compute the value of the function on those constants and the inverse
function of the result. Prove you don't get back to where you
started.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Shubee
karand...@yahoo.com
I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.
Shubee
All those recursions produce instantaneous cancellations. If you want
to challenge my mathematical competence, why not ask me to explain
whatever mathematical step that you don't understand in
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf ?
Shubee
karand...@yahoo.com
BS, show your calculations or go away. Perform T*T^-1.
Eric Gisse
He can't. Matrix algebra is merely another way of manipulating
_linear_ equations.
I wonder if he can even list all his axioms...
karand...@yahoo.com
He,he,he. But I am still waiting to see him pull a "2.7 shubee". :-)
davee
Tis noble and devine oh the pain its hurts so much!
take a curve any curve and differentiate the two closest points, on a
circle we will call it a tangent no?
Seven Seas Oscirius
> On Mar 11, 6:15 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 6:45 pm, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > Shubee wrote:
>
> > > > > >>On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>[snip junk]
>
> > > > > >>What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
> > > > > >>axiomatic formulation.
>
> > > > > > Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.
>
> > > > > Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,
>
> > > > Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
> > > > theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
> > > > well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
> > > > over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
> > > > free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
> > > > field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.
>
> > > > > > If you believe that
> > > > > > physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
> > > > > > sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
> > > > > > easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > > > > > is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
> > > > > > facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
> > > > > > reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
> > > > > > the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
> > > > > > the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
> > > > > > assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
> > > > > > space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.
>
> > > > > then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
> > > > > and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
> > > > > homogeneous.
>
> > > > Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
> > > > to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
> > > > principles of spacetime.
>
> > > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
> > > shit about your "work". Because it is shit.
>
> > Thank you very much. I receive between 1,000 and 2,000 hits per month.
>
> Yet you still haven't actually had your "work" published yet. What's
> up with that?
Listen, fart, i published a work once.
jem
Don't want to come out, Shooby? OK, I'll talk to you through the skirt.
By homogeneity/isotropy of space and time, Einstein meant
homogeneity/isotropy of the measurements of space and time by Inertial
observers - IOW, that the experimental results of an Inertial observers
don't depend on when/where/orientation considerations. However, that
independence *can't* be realized by both of two observers whose
space/time measurements are related non-linearly. If you think
otherwise, then provide what you've already been asked to provide -
"try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space and
time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and homogeneous."
And what's the latest re. that other wild-goose chase you were sent on -
how's your search for a non-axiomatic Physics theory going?
>>
>> Shubee
>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>
>>
jem
The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.
* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').
>
> You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
> inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 of
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm merely
> exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
> much easier than it appears.
Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.
Shubee
Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.
> > You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
> > inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 of
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
> > exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
> > much easier than it appears.
>
> Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
> "physically" represents.
Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) in http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
hahahhahaha "shubertian physics"
[...]
davee
or both?
jem
Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
another guess?
Shubee
jem,
I don't have to guess. It's obvious that you don't understand my
interpretation of equation (1) and equation (2) for the toy universe I
call Xi_2.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
karand...@yahoo.com
>
> > Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
> > represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
> > another guess?
>
> jem,
>
> I don't have to guess. It's obvious that you don't understand my
> interpretation of equation (1) and equation (2) for the toy universe I
> call Xi_2.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > Shubee
>
> > >>> I don't expect that any of my pompous
> > >>>critics could prove the group structure by doing the actual
> > >>>calculation directly but if Tom Roberts or any other capable physicist
> > >>>denies my group structure, then I would be happy to prove that these
> > >>>transformations form a group when I get some time.
>
> > >>>Note: If anyone wants to prove that my inverse doesn't work, then
> > >>>select any set of constants at random with any arbitrary function and
> > >>>compute the value of the function on those constants and the inverse
> > >>>function of the result. Prove you don't get back to where you
> > >>>started.
>
> > >>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> > >>>Shubee
Enough of your BS, calculate T*T^-1.
Are you Ken Seto reicarnated? You seem to have the same DNA (idiotic
theories and inability to calculate anything).
Shubee
Listen up karandash. Jem already told you that my transformations have
a group structure. Why aren't you attacking him for agreeing with me?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b0907efe10700852
I strongly expect that most children who are competent in high school
algebra can form the composition of those two functions. Why don't you
learn high school math and do it yourself? Even simpler, I figure that
it only takes a middle school mathematician to evaluate my function on
a random point and the inverse of the image to test my claim. If you
can't do that yourself, then what are you doing here at
sci.physics.relativity?
Shubee
Eric Gisse
[...]
Why should anyone care about your approach, shooby? Special relativity
is already axiomatic - you add nothing to the theory.
Shubee
Chimpanzee relativity fosters a few misconceptions and The
Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 fixes them all.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
karand...@yahoo.com
No he didn't. You are not only inept, you are also a bad liar.
> I strongly expect that most children who are competent in high school
> algebra can form the composition of those two functions.
So why do you keep avoiding showing your calculations. I asked you
about 8 times already : show that T*T^-1=I. Put up or shut the fuck
up.
