Re: Anti-relativists and Judaism
koobee...@gmail.com
> [Babbling nonsense snipped]
>
> (As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
> as "Jewish science",
Nonsense.
> and this was not because the Nazis simply latched
> onto all fringe ideas. Other anti-semites apparently do the same.)
** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
by Voigt.
** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells and
mathematically by Minkowski.
** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity. Just because
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
equivalence. <shrug>
** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
covariant derivative.
** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
suggested by Nordstrom.
** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
crap it is) from his own @ss.
** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
> [More babbling nonsense snipped]
Dono
>
> Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
> Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 2, 2:01 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > [Babbling nonsense snipped]
>
> > (As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
> > as "Jewish science",
>
> Nonsense.
Nonsense? Are you sure?
Think about your answer carefully. That's assuming you care if you
look like an idiot, though. Which we know to be not the case.
>
> > and this was not because the Nazis simply latched
> > onto all fringe ideas. Other anti-semites apparently do the same.)
>
> ** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
But applied to E&M by Einstein.
>
> ** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
> by Voigt.
Incorrect.
>
> ** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
Correct. However Voigt/Larmor didn't publish, and Lorentz did. That's
why its' called the LORENTZ transform.
>
> ** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells
No, that was the 4th dimension. Try to keep your sci-fi straight.
There's a whole load of context that you will never understand due to
pervasive stupidity.
>and
> mathematically by Minkowski.
Incorrect, but for a different reason. Minkowski recognized the
geometric significance of Einstein's theory.
Let us not lose sight of the fact you still can't understand
Minkowski's formalism.
>
> ** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
> formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity.
Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
of gravitation.
The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
not work with the EP.
> Just because
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
> the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
> equivalence. <shrug>
And the copy-paste insult comes out.
>
> ** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
> covariant derivative.
Man-made? You mean everything else isn't man made, or are you simply
stating this like how creationists emphasize that evolution is a
theory?
Let us not lose sight of the fact that you do not understand the
Riemann tensor. You do not understand the symmetries nor do you
understand the equivalence of the alternative definitions of the
object.
>
> ** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
Only to you would this be important.
>
> ** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
> suggested by Nordstrom.
Easy to claim, hard to prove. Just like everything else you do.
>
> ** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
> out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
> crap it is) from his own @ss.
Yes, the field equations. The derivation of which you still do not
understand.
Plus the whine shows that you - remarkably - still do not understand
classical mechanics. A system's Lagrangian is postulated - it all
starts from there. That you whine it was picked arbitrarily not only
exhibits great ignorance of concepts like weak coupling, but that you
are a fucking idiot as well.
>
> ** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
You don't understand the Schwarzschild solution either. Still think
that the surface area of a sphere in the Schwarzschild metric is equal
to 4 pi r^2 even though a simple calculation proves otherwise?
>
> ** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
> realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
> asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
> away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
> the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
Thanks for reminding us that it is 2009 and you still do not
understand that a coordinate system does not change a tensor.
>
> Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
> Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
Do you ever stop whining about the jews?
>
> > [More babbling nonsense snipped]
Daryl McCullough
>Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
>of gravitation.
No, that's not really true. The equivalence principle holds
true for Newtonian gravity as well as Einstein's gravity.
What you need for the equivalence principle is not a metric,
but a connection. In GR, the connection is derived from the
metric, but that doesn't have to be the case, and it isn't
the case in Newtonian physics.
>The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
>not work with the EP.
I don't think of that as part of the equivalence principle.
To me, the equivalence principle just says that locally the
effects of gravity can be eliminated through a coordinate
transformation. That's true in both GR and Newtonian gravity.
The difference is that for GR, the source of gravity is a
tensor, the stress-energy tensor, while in Newtonian gravity,
the source is a scalar: mass density.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
koobee...@gmail.com
> Anti-semites might be kooks, but it doesn't follow that all kooks
> are anti-semites. On the other hand, many of the anti-relativists
> here have an extremely irrational hatred of Einstein. For example,
> the posters who call themselves "Androcles", "Koobee Wubee", "No Einstein",
> "retic", "Shubee".
Why would anyone be hateful of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such
as Einstein? Einstein was nobody and indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar. You are pissed because of the messiah (Einstein) you are
worshipping is exposed to be a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
<shrug>
Again, no one is jealous or hateful of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. It is your conscience voicing the stupid assertion because your
worshipping of Einstein who is exposed to be a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar. <shrug>
Get over with it, you a worshipper of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar such as Einstein. <shrug>
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 2, 4:22 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > (As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
> > > as "Jewish science",
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Nonsense? Are you sure?
Yes. <shrug>
> Think about your answer carefully. That's assuming you care if you
> look like an idiot, though. Which we know to be not the case.
Me thinks. The answer is still yes. <shrug>
> > ** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
>
> But applied to E&M by Einstein.
E&M does not work with relativity. That is why the Aether was
proposed. <shrug>
> > ** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
> > by Voigt.
>
> Incorrect.
Says a college drop-out. <shrug>
> > ** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
>
> Correct. However Voigt/Larmor didn't publish, and Lorentz did.
Bullshit!
> That's why its' called the LORENTZ transform.
Nonsense. It was called the Lorentz transform by Poincare who was not
exposed to Voigt’s and Larmor’s works while Lorentz did and no doubt
your messiah Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar also
did. <shrug>
> > ** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells
>
> No, that was the 4th dimension.
Spacetime involves 4 dimension. I know this is news for a college
drop-out. <shrug>
> Try to keep your sci-fi straight.
Let me say again. H. G. Wells was the first published author to
incorporate time as the 4th dimension. Try reading ‘the Time Machine’
sometimes. <shrug>
> There's a whole load of context that you will never understand due to
> pervasive stupidity.
Is this the most profound accusation from a college drop-out?
> >and mathematically by Minkowski.
>
> Incorrect, but for a different reason. Minkowski recognized the
> geometric significance of Einstein's theory.
Bullshit!
> Let us not lose sight of the fact you still can't understand
> Minkowski's formalism.
The college drop-out is still delusional. <shrug>
> > ** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
> > formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
> of gravitation.
No, it does not. Try to understand Newtonian law of gravity
sometimes. I know it is a monumental task for a college drop-out to
accomplish, but still... <shrug>
> The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
> not work with the EP.
