Was Einstein totally and completely wrong?
Bhanwara
Uncle Al
>
> Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
PSR J0737-3039A/B, deeply relativistic pulsar binary
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Shubee
> Bhanwara wrote:
> > Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
>
Degenerate.
JanPB
Nondegenerate and signature 2.
--
Jan Bielawski
Dono
> Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
The Mukesh Patel imbecile is back. With a blog, this time.
Bill Hobba
"Bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
'But as it turns out, Einstein's work is quite interleaved with the "light
propagation" issue, which was the Big Question in physics in late 1800's.'
That should be 'was'. It is now known that it has nothing to do with it.
The c that appears in SR formula are a consequence of space-time geometry -
nothing to do with light. See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO still excellent
post by Tomn Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that the
speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation given
here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal speed (c)
is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis of the
derivation. General symmetry properties of space-time are sufficient to
determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation [to within a
topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
formulate an alternative to Special Relativity, while obeying the observed
symmetries of space-time and agreeing with the experimental evidence [see
below about the limitations of the symmetry postulates used in this
derivation].'
'So basically, yes, SR, GR, and the particle theory of light (and
photoelectricity) are totally and completely incorrect.'
It is not surprising wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions - even if
your logic is correct - which it isn't. BTW in a deep sense you are
probably not even aware of you are correct. If you meant it that way then
it should be quite easy for you to tell us what that sense is. Care to give
it a try? Hint - QFT describes everything as quantum fields, so in a sense
the 'particle' theory of light is wrong - it sometimes behave like a
particle, sometimes like a wave - in reality it is neither.
Bill
hanson
news:aP1Hi.1336$9r....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
>>
> See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8d5ace6e9b761c07?hl=en&
>
[hanson]
.... So, the short sense of your long story is:... Drrrrum Rrrrroll.......!
= Bhanwara said: SR, GR, are totally and completely incorrect.
== Bill said: The 'c' in SR formula [has] nothing to do with light.
=== Bill quotes Tom for support who said: SR centers on the
"assumption" that the speed of light 'c' is constant in all
reference frames.
==== Bill lectured Bhanwara: "in a deep sense you, Bhanwara,
are not aware of you are correct. So, in a sense the 'particle'
theory of light is wrong."
>
ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
SR/GR is so wonderful. SR/GR has something for everybody:
*** Tons of arguments about whether it is right or wrong *** but
**nothing else** which is asserted in the righteous crescendo
by its creator who said in 1954 to Basso shortly before he puffed:
>
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
For some unfathomable reason Einstein's Dingleberries do
refuse to even consider that and much less to accept it, but
instead they move close to Albert's sphincter... ahahahaha....
>
Tell me, guys, anyone.... is this Einstein Dingleberry clankering
a normal phenomenon? --- Were there similar theatrics about
Newton's theory 50 y after his death / 100 y after his "Principia"?
>
Thanks for the laughs, dudes. This is hilarious!... ahahaha..
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:... and some irony:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d066c21b87322cde?hl=en&
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Cy3Hi.1376$ec2.489@trnddc03...
: AHAHAHA... "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
Yes. See Gerald Kellerher (oriel36), he's still at it today.
And then there is this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
After a few million years or so the time at the equator is a few
months different to time at the poles.
Dingleberries are FECES members.
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189911972....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Your one-liners are on a par with Martin Hogbin's.
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Bill Hobba
Right back at you - AHAHAHA...
Bill
Alen
> "Bhanwara" <bhanwa...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
>
> 'But as it turns out, Einstein's work is quite interleaved with the "light
> propagation" issue, which was the Big Question in physics in late 1800's.'
>
> That should be 'was'. It is now known that it has nothing to do with it.
> The c that appears in SR formula are a consequence of space-time geometry -
> nothing to do with light. See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO still excellent
> Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that the
> speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation given
> here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal speed (c)
> is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis of the
> derivation. General symmetry properties of space-time are sufficient to
> determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation [to within a
> topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
> formulate an alternative to Special Relativity, while obeying the observed
> symmetries of space-time and agreeing with the experimental evidence [see
> below about the limitations of the symmetry postulates used in this
> derivation].'