> Even simpler, I figure that it only takes a middle school >mathematician to evaluate my function on a random point and the >inverse of the image to test my claim.
So stop your desperate diversions and do it.
>If you can't do that yourself, then what are you doing here at
> sci.physics.relativity?
>
> Shubee
I am telling you that you are full of shit, this is what I've been
doing. Put up, or shut the fuck up.
karand...@yahoo.com
> I strongly expect that most children who are competent in high school
> algebra can form the composition of those two functions. Why don't you
> learn high school math and do it yourself? Even simpler, I figure that
> it only takes a middle school mathematician to evaluate my function on
> a random point and the inverse of the image to test my claim. If you
> can't do that yourself, then what are you doing here at
> sci.physics.relativity?
>
> Shubee
1.Invert the shit that you write at point 1 in this link:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Hint for shithead Shubert: only bijective functions have inverse.
2. Get the matrix of the inverse transformation
3. Calculate T*T^-1
Eric Gisse
But you didn't answer my question, shooby. Why should anyone care?
jem
You were asked what v represents in your transformation equations, and
there isn't any need* to look beyond those equations for the answer.
* other than the need to be evasive when you're asked a question whose
answer you should know, but don't.
Shubee
I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity. I
also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion. If you
proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/803397d03512b7b0
karand...@yahoo.com
Hey, for once you are correct, your "paper" belongs to chimpanzee
relativity.
jem
And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
I
> also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.
Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.
If you
> proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
> velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?
I have no idea what you think "adds like ordinary velocity" means. In
general, v isn't even a velocity in your equations.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/803397d03512b7b0
>
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
>
> > I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>
> And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
> not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
> defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
> > I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.
>
> Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
> and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
> clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
> describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
> Inertial.
Eq. 3 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used. So exercise 2 still stands.
Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
claimed?
Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.
> > If you proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
> > velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?
>
> I have no idea what you think "adds like ordinary velocity" means. In
> general, v isn't even a velocity in your equations.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/803397d0351...
davee
the function varies with permeability and permitivity and not C
squared.
jem
> On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Shubee wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>>
>>>I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>>
>>And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
>>not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
>>defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
>
>
> You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?
>
>
>>>I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.
>>
>>Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
>>and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
>>clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
>>describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
>>Inertial.
>
>
> Eq. 3 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
> terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
> on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
> confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
> You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
> measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
> x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
> equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
> each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
> will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
> my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
> which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
> clock synchronization schemes are used.
The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.
So exercise 2 still stands.
> Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
> claimed?
Of course not.
>
> Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
> let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
> distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
> dilation effect.
Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.
Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.
Seven Seas Oscirius
One star for one work, two stars for two ....
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> >>Shubee wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> >>>I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>
> >>And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
> >>not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
> >>defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
>
> > You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
>
> How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?
How stupid is it to think that dx/dt means anything physical in
generalized coordinates?
> >>>I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.
>
> >>Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
> >>and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
> >>clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
> >>describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
> >>Inertial.
>
> > Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
> > terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
> > on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
> > confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
> > You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
> > measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
> > x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
> > equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
> > each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
> > will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
> > my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
> > which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
> > clock synchronization schemes are used.
>
> The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.
Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.
> So exercise 2 still stands.
>
> > Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
> > claimed?
>
> Of course not.
In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.
karand...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 13, 5:27 am, "John Christiansen"
>
>
>
> <superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> > "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1173743133.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 12, 4:28 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 12, 3:20 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Mar 12, 5:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Shubee wrote:
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > be set - that's a given.
>
> > >> > Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.
>
>
> > > Correct. By definition, Lorentz transformations are linear.
>
> > >> It is hard to have homogeneity of space and time with nonlinear
> > >> functions of both.
>
> > > Nonsense. It's easy to define "nonlinear Lorentz transformations."
>
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
> > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > Shubee
>
> > Rubbish!!!!!
>
> > Since a Lorentz transformation by definition is linear then a non linear
> > transformation is not a Lorentz transformation.
>
> > John Christiansen
>
> Note that there are nonlinear transformations that are physically
> indistinguishable from Lorentz transformations. [1]. Since they
> predict the same physics, I don't see a problem calling them nonlinear
> Lorentz transformations.
>
> 1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Still haven't managed to prove this one, Scooby.
Still trying (and failing) to BS the people in this forum.
Still being exposed as a fraud and a grandomaniac.
So, when are you going to do your calculations? Start with something
easy, like computing the inverse of your BS nonlinear transform. Since
you have a tendency to pull that out of your butt, composite the BS
inverse with the BS direct and show that you are getting the identical
transformation. Don't be shy, demonstrate your mathematical ability.
Shubee
> On Mar 13, 7:17 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Note that there are nonlinear transformations that are physically
> > indistinguishable from Lorentz transformations. [1]. Since they
> > predict the same physics, I don't see a problem calling them nonlinear
> > Lorentz transformations.
>
> > 1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> Still haven't managed to prove this one, Scooby.
Keep trying. If you still don't succeed, try to sign up for a night
course in high school algebra.
> Still trying (and failing) to BS the people in this forum.