As I said, the college drop-out is grossly ignorant. <shrug>
> > Just because
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
> > the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
> > plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
> > equivalence. <shrug>
>
> And the copy-paste insult comes out.
So, do you not understand that? Let’s try again.
Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally
understood the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the
principle of equivalence. <shrug>
> > ** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
> > covariant derivative.
>
> Man-made?
Absolutely.
> You mean everything else isn't man made,
No. <shrug>
> or are you simply
> stating this like how creationists emphasize that evolution is a
> theory?
The college drop-out fails to understand anything as usual. <shrug>
> Let us not lose sight of the fact that you do not understand the
> Riemann tensor.
The accusation made by the college drop-out is totally groundless.
After all, the college drop-out still does not understand the calculus
of variations. <shrug>
> You do not understand the symmetries nor do you
> understand the equivalence of the alternative definitions of the
> object.
The college drop-out does not even know what he is talking about now.
Has it been a long after waking up well past noon today?
> > ** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
>
> Only to you would this be important.
So, the college drop-out does not understand the importance of the
Ricci tensor in the development of the field equations.
> > ** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
> > suggested by Nordstrom.
>
> Easy to claim, hard to prove. Just like everything else you do.
Try to read historical accounts sometimes. I know this is a hard
advice to a college drop-out. <shrug>
> > ** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
> > out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
> > crap it is) from his own @ss.
>
> Yes, the field equations. The derivation of which you still do not
> understand.
Again, the accusation of the college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
I am very certain that most of the physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries out there have no clues as how the field equations are
derived. <shrug>
> ... A system's Lagrangian is postulated - it all
> starts from there...
What are you whining about? Is it really that sad to be a college
drop-out?
> > ** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
>
> You don't understand the Schwarzschild solution either.
Accusations from a college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
> Still think
> that the surface area of a sphere in the Schwarzschild metric is equal
> to 4 pi r^2 even though a simple calculation proves otherwise?
The college drop-out is also a liar, for I have given you the answer
many times over. <shrug>
> > ** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
> > realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
> > asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
> > away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
> > the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
>
> Thanks for reminding us that it is 2009 and you still do not
> understand that a coordinate system does not change a tensor.
Again, the geometry must be invariant. Any choice of coordinate
system must result in a different metric to describe this very
invariant geometry. This is a basic axiom in geometry. Any
elementary school children should be able to understand this, but the
Einstein Dingleberries do not. <shrug>
> > Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
> > Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>
> Do you ever stop whining about the jews?
I am merely stating the fact that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar, Levi-Civita, and Schwarzschild were Jews. Do you not
agree?
While Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar were cowardly
trying to avoid to fight for his fatherland, Schwarschild was doing
his duty as a citizen of imperial Germany fighting for its very
survival. <shrug>
koobee...@gmail.com
> > > (As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
> > > as "Jewish science",
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Nonsense? Are you sure?
Yes. <shrug>
> Think about your answer carefully. That's assuming you care if you
> look like an idiot, though. Which we know to be not the case.
Me thinks. The answer is still yes. <shrug>
> > ** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
>
> But applied to E&M by Einstein.
E&M does not work with relativity. That is why the Aether was
proposed. <shrug>
> > ** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
> > by Voigt.
>
> Incorrect.
Says a college drop-out. <shrug>
> > ** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
>
> Correct. However Voigt/Larmor didn't publish, and Lorentz did.
Bullshit!
> That's why its' called the LORENTZ transform.
Nonsense. It was called the Lorentz transform by Poincare who was not
exposed to Voigt’s and Larmor’s works while Lorentz did and no doubt
your messiah Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar also
did. <shrug>
> > ** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells
>
> No, that was the 4th dimension.
Spacetime involves 4 dimension. I know this is news for a college
drop-out. <shrug>
> Try to keep your sci-fi straight.
Let me say again. H. G. Wells was the first published author to
incorporate time as the 4th dimension. Try reading ‘the Time Machine’
sometimes. <shrug>
> There's a whole load of context that you will never understand due to
> pervasive stupidity.
Is this the most profound accusation from a college drop-out?
> >and mathematically by Minkowski.
>
> Incorrect, but for a different reason. Minkowski recognized the
> geometric significance of Einstein's theory.
Bullshit!
> Let us not lose sight of the fact you still can't understand
> Minkowski's formalism.
The college drop-out is still delusional. <shrug>
> > ** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
> > formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
> of gravitation.
No, it does not. Try to understand Newtonian law of gravity
sometimes. I know it is a monumental task for a college drop-out to
accomplish, but still... <shrug>
> The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
> not work with the EP.
As I said, the college drop-out is grossly ignorant. <shrug>
> > Just because
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
> > the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
> > plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
> > equivalence. <shrug>
>
> And the copy-paste insult comes out.
So, do you not understand that? Let’s try again.
Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally
understood the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the
principle of equivalence. <shrug>
> > ** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
> > covariant derivative.
>
> Man-made?
Absolutely.
> You mean everything else isn't man made,
No. <shrug>
> or are you simply
> stating this like how creationists emphasize that evolution is a
> theory?
The college drop-out fails to understand anything as usual. <shrug>
> Let us not lose sight of the fact that you do not understand the
> Riemann tensor.
The accusation made by the college drop-out is totally groundless.
After all, the college drop-out still does not understand the calculus
of variations. <shrug>
> You do not understand the symmetries nor do you
> understand the equivalence of the alternative definitions of the
> object.
The college drop-out does not even know what he is talking about now.
Has it been a long after waking up well past noon today?
> > ** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
>
> Only to you would this be important.
So, the college drop-out does not understand the importance of the
Ricci tensor in the development of the field equations.
> > ** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
> > suggested by Nordstrom.
>
> Easy to claim, hard to prove. Just like everything else you do.
Try to read historical accounts sometimes. I know this is a hard
advice to a college drop-out. <shrug>
> > ** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
> > out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
> > crap it is) from his own @ss.
>
> Yes, the field equations. The derivation of which you still do not
> understand.
Again, the accusation of the college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
I am very certain that most of the physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries out there have no clues as how the field equations are
derived. <shrug>
> ... A system's Lagrangian is postulated - it all
> starts from there...
What are you whining about? Is it really that sad to be a college
drop-out?
> > ** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
>
> You don't understand the Schwarzschild solution either.