>
> Bill
I don't see that a mapping principle has to be
a coordinate transformation. In a coordinate
transformation, a spacetime point is mapped onto
itself, but a transfer of information between two frames
could just as well map a spacetime point onto another
spacetime point. How is that possibility excluded?
Alen
hanson
... AHAHAHAHAHA... why, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
did you crank yourself? I didn't mean to get to you, Bill, but you
really posted rubbish... ahaha... Now read again what Einstein,
your icon or con-man said.
Here it is again for your benefit, including Andro's comments:
>
PS:... and some irony:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d066c21b87322cde?hl=en&
>
[Androcles]
Yes. See Gerald Kellerher (oriel36), he's still at it today.
And then there is this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
After a few million years or so the time at the equator is a few
months different to time at the poles.
Dingleberries are FECES members.
>
[hanson]
Androcles
: [hanson]
Before there were clocks there were sundials to tell the time with.
If you lose a microsecond a day then you lose 365 microsecs
a year. A megayear ... 6 minutes.
10 megayears, 1 hour.
100 megayears, 10 hours
1 gigayear, 4 days
That's the pole advanced 4 degrees past the equator...
What's really strange though... why is the Moon round?
It should be flat like the Earth, yes?
AutoCrank
> [hanson]
> ... AHAHAHAHAHA... why, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> did you crank yourself? I didn't mean to get to you, Bill, but you
> really posted rubbish... ahaha... Now read again what Einstein,
> your icon or con-man said.
> Here it is again for your benefit, including Andro's comments:
The rarified cosmic "rays'" interior eigenvectors in its derivatives might
REMAIN the molecules for their CENTERS when its gluons in the electric
field lines are THE exterior GALAXIES. Mainstream physicists claim THAT
their exterior fixed harmonic is ITS core.
>
> AHAHAHA... "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:aP1Hi.1336$9r....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
THE exponential MAGNETIC field line's electric harmonics ARE the errors.
'The' SOUND for its incoming "PLANCK" length will be moving if their
coordinates in the strong wormhole annihilate the period!!!!! SRIAN
zombies claim that their GLUON falls into their coordinate. ITS error must
'BE' "the" universal enriched ordinary moving ACTIVITY in AN error 'if' its
gravitational rarified black hole in the exotic segments IS an eigenvalue
from THEIR TRANSMITTED FIELD lines!
>> "Bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
SRians 'say' that their dimension alters their frame. "THEREFORE," THEIR
negative OBSERVABLE values are ITS strong MEASUREMENTS IN its ruler!!!!!!!
Copenhagenists go SO far as to say 'that' the redshift REMAINS A "Higgs"
boson in the particles. A sequence must BE 'EQUAL' to its magnetic scalar
error.
> [Hobba's Rubbish]
>> See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8d5ace6e9b761c07?hl=en&
Its logarithmic separate magnetic electrical exterior 'one-way' graduations
are electric. Its macroscopic STRING might become entangled with 'their'
Higgs boson IF its ordinary weak TRANSMITTERS may transform THE electric
CHARGES!!!!!
> [hanson]
> .... So, the short sense of your long story is:... Drrrrum Rrrrroll.......!
> = Bhanwara said: SR, GR, are totally and completely incorrect.
> == Bill said: The 'c' in SR formula [has] nothing to do with light.
> === Bill quotes Tom for support who said: SR centers on the
> "assumption" that the speed of light 'c' is constant in all
> reference frames.
> ==== Bill lectured Bhanwara: "in a deep sense you, Bhanwara,
> are not aware of you are correct. So, in a sense the 'particle'
> theory of light is wrong."
The particle may be observable. In FACT, their discrete speed in the
exponential frames is the 'absolute' frame. Since the centers of THE
equivalent speed PERCEIVE the QUARKS, the "trajectories" may have the
macroscopic REFERENCE frames' particle.
> ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
> SR/GR is so wonderful. SR/GR has something for everybody:
> *** Tons of arguments about whether it is right or wrong *** but
> **nothing else** which is asserted in the righteous crescendo
> by its creator who said in 1954 to Basso shortly before he puffed:
Before ITS derivative must be its body, their negative orbits' charges will
collide with its measurements IN the combined velocities. Mainstream
PHYSICISTS go so 'far' as to say that its continuous BODY IN its atoms
measures the body of the entanglement. A positive body's logarithmic
moving DISTANT fixed electromagnetic frame MAY "have" the coordinates. The
TRANSMITTED body of its lengths has the leptons from its lengths.
> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
AN OBSERVER remains EMITTED!!! Until the spaces are the atmospheres, THE
universes 'transform' A field IN their continuous TIMES. Before the
continuous ONE-WAY strings fall into THE time in the continuous fermion,
ITS segment's FIELD can CHANGE the quarks. The reason the kilogram shrank
is that the CONTINUOUS oscillations' continuous field REMAINS combined!
The fixed rulers will be its cores' CONTINUOUS segments.
> For some unfathomable reason Einstein's Dingleberries do
> refuse to even consider that and much less to accept it, but
> instead they move close to Albert's sphincter... ahahahaha....
"If" a muon MIGHT remain the spaces' MISSING monopole for the RARIFIED
blueshift, the OBSERVED lobes ARE equal to a VALUE. A space's error from
'their' probabilistic dark matter becomes ENTANGLED with the observables'
strong light ray for the photons assuming that the LIGHT rays will be the
cosmic rays of a continuous COORDINATE system!!!!!!!! Since A string might
ANNIHILATE the proper times, THE uncertainty principle is individual.
> Tell me, guys, anyone.... is this Einstein Dingleberry clankering
> a normal phenomenon? --- Were there similar theatrics about
> Newton's theory 50 y after his death / 100 y after his "Principia"?
'Assuming' that the trajectories' entanglement is THE radio WAVE, the
exotic position in the lengths MIGHT alter an atmosphere. The current of A
scalar activity transforms the electromagnetic observers' "UNIVERSAL"
observer. SRians are stupid enough TO believe THAT an integral 'will'
measure the Higgs BOSONS for the sequence.
> PS:... and some irony:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d066c21b87322cde?hl=en&
The probabilistic magnetic field 'will' perceive the probabilistic
integrals' light rays. The deterministic wavelike ELECTRIC incoming frames
'of' the ENRICHED electric FIELD lines should REMAIN deterministic UNTIL
its cores' exterior core in its VELOCITY will become the INDIVIDUAL
MEASUREMENT'S region from their radio waves!!!!!!!
> [Androcles]
> Yes. See Gerald Kellerher (oriel36), he's still at it today.
> And then there is this:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
If its exotic bounded cores IN the clock perceive a clock, their bounded
rods IN the electrons may FALL INTO THE gravitational CLOCK'S UNIFORM
CORES. The electromagnetic reference frames are equal to THE CLOCK in the
absolute CLOCK "because" the clock in the redshift must BE a stationary
cloud in their clock.
> After a few million years or so the time at the equator is a few
> months different to time at the poles.
> Dingleberries are FECES members.
"Copenhagenists" blindly assume that the elementary planets in A 'weak'
time can transform its rarified values' dark ENERGY in the time!!!!! Their
photons' atoms destroy the reference FRAMES if the POSITIONS are the exotic
gravitational momenta!! Their coordinates hit a 'time' in the electrons
until the harmonic surrounds the reference frame.
> [hanson]
> Thanks for the laughs, dudes. This is hilarious!... ahahaha..
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
It is clear that an ELECTROMAGNETIC wave's Higgs boson must be 'a' time.
If the "INTERNAL" REFERENCE frame affects a vacuum's one-way absolute fixed
"internal" rod for THE Higgs boson, "the" period may affect its observers
for its velocities. The moving oscillations FOR the RECEIVER absorb the
proper times' coordinate systems.
Koobee Wublee
"Was Einstein totally and completely wrong?"
To be fair, Einstein was not wrong. However, he was not right
either. All the stuff credited to Einstein were not of his works.
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
>From your blog, you should be asking
"Was SR or GR totally and completely wrong?"