Perhaps you should end the charade and just stop pretending that you
are knowledgeable about high school math and physics.
> Still being exposed as a fraud and a grandomaniac.
And that's understandable isn't it? It would be better if you worked
on concealing your ignorance by being quiet rather than opening your
mouth and dispelling all doubt.
> So, when are you going to do your calculations? Start with something
> easy, like computing the inverse of your BS nonlinear transform. Since
> you have a tendency to pull that out of your butt, composite the BS
> inverse with the BS direct and show that you are getting the identical
> transformation. Don't be shy, demonstrate your mathematical ability.
Ask jem if he is willing to teach you the high school math that is
required to do this computation.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
karand...@yahoo.com
OK,
So its clear for all of us that you can't defend your shit "theory".
Did someone else write the math for your paper? Because since you've
arrived on this forum , you have steadgfastedly avoided writing any
math.
Combined with the cretinism of using nonlinear , recursive functions
in your "transforms" this pretty much seals your fate.
Shubee
>
> OK,
>
> So its clear for all of us that you can't defend your shit "theory".
> Did someone else write the math for your paper? Because since you've
> arrived on this forum , you have steadgfastedly avoided writing any
> math.
> Combined with the cretinism of using nonlinear , recursive functions
> in your "transforms" this pretty much seals your fate.
There is nothing to defend. Either you can do high school math or you
can't.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
karand...@yahoo.com
Scooby Doo-doo
Recursive functions are not invertible, so your shit "transforms". So
your "theory" is also shit. Defend that.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 19, 5:35 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > >>Shubee wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> > >>>I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>
> > >>And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
> > >>not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
> > >>defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
>
> > > You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
>
> > How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?
>
> How stupid is it to think that dx/dt means anything physical in
> generalized coordinates?
The Cartesian coordinates _are_ generalized coordinate, Shooby. They
are mutually orthogonal, and their derivatives are exactly as one
would expect for generalized velocities.
Isn't having an education handy?
[...]
Shubee
Name one mathematician that agrees with you.
Shubee
Shubee
The fundamental equations of the Xi_2 universe are eqs (1) (2) and (3)
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
If you think that dx/dt always makes sense physically in Xi_2 with
arbitrary, nonlinear synchronization functions, by all means try to
explain.
Shubee
jem
> On Mar 19, 5:35 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Shubee wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>Shubee wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>>
>>>>>I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>>
>>>>And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
>>>>not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
>>>>defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
>>
>>>You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
>>
>>How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?
>
>
> How stupid is it to think that dx/dt means anything physical in
> generalized coordinates?
Unresponsive gibberish.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.
>
>
>> So exercise 2 still stands.
>>
>>
>>>Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
>>>claimed?
>>
>>Of course not.
>
>
> In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
> precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
> isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.
To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.
>
>
>>>Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
>>>let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
>>>distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
>>>dilation effect.
>>
>>Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
>>frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
>>point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
>>frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
>>us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
>>through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.
>>
>>Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
>>since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
>>transformation.
>>
Where's the proof, Shubert?
BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.
karand...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scooby Doo-doo
Recursive functions are not injective,Non injective functions cannot
be inverted. Retake 10-th grade math, Doo-doo.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 19, 8:01 pm, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:09 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 5:35 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > >>Shubee wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> > > > >>>I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.
>
> > > > >>And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
> > > > >>not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
> > > > >>defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).
>
> > > > > You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.
>
> > > > How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?
>
> > > How stupid is it to think that dx/dt means anything physical in
> > > generalized coordinates?
>
> > The Cartesian coordinates _are_ generalized coordinate, Shooby. They
> > are mutually orthogonal, and their derivatives are exactly as one
> > would expect for generalized velocities.
>
> > Isn't having an education handy?
>
> > [...]
>
> The fundamental equations of the Xi_2 universe are eqs (1) (2) and (3)
> If you think that dx/dt always makes sense physically in Xi_2 with
> arbitrary, nonlinear synchronization functions, by all means try to
> explain.
I'm not attempting to explain any of your toy universe fuckery -
that's your problem. I'm just correcting your idiotic
misunderstandings about generalized coordinates.
>
> Shubee
Shubee
karand...@yahoo.com
Scooby-shit
Read the name of the author of your 10-th grade calculus book. Oh,
wait, you never went past 9-th grade!
Shubee
As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.
> > In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
> > precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
> > isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.
>
> To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
> is laughable.
Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.
> >>>Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
> >>>let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
> >>>distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
> >>>dilation effect.
>
> >>Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
> >>frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
> >>point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
> >>frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
> >>us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
> >>through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.
>
> >>Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
> >>since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
> >>transformation.
>
> Where's the proof, Shubert?
The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).
> BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
> make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
> do claim that it can't be proved by you.
:-)
Shubee
Eric Gisse
[...]
So when are you going to explain why anyone should care, shooby?
Modern SR is _already_ in axiomatic form and it contains no errors.
What is there to gain by switching to a contrived derivation of
something already known that doesn't even correspond to modern SR?
gdew...@gmail.com
gdew...@gmail.com
jem
Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.
Do you even know what a proof is?
And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:
"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through