Accusations from a college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
> Still think
> that the surface area of a sphere in the Schwarzschild metric is equal
> to 4 pi r^2 even though a simple calculation proves otherwise?
The college drop-out is also a liar, for I have given you the answer
many times over. <shrug>
> > ** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
> > realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
> > asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
> > away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
> > the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
>
> Thanks for reminding us that it is 2009 and you still do not
> understand that a coordinate system does not change a tensor.
Again, the geometry must be invariant. Any choice of coordinate
system must result in a different metric to describe this very
invariant geometry. This is a basic axiom in geometry. Any
elementary school children should be able to understand this, but the
Einstein Dingleberries do not. <shrug>
> > Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
> > Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>
> Do you ever stop whining about the jews?
I am merely stating the fact that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse says...
>
> >Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
> >of gravitation.
>
> No, that's not really true. The equivalence principle holds
> true for Newtonian gravity as well as Einstein's gravity.
>
> What you need for the equivalence principle is not a metric,
> but a connection. In GR, the connection is derived from the
> metric, but that doesn't have to be the case, and it isn't
> the case in Newtonian physics.
Could you do physics on a manifold that has a connection but no
metric?
>
> >The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
> >not work with the EP.
>
> I don't think of that as part of the equivalence principle.
> To me, the equivalence principle just says that locally the
> effects of gravity can be eliminated through a coordinate
> transformation. That's true in both GR and Newtonian gravity.
Tom Roberts would eat that sentence up, though I understand exactly
what you are getting at.
I look at it this way. The binding energy of gravitation has to
gravitate, otherwise it is a kind of energy that has mass but not
gravity. I'm being very loose with the language but I think my point
is clear.
> The difference is that for GR, the source of gravity is a
> tensor, the stress-energy tensor, while in Newtonian gravity,
> the source is a scalar: mass density.
...that depends how you look at it. What you say is true but then
there's Cartan's reformulation that puts Newton on a metric formalism.
But nobody likes to talk about that, because thinking about it is
hard.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 2, 8:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 4:22 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > (As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
> > > > as "Jewish science",
>
> > > Nonsense.
>
> > Nonsense? Are you sure?
>
> Yes. <shrug>
>
> > Think about your answer carefully. That's assuming you care if you
> > look like an idiot, though. Which we know to be not the case.
>
> Me thinks. The answer is still yes. <shrug>
Yes, we know you don't care if you look stupid.
Robert Jungk, " Brighter than a thousand suns: A History of the atomic
scientists"
Page 32: "Some years before, nationalist students had hissed Einstein
off the platform in Berling from which he was lecturing on his
relativity theory".
Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
There's another half page of context, but this is quite sufficient
proof of my point and a disproof of yours.
Do you have an argument, or just arrogant dismissal? I expect for this
reason - if nothing else - the entire reply will be snipped and
ignored.
>
> > > ** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
>
> > But applied to E&M by Einstein.
>
> E&M does not work with relativity. That is why the Aether was
> proposed. <shrug>
Except it does, wooby. To claim otherwise is both wrong and stupid.
Feel free to open an undergraduate textbook, or if you are feeling
arrogant, a graduate textbook on the subject. Would you like some
reading references to ignore?
>
> > > ** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
> > > by Voigt.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Says a college drop-out. <shrug>
Do you have a literature reference? Of course you don't.
>
> > > ** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
>
> > Correct. However Voigt/Larmor didn't publish, and Lorentz did.
>
> Bullshit!
Then name the publications and dates of said publications.
>
> > That's why its' called the LORENTZ transform.
>
> Nonsense. It was called the Lorentz transform by Poincare who was not
> exposed to Voigt’s and Larmor’s works while Lorentz did and no doubt
> your messiah Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar also
> did. <shrug>
Insult early, insult often.
>
> > > ** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells
>
> > No, that was the 4th dimension.
>
> Spacetime involves 4 dimension. I know this is news for a college
> drop-out. <shrug>
Apparently the "college dropout" knows more physics and history than
you. Curious.
>
> > Try to keep your sci-fi straight.
>
> Let me say again. H. G. Wells was the first published author to
> incorporate time as the 4th dimension. Try reading ‘the Time Machine’
> sometimes. <shrug>
Which is not the same thing as the modern concept of spacetime. Your
attempts to make relativity look ridiculous just make you look
desperate and pathetic.
>
> > There's a whole load of context that you will never understand due to
> > pervasive stupidity.
>
> Is this the most profound accusation from a college drop-out?
No, I can do better.
You are a sad old antisemite who has tasked himself with ridding the
world of Jewish physics posting under a pseudonym because you wouldn't
dare attach your real name to the idiocies you utter. Rather than
intelligently debate with your betters (me), you sit there and sling
mud because you know you can't win. You tried it once before and it
backfired horribly for you.
>
> > >and mathematically by Minkowski.
>
> > Incorrect, but for a different reason. Minkowski recognized the
> > geometric significance of Einstein's theory.
>
> Bullshit!
Would you like some reading material to ignore?
>
> > Let us not lose sight of the fact you still can't understand
> > Minkowski's formalism.
>
> The college drop-out is still delusional. <shrug>
Demonstrate competence and I'll apologize.
The Minkowski metric in Cartesian coordinates is ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 +
dy^2 + dz^2. Show that the norm of the four-velocity of a massive
particle is equal to -1.
>
> > > ** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
> > > formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> > Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
> > of gravitation.
>
> No, it does not. Try to understand Newtonian law of gravity
> sometimes. I know it is a monumental task for a college drop-out to
> accomplish, but still... <shrug>
An interesting request from someone who has never demonstrated any
competence in the subject.
>
> > The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
> > not work with the EP.
>
> As I said, the college drop-out is grossly ignorant. <shrug>
Do you have a counterclaim, or would you like to sniff some more?
>
> > > Just because
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
> > > the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
> > > plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
> > > equivalence. <shrug>
>
> > And the copy-paste insult comes out.
>
> So, do you not understand that? Let’s try again.
>
> Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally
> understood the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the
> principle of equivalence. <shrug>
It is a sad little person who has to save insults against half-century
dead men in text files.
>
> > > ** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
> > > covariant derivative.
>
> > Man-made?
>
> Absolutely.
As opposed to?
I assume you wrote it for a reason other than habit.
>
> > You mean everything else isn't man made,
>
> No. <shrug>
Then why write it?