Yes.
SR is falsified by the manifestation of the twin's paradox. The
foundation of GR is based on misapplications of mathematics. The
predictions of GR are also supported by matheMagical manipulations of
established mathematics. They can only fool the math-deficients.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
You might want to learn how to use index notation before proclaiming
all of GR is wrong. Plus, learning how to actually apply SR would do
much for you.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 16, 6:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > SR is falsified by the manifestation of the twin's paradox. The
> > foundation of GR is based on misapplications of mathematics. The
> > predictions of GR are also supported by matheMagical manipulations of
> > established mathematics. They can only fool the math-deficients.
> > <shrug>
>
> You might want to learn how to use index notation before proclaiming
> all of GR is wrong. Plus, learning how to actually apply SR would do
> much for you.- Hide quoted text -
You might want to learn the basics of GR especially the calculus of
variations before applying any indexing notations. <shrug> Plus, the
mathematics of SR, namely the Lorentz transform, first before
sputtering like that as a super, super senior struggling to get his BS
degree from the university of Alaska. <shrug>
Dono
[crap snipped]
> SR is falsified by the manifestation of the twin's paradox.
Really, shithead? When did you learn that?
Tom Roberts
>> post by Tom Roberts:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
I wrote that more than 15 years ago, when I was just beginning to become
re-interested in physics after a hiatus of many years. I had A LOT to
learn at that time, and I cringe a bit whenever Bill posts a reference
to it. While it displays the basic idea, its attempt at rigor fails. It
was indeed based on "dimly remembered ideas from graduate school" (at
the time ~20 years earlier, so they must have stuck pretty well but not
perfectly (:-)).
> I don't see that a mapping principle has to be
> a coordinate transformation.
That "mapping principle" is just the notion that one can apply
coordinates to the world, and since the world is independent of how one
does that the other aspects I mentioned are required.
> In a coordinate
> transformation, a spacetime point is mapped onto
> itself,
Hmmm. More accurately: the COORDINATES of a given point are transformed
(mapped) into the new COORDINATES of that same point. There is no
mapping of points to points, there is just mapping of one type of
coordinate values to another type of coordinate values.
> but a transfer of information between two frames
> could just as well map a spacetime point onto another
> spacetime point. How is that possibility excluded?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps the understanding
that there is no "mapping of points to points" here will resolve your
question.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
> Alen wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 1:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
> >> See the following ancient but IMHO still excellent
>
> I wrote that more than 15 years ago, when I was just beginning to become
> re-interested in physics after a hiatus of many years. I had A LOT to
> learn at that time, and I cringe a bit whenever Bill posts a reference
> to it. While it displays the basic idea, its attempt at rigor fails. It
> was indeed based on "dimly remembered ideas from graduate school" (at
> the time ~20 years earlier, so they must have stuck pretty well but not
> perfectly (:-)).
Don't worry Roberts Roberts people will understand your problem. 15
years ago you started studying physics and naturally you could not
know anything about the discovery of Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu. However in 2006 you were educated enough and even became a
coauthor:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/34d4b543c9ed073e?
So when your student Dirk Moortel started glorifying you, nobody
protested:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21a8122a2f8e1d44?
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
You do not hunderstand index notation.
2) The math of SR is not the Lorentz transform. A special case is not
the general treatment.
3) I have only been in Fairbanks for 4 years. Do not criticise what
you do not understand.
Koobee Wublee
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >You might want to learn the basics of GR especially the calculus of
> >variations before applying any indexing notations. <shrug> Plus, the
> >mathematics of SR, namely the Lorentz transform, first before
> >sputtering like that as a super, super senior struggling to get his BS
> >degree from the university of Alaska. <shrug>
>
> 1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
> however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
Lagrange equations to understand GR. How else can you understand the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind in which they play a crucial
role in the Riemann, the Ricci, and the Einstein tensors. The
mathematics to the calculus of variations is very simple. After all,
it was development about 300 years ago. So, why is that you have
failed to understand the calculus of variations time after time?
> You do not hunderstand index notation.