>
> > or are you simply
> > stating this like how creationists emphasize that evolution is a
> > theory?
>
> The college drop-out fails to understand anything as usual. <shrug>
Then explain it. If you can.
>
> > Let us not lose sight of the fact that you do not understand the
> > Riemann tensor.
>
> The accusation made by the college drop-out is totally groundless.
Senior moment?
Here I am explaining to you that R^0_000 = 0 via symmetry. You ended
up agreeing with me.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f3f42288f1ffb7ac?dmode=source
Here I am explaining to you that the Ricci tensor is symmetric. You
refused to agree to that one, even though it is easily demonstrated to
be true.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/965a258791f78fd0?dmode=source
> After all, the college drop-out still does not understand the calculus
> of variations. <shrug>
That was 2006. I demonstrated my competence and showed it to be much
further past yours.
In fact, I had to tutor you extensively on the subject. You couldn't
write the covariant field equations right, you couldn't vary the
Lagrangian correctly, you didn't understand the explanations, and got
very upset when I persisted in explaining why you are wrong.
Have you figured out how to vary the square root of the determinant of
the metric yet? Or do you need a few more months to parse what was
written?
>
> > You do not understand the symmetries nor do you
> > understand the equivalence of the alternative definitions of the
> > object.
>
> The college drop-out does not even know what he is talking about now.
> Has it been a long after waking up well past noon today?
Poor little wooby is still smarting over me showing exactly why the
alternative definitions of the Ricci tensor are all the same up to a
change in sign.
Have you forgotten? Does baby need a refresher?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/911f92299c13eb8e?dmode=source
I'll explain the big words if you ask nicely.
>
> > > ** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
>
> > Only to you would this be important.
>
> So, the college drop-out does not understand the importance of the
> Ricci tensor in the development of the field equations.
You don't even understand why the Ricci tensor has to be symmetric!
>
> > > ** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
> > > suggested by Nordstrom.
>
> > Easy to claim, hard to prove. Just like everything else you do.
>
> Try to read historical accounts sometimes. I know this is a hard
> advice to a college drop-out. <shrug>
Do you have a literature reference supporting your claim? I doubt it
but I'd be remiss if I didn't ask.
>
> > > ** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
> > > out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
> > > crap it is) from his own @ss.
>
> > Yes, the field equations. The derivation of which you still do not
> > understand.
>
> Again, the accusation of the college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
>
> I am very certain that most of the physicists aka Einstein
> Dingleberries out there have no clues as how the field equations are
> derived. <shrug>
Then again neither do you. What does that say about you?
>
> > ... A system's Lagrangian is postulated - it all
> > starts from there...
>
> What are you whining about? Is it really that sad to be a college
> drop-out?
Do you need me to explain what a Lagrangian is?
>
> > > ** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > > solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
>
> > You don't understand the Schwarzschild solution either.
>
> Accusations from a college drop-out is groundless. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/67199f8c2bf4c127
You didn't understand then, and you most certainly do not understand
now.
>
> > Still think
> > that the surface area of a sphere in the Schwarzschild metric is equal
> > to 4 pi r^2 even though a simple calculation proves otherwise?
>
> The college drop-out is also a liar, for I have given you the answer
> many times over. <shrug>
You've never - even once - derived the surface area of a sphere. You
just keep repeating 4piR^2 like a mantra.
>
> > > ** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
> > > solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
> > > realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
> > > asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
> > > away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
> > > the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
>
> > Thanks for reminding us that it is 2009 and you still do not
> > understand that a coordinate system does not change a tensor.
>
> Again, the geometry must be invariant. Any choice of coordinate
> system must result in a different metric to describe this very
> invariant geometry. This is a basic axiom in geometry. Any
> elementary school children should be able to understand this, but the
> Einstein Dingleberries do not. <shrug>
In GR, g_uv g^uv = 4.
Show how a coordinate system can change the answer. I've asked you
this before - can you explain or would you like to shrug and not
answer?
>
> > > Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
> > > Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>
> > Do you ever stop whining about the jews?
>
> I am merely stating the fact that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> and the liar, Levi-Civita, and Schwarzschild were Jews. Do you not
> agree?
Your little crusade against 'jewish physics' isn't working, FYI.
>
> While Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar were cowardly
> trying to avoid to fight for his fatherland, Schwarschild was doing
> his duty as a citizen of imperial Germany fighting for its very
> survival. <shrug>
Once again, the true colors are revealed.
Do you march in the parades?
Daryl McCullough
>Could you do physics on a manifold that has a connection but no
>metric?
Yes. Newtonian physics is an example. It takes place on a
4-D spacetime manifold, just like Special and General
Relativity, but the Newtonian spacetime has no metric.
But it does have a connection.
To see that it has no metric, let e_1 and e_2 be two
events in Newtonian spacetime. Then we have two different
situations:
(1) If e_1 and e_2 are simultaneous, then there is
a 3D metric giving their distance.
(2) If e_1 and e_2 are *not* simultaneous, then there
is a 1D metric giving their time separation. But their
distance separation is undefined (different inertial
frames assign a different distance between them).
Unlike SR, there is no way for the time separation and
space separations to be combined into a spacetime separation.
So there is no metric on Newtonian spacetime. But there is
a connection.
The connection coefficients Gamma^i_jk is just defined in
terms of the covariant derivatives of basis vectors:
Grad_i e_j = Gamma^i_jk e_i
In Newtonian spacetime, we can pick basis vectors
e_t, e_x, e_y, e_z so that all the components Gamma^i_jk are
zero in the absence of a gravitational field. In the presence
of a gravitational field with acceleration g in the x-direction,
you can take the connection to be
Gamma^x_tt = -g
all other components are zero. You can compute the
connection in any other coordinate system as follows:
Let y^u be the new coordinates. Define the coefficients
L^i_u and L^u_i (where i runs over t,x,y,z, and u runs over the
indices for the new coordinate system) as follows:
L^i_u = @x^i/@y^u
L^u_i = @y^u/@x^i
In terms of these, the basis vectors transform as follows:
e_u = L^i_u e_i
e_i = L^u_i e_u
Then we can write:
@_u e_v = L^i_u @/@x^i (L^j_v e_j)
= L^i_u (@/@x^i L^j_v) e_j + L^i_u L^j_v @/@x^i e_j
By definition, @/@x^i e_j = Gamma^k_ij e_k. So we have:
@_u e_v = L^i_u (@/@x^i L^j_v) e_j + L^i_u L^j_v Gamma^k_ij e_k
= (L^i_u @/@x^i L^j_v) L^w_j e_w + L^i_u L^j_v Gamma^k_ij L^w_k e_w
So we have:
@_u e_v = Gamma^w_uv e_w
where Gamma^w_uv =
L^i_u L^j_v Gamma^k_ij +
(L^i_u @/@x^i L^j_v) L^w_j
>> >The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
>> >not work with the EP.
>>
>> I don't think of that as part of the equivalence principle.
>> To me, the equivalence principle just says that locally the
>> effects of gravity can be eliminated through a coordinate
>> transformation. That's true in both GR and Newtonian gravity.
>
>Tom Roberts would eat that sentence up, though I understand exactly
>what you are getting at.
>
>I look at it this way. The binding energy of gravitation has to
>gravitate, otherwise it is a kind of energy that has mass but not
>gravity. I'm being very loose with the language but I think my point
>is clear.
But in Newtonian gravity, energy is not the source of gravity,
mass is. So the fact that gravitational energy does not gravitate
is not surprising; no other kind of energy does, either.
>> The difference is that for GR, the source of gravity is a
>> tensor, the stress-energy tensor, while in Newtonian gravity,
>> the source is a scalar: mass density.
>
>...that depends how you look at it. What you say is true but then
>there's Cartan's reformulation that puts Newton on a metric formalism.
No, Cartan's reformulation does not have a metric. It has
a connection. That's basically what I was sketching above.
>But nobody likes to talk about that, because thinking about it is
>hard.
Yes. As a theory on *spacetime* (as opposed to space), Newtonian
gravity is much more convoluted than General Relativity. It only
looks simple when we use a special set of coordinates (Cartesian,
inertial).
Dorn.Strich
> I look at it this way. The binding energy of gravitation has to
> gravitate, otherwise it is a kind of energy that has mass but not
> gravity. I'm being very loose with the language but I think my point
> is clear.
>
For somebody who does not know what gravitation or mass is, that is a
lot of bull crap.
Eric Gisse
Hey Dave, you fashion yourself to be quite intelligent. Let's see you
solve this quandry with your 200 IQ.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1c9c35fb89b46502?dmode=source
Dorn.Strich
> Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
> physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
> around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
> declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
> They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
> physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
>
It is unfortunate, but history may reveal them to be right. As it
currently stands, relativity has failed two major tests--LIGO and
GPB. And before you lie about a GPB positive result again, relativity
is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and the latter clearly has
more validity.
Eric Gisse
> On 3 Áðñ, 04:19, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
> > physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
> > around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
> > declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
> > They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
> > physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
>
> It is unfortunate, but history may reveal them to be right. As it
> currently stands, relativity has failed two major tests--LIGO
So why are binary pulsars decaying exactly as GR predicts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5670/547?ck=nck
> and GPB.
The official page says differently, Dave.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
The published results by Everitt says differently.
The official report from 2007 says differently.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/final_report/GPB_FinalPFAR-091907-scrn.pdf
Why don't _you_ write down the conditions that would satisfy _you_?
> And before you lie about a GPB positive result again, relativity
> is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and the latter clearly has
> more validity.
Which relativity, Dave? Quantum field theory is the most widely tested
theory we have and it is built upon special relativity. Or do you
still deny this fact despite never having studied the theory?
And the incompatibility between GR and quantum theory has been known
for literally decades and is not news to anyone. Naturally one (both)
of the theories will be wrong.
sal
>
> On Apr 2, 9:24 pm, koobee.wublee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> > > Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the
>> > > other Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>>
>> plagiarist, and the liar, Levi-Civita, and Schwarzschild were
>> Jews. Do you not agree?
>>
>> cowardly trying to avoid to fight for his fatherland, Schwarschild
>> was doing his duty as a citizen of imperial Germany fighting for
>> its very survival. <shrug>
>
[Eric:]
> Once again, the true colors are revealed.
>
Thank you, Eric, for eliciting this enlightening little diatribe from
K-W. It certainly confirms his views on things, doesn't it?
It's rather bizarre to see K-W state that he feels that fighting for the
survival of Hitler's government was a good thing. Strange, also, to note
that K-W equates fighting for Hitler's government with fighting for the
survival of Germany -- I'd have said they were rather different things.
Hitler's government fell, rather hard in fact, and yet, last I heard,
Germany is still there, and doing just fine.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 6:47 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Áðñ, 04:19, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
> > > physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
> > > around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
> > > declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
> > > They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
> > > physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
>
> > It is unfortunate, but history may reveal them to be right. As it
> > currently stands, relativity has failed two major tests--LIGO
>
> So why are binary pulsars decaying exactly as GR predicts?
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5670/547?ck=nck
>
> > and GPB.
>
> The official page says differently, Dave.
>
> http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
>
> The published results by Everitt says differently.
>
> The official report from 2007 says differently.
>
>
> Why don't _you_ write down the conditions that would satisfy _you_?
>
> > And before you lie about a GPB positive result again, relativity
> > is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and the latter clearly has
> > more validity.
>
> Which relativity, Dave? Quantum field theory is the most widely tested
> theory we have and it is built upon special relativity. Or do you
> still deny this fact despite never having studied the theory?
>
> And the incompatibility between GR and quantum theory has been known
> for literally decades and is not news to anyone. Naturally one (both)
> of the theories will be wrong.
Eric, here is what I have been asking you from the beginning so you
can understand your failing: What is a POST-HOC analysis?
Once you answer that, then it will become obvious why the GPB study is
negative.
Daryl McCullough
>On Apr 2, 9:24=A0pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
>> While Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar were cowardly
>> trying to avoid to fight for his fatherland, Schwarschild was doing
>> his duty as a citizen of imperial Germany fighting for its very
>> survival. <shrug>
>
>Once again, the true colors are revealed.
Wow! I always knew that Koobee was a kook, and that he
hated Einstein, but there was never a suggestion that he
was a Nazi sympathizer. I would have defended him against
such charges, if I hadn't read Koobee's own words proving
it.