Yes, I do. It is irrelevant in this case. <shrug>
> 2) The math of SR is not the Lorentz transform. A special case is not
> the general treatment.
The mathematics of SR is the Lorentz transform. <shrug> Any laws of
physics must be the same everywhere and everywhen. There are no
special cases. <shrug>
> 3) I have only been in Fairbanks for 4 years. Do not criticise what
> you do not understand.
Transferring into the universe of Alaska from some community college
still counts you as a super, super senior. <shrug>
hanson
"AutoCrank" <auto...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:rud2oalsjdh1.14...@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:39:34 GMT, hanson wrote:
>
>> [hanson]
>> ... AHAHAHAHAHA... why, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>> did you crank yourself? I didn't mean to get to you, Bill, but you
>> really posted rubbish... ahaha... Now read again what Einstein,
>> your icon or con-man said.
>> Here it is again for your benefit, including Andro's comments:
>
> The rarified cosmic "rays'" interior eigenvectors in its derivatives might
> REMAIN the molecules for their CENTERS when its gluons in the electric
> field lines are THE exterior GALAXIES. Mainstream physicists claim
> THAT their exterior fixed harmonic is ITS core.
>
In the light and field of Mehrman-Maleki transforms, disregarding
the influence of Allahshian vector conflections (AVC), what you
just have stated above makes it not only true but absolutely true.
This then of course renders the rest of your lengthy discourse
below as utterly trivial and unnecessarily ilk-conditioned, like the
lost vanishing tail in applicable advanced math procedures known
as WBSPMS, wagging the blind sun-dog perturbation matrix set.
Best regards,
hanson
>
snipped....
Bill Hobba
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1189951050.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Because a mapping is defined as a change in coordinate system. Point of
view invariance demands that such exists ie if you describe the same process
in another coordinate system the assumption is the transform obeys the group
postulate. While extremely intuitive, and assumed in many proofs in math,
not just physics, it none the less is an assumption. Just recently I saw a
proof of the Erdos Feller Pollard theorem that assumed you could find a map
between different ensembles started at the same time. While something I
would not care to doubt it still is an assumption.
Bill
>
> Alen
>
Bill Hobba
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%knHi.3122$ZA5....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Alen wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 1:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
>>> See the following ancient but IMHO still excellent
>>> post by Tom
>>> Roberts:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
>
> I wrote that more than 15 years ago, when I was just beginning to become
> re-interested in physics after a hiatus of many years. I had A LOT to
> learn at that time, and I cringe a bit whenever Bill posts a reference to
> it. While it displays the basic idea, its attempt at rigor fails. It was
> indeed based on "dimly remembered ideas from graduate school" (at the time
> ~20 years earlier, so they must have stuck pretty well but not perfectly
> (:-)).
Trouble is Tom, there is nothing else as good as it around. Every time I
see someone babbling on about the constancy of the speed of light it is the
best rebuttal I know. I will try to limit my links to it.
Thanks
Bill
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 10:03 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> >You might want to learn the basics of GR especially the calculus of
>> >variations before applying any indexing notations. <shrug> Plus, the
>> >mathematics of SR, namely the Lorentz transform, first before
>> >sputtering like that as a super, super senior struggling to get his BS
>> >degree from the university of Alaska. <shrug>
>>
>> 1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
>> however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
>
>You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
>Lagrange equations to understand GR. How else can you understand the
>Christoffel symbols of the second kind in which they play a crucial
>role in the Riemann, the Ricci, and the Einstein tensors. The
>mathematics to the calculus of variations is very simple. After all,
>it was development about 300 years ago. So, why is that you have
>failed to understand the calculus of variations time after time?
Who says I haven't?
Go ahead. Give me a test problem. The offer has been open for at least
a year now - all I have ever asked is that you be capable of doing it
yourself as a hedge against something ridiculous.
Deriving the Christoffel symbols via variational methods is /helpful/
but by NO MEANS required.
>
>> You do not hunderstand index notation.
>
>Yes, I do. It is irrelevant in this case. <shrug>
Really?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fffcb05b511fb917?dmode=source
I explained to you where you were wrong, and you can't even figure out
why I'm complaining.