I was at first very dismissive of the idea (I think first
pointed out to me by Ian Parker, but more recently brought
up by Linda Thomas) that anti-relativists were motivated
by hatred of Jews, but it does seem to explain Koobee and
whoever writes "Einstein Hoax" articles.
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
It is obvious that strich wants it to be negative even though the
results are postive and show that strich has, once again, been
thoroughly and completly refuted.
By the way, strich, how is the refuting of the experiments coming?
Still a massive failure on strich's part.
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 2, 9:24 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Me thinks. The answer is still yes. <shrug>
>
> Yes, we know you don't care if you look stupid.
After all, you are a college drop-out, a troll, and a liar. <shrug>
> Robert Jungk, " Brighter than a thousand suns: A History of the atomic
> scientists"
>
> Page 32: "Some years before, nationalist students had hissed Einstein
> off the platform in Berling from which he was lecturing on his
> relativity theory".
>
> Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
> physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
> around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
> declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
> They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
> physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
>
> There's another half page of context, but this is quite sufficient
> proof of my point and a disproof of yours.
>
> Do you have an argument, or just arrogant dismissal? I expect for this
> reason - if nothing else - the entire reply will be snipped and
> ignored.
Anything from you needs to be dismissed since you are a college drop-
out, a troll, and a liar. <shrug>
However, I am curious. What the fvck is a nationalist student? Try
not to lie about the answer for a change.
> > E&M does not work with relativity. That is why the Aether was
> > proposed. <shrug>
>
> Except it does, wooby. To claim otherwise is both wrong and stupid.
> Feel free to open an undergraduate textbook, or if you are feeling
> arrogant, a graduate textbook on the subject. Would you like some
> reading references to ignore?
No, it does not, Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar.
> > Says a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> Do you have a literature reference? Of course you don't.
Who needs a reference when you are Gisse the college drop-out, the
troll, and the liar.
There is no need for me to continue discussing the lies brought on by
Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar.
> [Toxic materials snipped]
Eric Gisse
It is analysis that is done after the data is obtained, as opposed to
before the data is obtained.
Most experiments have post hoc analysis done.
>
> Once you answer that, then it will become obvious why the GPB study is
> negative.
You not liking the brand of analysis even though you have no
experience in the subject does not make the result go away.
koobee...@gmail.com
> Eric Gisse says...
> >Could you do physics on a manifold that has a connection but no
> >metric?
>
> Yes. Newtonian physics is an example. It takes place on a
> 4-D spacetime manifold, just like Special and General
> Relativity, but the Newtonian spacetime has no metric.
> But it does have a connection.
>
> [Snipped rest of babbling between two stooges]
So, this is how two Einstein Dingleberries argue about the $hit that
is wrong in the first place. Especially the Einstein Dingleberries
involve Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar and a
janitor. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
I'll be the first one to assault any correlation --> causation studies
in the news...
...but when a more-than-fair percentage of the people arguing about
Einstein make disparaging remarks about jews, ya can't help but wonder
if - just maybe - there is a relation between "not liking jews" and
"not liking relativity".
Eric Gisse
[...]
As expected, wooby snips everything then insults. Given literature
references and documented past behavior, what else can he do?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/bda48e445c49364e
That thread will always haunt you because you finally decided to
engage me in a technical conversation and you had your ASS handed to
you on a silver goddamn platter.
What did that thread reveal in particular?
* You do not understand the symmetries of Riemann
* You do not understand why the Ricci tensor has to be symmetric
* You do not understand what the Einstein-Hilbert actio nis
* You do not understand how to vary a Lagrangian
* You do not understand how to vary the square root of a determinant.
* You do not understand how to vary inverse metric.
Plus whatever I forgot. Which is substantial, because it was several
thousand words of ass beating on my part.
No matter how inane the insult you level against me, the simple fact
is you FAILED to put me in what you think my place is. And you have to
suffer that indignity every time I mock your stupid fucking ass, as I
have been doing for the past five years.
Isn't it so cute how I started out not knowing a damn thing and
managed to teach myself enough to make a mockery of your claims?
Thanks for playing. Checkmate, and don't forget <shrug>.
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 7:41 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eric, here is what I have been asking you from the beginning so you
> > can understand your failing: What is a POST-HOC analysis?
>
> It is analysis that is done after the data is obtained, as opposed to
> before the data is obtained.
>
Bzzzzt. Bzzzzt. Bzzzzt.
That is what a child would think.
That is what a child would think.
That is what a child would think.
But that is not the statistical definition.
But that is not the statistical definition.
But that is not the statistical definition.
No wonder you are deluded that GPB is positive.
No wonder you are deluded that GPB is positive.
No wonder you are deluded that GPB is positive.
Care to try again? What is a post-hoc analysis?
Care to try again? What is a post-hoc analysis?
Care to try again? What is a post-hoc analysis?
koobee...@gmail.com
useful besides lies?
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 7:41 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eric, here is what I have been asking you from the beginning so you
> > can understand your failing: What is a POST-HOC analysis?
>
> It is analysis that is done after the data is obtained, as opposed to
> before the data is obtained.
>
Bzzzzt. Bzzzzt. Bzzzzt.
sal
> Eric Gisse says...
>
>>On Apr 2, 9:24=A0pm, koobee.wublee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> While Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar were cowardly
>>> trying to avoid to fight for his fatherland, Schwarschild was doing
>>> his duty as a citizen of imperial Germany fighting for its very
>>> survival. <shrug>
>>
>>Once again, the true colors are revealed.
>
> Wow! I always knew that Koobee was a kook, and that he hated Einstein,
> but there was never a suggestion that he was a Nazi sympathizer. I would
> have defended him against such charges, if I hadn't read Koobee's own
> words proving it.
Yeah, I've been reserving judgement on him for the last couple years,
after I'd heard this about him.
The news isn't new. To get a complete picture of the rather nasty person
who currently calls himself Koobee-Wublee you need to sift through the
pseudonyms he's used on the Web and see what he's said when posting under
other names, and what he's posted in other forums.
Dirk has, in the past, posted some information as to who this guy is, but
I don't have Dirk's message anywhere handy, unfortunately. K-W has posted
under half dozen or a dozen names, which makes him hard to track. Of
course the proof that they're all really *him* tends to be a little thin!
Peter Webb
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97403f9f-076f-4d59...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Can Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar do anything
> useful besides lies?
>
He can do physics.