Telling me to learn the basics when you can't even WRITE DOWN A
DEFINITION AND RECOGNIZE WHERE YOU GET IT WRONG is *incredible*.
>
>> 2) The math of SR is not the Lorentz transform. A special case is not
>> the general treatment.
>
>The mathematics of SR is the Lorentz transform. <shrug> Any laws of
>physics must be the same everywhere and everywhen. There are no
>special cases. <shrug>
Wrong, as usual. There is more to SR than the Lorentz transform.
>
>> 3) I have only been in Fairbanks for 4 years. Do not criticise what
>> you do not understand.
>
>Transferring into the universe of Alaska from some community college
>still counts you as a super, super senior. <shrug>
Shit and run....shit and run! You don't know anything about my
history, but that doesn't stop you from saying stupid shit. While your
here, why don't you finish reply to some technical points?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8d37ba4ee6856fcc?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0feb123cafcca830?dmode=source
When the discussion gets too complicated, insult me then run away
because you can't figure out how to reply.
kalpha...@gmail.com
> Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
You cannot just say a theory is wrong if it proves results.
Experimental data relates to the theory quite nicely so just because
you feel its wrong doesn't matter. In an objective reality it may very
well be wrong, but that doesn't matter if it proves to be right in the
reality we see everyday. This theory helped technology leap in great
bounds so its ignorant to say its completely idiotic.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Sep 16, 10:03 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>> 1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
>> however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
>
>You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
>Lagrange equations to understand GR.
That's debatable, but you certainly do need to understand differential
geometry. That is *crucial*. And you don't understand it AT ALL. In
particular, you don't seem to realize how to compute the area of a
surface of constant r, given the metric
ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
[r goes from -a to infinity,
Theta goes from 0 to pi,
Phi goes from 0 to 2 pi]
You go on about "Christoffel symbols of the second kind" when
you don't even understand the most basic facts about differential
geometry.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
JanPB
> On Sep 16, 10:03 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > >You might want to learn the basics of GR especially the calculus of
> > >variations before applying any indexing notations. <shrug> Plus, the
> > >mathematics of SR, namely the Lorentz transform, first before
> > >sputtering like that as a super, super senior struggling to get his BS
> > >degree from the university of Alaska. <shrug>
>
> > 1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
> > however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
>
> You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
> Lagrange equations to understand GR.
Something tells me you have no idea what they are. I'm tempted to ask
you a simple question about the E-L equations.
> How else can you understand the
> Christoffel symbols of the second kind in which they play a crucial
> role in the Riemann, the Ricci, and the Einstein tensors.
Yep, the standard crank trait: the use of antiquated terminology and
clinging to one, historical, approach for dear life.
(If anyone else is reading this: nobody these days uses the phrase
"Christoffel symbols of the second kind" - this is roughly pre-WWII
terminology and betrays a the lack of competence at once. Also, other
methods of describing connections and curvature exist, some of them
vastly superior in certain contexts. They are equally "crucial" but
then Koobee wouldn't know that.)
> The
> mathematics to the calculus of variations is very simple. After all,
> it was development about 300 years ago. So, why is that you have
> failed to understand the calculus of variations time after time?
And I'm thinking about assigning to you an easy calculus of variations
exercise as well. No promises but if I do then perhaps we'll all see
what your pontificating is worth.
> > You do not hunderstand index notation.
>
> Yes, I do.
Ditto.
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
<kalpha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190034299.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: On Sep 15, 4:08 pm, Bhanwara <bhanwa...@netscape.net> wrote:
: > Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
:
: You cannot just say a theory is wrong if it proves results.
Yes you can.
Randy Poe
> <kalphakom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That should be clarified. You certainly CAN describe
a theory as "wrong" even if it correctly predicts the
results of experiment, but you'd be an idiot to do so.
- Randy
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 16, 7:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > SR is falsified by the manifestation of the twin's paradox.
>
> Really, shithead?
Yes, really, douche bag.
> When did you learn that?
The Lorentz transform. You should learn that too.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
> >You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
> >Lagrange equations to understand GR.