Which makes him infinitely more qualified to discuss Relativity than you
are.
HTH
Eric Gisse
> Can Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar do anything
> useful besides lies?
I can play an acceptable game of Texas Hold'em, make cranks weepy
little bitches, and drone on about the world's largest pinecone.
koobee...@gmail.com
> <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar do anything
> > useful besides lies?
>
> He can do physics.
Gisse is a college drop-out, a troll, and a liar. As a college drop-
out, a troll, and a liar, he cannot do anything right. <shrug>
Is this a typical Einstein Dingleberry thing --- trying to lick up
each other’s droppings?
> Which makes him infinitely more qualified to discuss Relativity than you
> are.
Let’s see. I discuss physics with sound mathematical arguments. The
upper echelon of the Einstein Dingleberries knew they had no arguments
and shied away. It is the low rung Einstein Dingleberries who know
nothing about physics such as Gisse the college drop-out, the troll,
and the liar that continue to spoil any discussions.
The following are typical traits of Einstein Dingleberries.
** FAITH IS THEORY
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** LYING IS TEACHING
I predict that you and Gisse will continue to eat each other’s crap
and to whine about all that you do not understand. <shrug>
koobee...@gmail.com
play any silly games by yourself. In the meantime, have another drink
of the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar.
Eric Gisse
[...] Einstein Dingleberry [...] lick up each other’s droppings [...]
Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein
Dingleberries. [...] eat each other’s crap
Stay classy.
koobee...@gmail.com
> [...] Einstein Dingleberry [...] lick up each other’s droppings [...]
> Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein
> Dingleberries. [...] eat each other’s crap
>
> Stay classy.
If you have better ideas to describe these Einstein Dingleberries
including yourself, let’s hear it. In the meantime, my descriptions
proudly stand. <shrug>
Peter Webb
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a082e9e4-217c-4064...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > Can Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar do anything
> > useful besides lies?
>
> He can do physics.
Gisse is a college drop-out, a troll, and a liar. As a college drop-
out, a troll, and a liar, he cannot do anything right. <shrug>
Is this a typical Einstein Dingleberry thing --- trying to lick up
each other’s droppings?
************
You asked what he could do. I told you. If you don't like the truth, don't
ask questions.
> Which makes him infinitely more qualified to discuss Relativity than you
> are.
Let’s see. I discuss physics with sound mathematical arguments. The
upper echelon of the Einstein Dingleberries knew they had no arguments
and shied away. It is the low rung Einstein Dingleberries who know
nothing about physics such as Gisse the college drop-out, the troll,
and the liar that continue to spoil any discussions.
The following are typical traits of Einstein Dingleberries.
** FAITH IS THEORY
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** LYING IS TEACHING
I predict that you and Gisse will continue to eat each other’s crap
and to whine about all that you do not understand. <shrug>
*******************
No, I studied physics at Uni, and feel I understand SR (but not GR) quite
well.
mL
> On Apr 4, 12:35 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] Einstein Dingleberry [...] lick up each other’s droppings [...]
>> Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein Dingleberries [...] Einstein
>> Dingleberries. [...] eat each other’s crap
>> Stay classy.
> If you have better ideas to describe these Einstein
> Dingleberries including yourself, let’s hear it.
Easy! The wellknown Einstein dingleberries and
trolls Koobee, Pentcho, and Androcles portray
themselves freely as specimen who wouldn't have
any notable usenet life without their inane
idiosyncrasies about Einstein.
mlut...@orange.fr
Why not
** THEORY IS FAITH
** WISDOM IS MYSTICISM
** KNOWLEDGE IS IGNORANCE
** CREATIVITY IS PLAGIARISM
** REALITY IS CONJECTURE
** LEARNING IS BELIEVING
** TEACHING IS LYING
Marcel Luttgens
Lofty Goat
> I can play an acceptable game of Texas Hold'em, make cranks weepy little
> bitches, and drone on about the world's largest pinecone.
Moreover, you're rediscovering your sense of humor. As an antidote for
stress it is unsurpassed.
-- RLW
Eric Gisse
Proud?
You are proud of your behavior here?
Han de Bruijn
> On Apr 2, 4:22 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Apr 2, 2:01 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>[Babbling nonsense snipped]
>>
>>>(As I already observed, the Nazis dismissed relativity
>>>as "Jewish science",
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
> Nonsense? Are you sure?
>
> Think about your answer carefully. That's assuming you care if you
> look like an idiot, though. Which we know to be not the case.
>
>>>and this was not because the Nazis simply latched
>>>onto all fringe ideas. Other anti-semites apparently do the same.)
>>
>>** The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo.
>
> But applied to E&M by Einstein.
>
>>** The invariance in the observed speed of light was first postulated
>>by Voigt.
>
> Incorrect.
>
>>** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Voigt and Larmor.
>
> Correct. However Voigt/Larmor didn't publish, and Lorentz did. That's
> why its' called the LORENTZ transform.
>
>>** The concept of spacetime was first discussed by H. G. Wells
>
> No, that was the 4th dimension. Try to keep your sci-fi straight.
> There's a whole load of context that you will never understand due to
> pervasive stupidity.
>
>>and
>>mathematically by Minkowski.
>
> Incorrect, but for a different reason. Minkowski recognized the
> geometric significance of Einstein's theory.
>
> Let us not lose sight of the fact you still can't understand
> Minkowski's formalism.
>
>>** The principle of equivalence was discovered by Galileo again. It
>>formed the backbone to the Newtonian law of gravity.
>
> Like hell it does. The equivalence principle implies a metric theory
> of gravitation.
It doesn't.
> The energy of gravitation in Newton does not gravitate - Newton does
> not work with the EP.
>
>> Just because
>>Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally understood
>>the Newtonian law of gravity, it does not give him as a nitwit, a
>>plagiarist, and a liar to claim to have rediscovered the principle of
>>equivalence. <shrug>
>
> And the copy-paste insult comes out.
>
>>** The Riemann tensor was derived by Ricci based on his manmade
>>covariant derivative.
>
> Man-made? You mean everything else isn't man made, or are you simply
> stating this like how creationists emphasize that evolution is a
> theory?
>
> Let us not lose sight of the fact that you do not understand the
> Riemann tensor. You do not understand the symmetries nor do you
> understand the equivalence of the alternative definitions of the
> object.
>
>>** The Ricci tensor was stated by Levi-Civita (a Jew).
>
> Only to you would this be important.
>
>>** The idea of linking the Ricci scalar to the field equations was
>>suggested by Nordstrom.
>
> Easy to claim, hard to prove. Just like everything else you do.
>
>>** The field equations were finally derived by Hilbert after pulling
>>out the so-called Lagrangian to the Einstein-Hilbert action (whatever
>>crap it is) from his own @ss.
>
> Yes, the field equations. The derivation of which you still do not
> understand.
Derivation ? Take any other model with enough free parameters to adjust
for a decent match with good old Newtonian gravity. General Relativity
is a splendid piece of mathematics, built on quicksand.
> Plus the whine shows that you - remarkably - still do not understand
> classical mechanics. A system's Lagrangian is postulated - it all
> starts from there. That you whine it was picked arbitrarily not only
> exhibits great ignorance of concepts like weak coupling, but that you
> are a fucking idiot as well.
>
>>** The first static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
>>solution to the field equations was solved by Schwarzschild (a Jew).
>
> You don't understand the Schwarzschild solution either. Still think
> that the surface area of a sphere in the Schwarzschild metric is equal
> to 4 pi r^2 even though a simple calculation proves otherwise?
>
>>** The second static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat
>>solution to the field equations was solved by Hilbert. After
>>realizing there are infinite such static, spherically symmetric, and
>>asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations, Hilbert walked
>>away from the monster he had created and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
>>the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
>
> Thanks for reminding us that it is 2009 and you still do not
> understand that a coordinate system does not change a tensor.
>
>>Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
>>Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>
> Do you ever stop whining about the jews?
>
>>>[More babbling nonsense snipped]
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> On Apr 2, 5:22 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Besides Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the other
>>Jews were Levi-Civita and Schwarzschild. <shrug>
>>
> Schwarzschild was not Jewish, piece of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
<quote> Karl Schwarzschild (October 9, 1873 – May 11, 1916) was a German
Jewish physicist. </quote>
^^^^^^
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> On 3 Απρ, 04:19, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Page 33 "Long before Hitler's seizure of power a small group of German
>>physicists, styling themselves "national researchers," had formed
>>around the Nobel prize winners Lenard and Stark. This group boldly
>>declared Einstein's theory of relativity to be "Jewish world-bluff."
>>They attempted to dismiss, under the summary heading of "Jewish
>>physics," all studies based on the data of Einstein and Bohr."
>>
> It is unfortunate, but history may reveal them to be right. As it
> currently stands, relativity has failed two major tests--LIGO and
> GPB. And before you lie about a GPB positive result again, relativity
> is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and the latter clearly has
> more validity.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html
Explain your abbreviations at least once in a thread, please.
Han de Bruijn
Dorn.Strich
> "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Two questions:
>
> > 1) What makes you think relativity cannot be wrong?
> > 2) What makes you think the arguments against relativity are
> > nonsensical? (Well some are, but there are some really good ones which
> > have not been refuted.)
>
> Dorn - sorry to take so long getting back. The responses to my question
> have been very interesting, but you are the only one who asked a question.
>
> I ran this past a physics professor here, as I'm a psychologist. I showed
> him some posts, and directed him to some websites. I also know a bit about
> research from my work in psychology. Here's a quick summary:
>
> Relativity cannot be wrong any more than Newtonian mechanics or
> thermodynamics can be wrong. That is, both are well-established science
> with multiple experimental proofs over a long period of time. Like all
> valid theories, they both explain and predict.
>
> What relativity *can* be is incomplete. That is, there is possible more to
> know. A good example of this is Newtonian mechanics: relativity didn't
> refute it, as many people think; it modified it to cover velocities that
> are significant with respect to the speed of light. Relativistic effects
> are always present; at most speeds in human experience they are too small
> to be detected. (Try the Lorentz Transforms for a car moving 50 mph.)
>
> The professor I talked to said that our physics department (and most
> others) receives a regular flow of communications from people with their
> own theories about relativity and other areas of physics. They are never
> answered, because then you have a pen pal - and the theories are always,
> well, nonsensical. Some of these people become quite angry when they are
> not invited to lecture or debate their ideas. (This would be like having an
> astrologer talk to a group of astronomers.)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Linda
Any theory can be wrong. Your professor obviously lied. He should
resign his position as he has ceased to operate within the framework
of the scientific method. Best regards...
koobee...@gmail.com
> "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Relativity cannot be wrong any more than Newtonian mechanics or
> thermodynamics can be wrong. That is, both are well-established science
> with multiple experimental proofs over a long period of time. Like all
> valid theories, they both explain and predict.
As usual, I am not surprised. This is a typical press response by
Einstein dingleberries. <shrug>
> What relativity *can* be is incomplete. That is, there is possible more to
> know. A good example of this is Newtonian mechanics: relativity didn't
> refute it, as many people think; it modified it to cover velocities that
> are significant with respect to the speed of light. Relativistic effects
> are always present; at most speeds in human experience they are too small
> to be detected. (Try the Lorentz Transforms for a car moving 50 mph.)
The Lorentz transform is falsified by the twin’s paradox. The
combination of the principle of relativity and time dilation manifests
the twin’s paradox. To resolve this paradox, it is necessary to show
either of the two properties of the Lorentz transform is false. In
doing so, any resolution would falsify the Lorentz transform itself.
Since SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, any
resolution to the twin’s paradox must also falsify SR. Yet, it does
not prevent scores of zealots to show their ‘perpetual motion
machines’. <shrug>
> The professor I talked to said that our physics department (and most
> others) receives a regular flow of communications from people with their
> own theories about relativity and other areas of physics. They are never
> answered, because then you have a pen pal - and the theories are always,
> well, nonsensical. Some of these people become quite angry when they are
> not invited to lecture or debate their ideas. (This would be like having an
> astrologer talk to a group of astronomers.)
Since your professor is supposed to be an expert in this field, you
have to believe anything he says. Even if he came across a theory
that will topple the known development in physics in the past 100
years, he will not indulge it.
Just like Confucius teaching, continue to obey the authority and
assume the authority know what they are talking about. In the
meantime, a few learned scholars of physics have adopted the Mo Zi
philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_zi).
Happy being a disciple of Confucius.