>
> That's debatable, but you certainly do need to understand differential
> geometry. That is *crucial*. And you don't understand it AT ALL. In
> particular, you don't seem to realize how to compute the area of a
> surface of constant r, given the metric
>
> ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
>
> [r goes from -a to infinity,
> Theta goes from 0 to pi,
> Phi goes from 0 to 2 pi]
The surface area remains to be (4 pi R^2) regardless of the metric.
<shrug>
> You go on about "Christoffel symbols of the second kind" when
> you don't even understand the most basic facts about differential
> geometry.
If you think you can play God to be able to observe how space or
spacetime is curved through a direct observation, you should have
realized that you must be wrong. Ahahahaha.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 16, 10:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
> > Lagrange equations to understand GR.
>
> Something tells me you have no idea what they are. I'm tempted to ask
> you a simple question about the E-L equations.
If you don't know about the Euler-Lagrange equations, you need to go
to study them. <shrug>
> > How else can you understand the
> > Christoffel symbols of the second kind in which they play a crucial
> > role in the Riemann, the Ricci, and the Einstein tensors.
>
> Yep, the standard crank trait: the use of antiquated terminology and
> clinging to one, historical, approach for dear life.
>
> (If anyone else is reading this: nobody these days uses the phrase
> "Christoffel symbols of the second kind" - this is roughly pre-WWII
> terminology and betrays a the lack of competence at once. Also, other
> methods of describing connections and curvature exist, some of them
> vastly superior in certain contexts. They are equally "crucial" but
> then Koobee wouldn't know that.)
This is one of your favorite cheap attacks --- vocabularies. This
shows that you are very shallow in or lack of any mathematical or
logical reasoning.
> > The
> > mathematics to the calculus of variations is very simple. After all,
> > it was development about 300 years ago. So, why is that you have
> > failed to understand the calculus of variations time after time?
>
> And I'm thinking about assigning to you an easy calculus of variations
> exercise as well. No promises but if I do then perhaps we'll all see
> what your pontificating is worth.
Or better yet. Assign yourself a problem to work on. It is you who
needs work. <shrug>
Dono
You don't know it, if you did, you would have understood the twin
paradox by now.
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 8:03 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee says...
> > >You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
> > >Lagrange equations to understand GR.
>
> > That's debatable, but you certainly do need to understand differential
> > geometry. That is *crucial*. And you don't understand it AT ALL. In
> > particular, you don't seem to realize how to compute the area of a
> > surface of constant r, given the metric
>
> > ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
>
> > [r goes from -a to infinity,
> > Theta goes from 0 to pi,
> > Phi goes from 0 to 2 pi]
>
> The surface area remains to be (4 pi R^2) regardless of the metric.
> <shrug>
I notice you are evading the answer. The question was:
> > compute the area of a
> > surface of constant r, given the metric
>
> > ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
Don't pull some other variable "R" out of the hat, just answer the
question.
(Of course you cannot do it, all you do is _talk_ about lagrangians,
Christoffel symbols, and whatnot, all without any understanding of the
subject whatsoever.)
> If you think you can play God to be able to observe how space or
> spacetime is curved through a direct observation, you should have
> realized that you must be wrong. Ahahahaha.
This comment - like almost everything you write - shows a dreamland
view of science which corresponds to precisely nothing in reality. You
are inventing a fictitious "better" world in which you are the king
physicist. Why? I have no idea although inferiority complex is an
obvious suspect.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190056218.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: On Sep 17, 1:52 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <kalphakom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1190034299.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Sep 15, 4:08 pm, Bhanwara <bhanwa...@netscape.net> wrote:
: > : > Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
: > :
: > : You cannot just say a theory is wrong if it proves results.
: >
: > Yes you can.
:
: That should be clarified.
Simple enough.
Sagnac produces results, therefore relativity theory is wrong.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
As logical person can clearly see (unless you are Blind Poe the stupid
troll),
the red pulse arrives at the "end" point earlier than the blue pulse after
12 time units by taking 12 time units. Moreover, the speed of the
counter-clockwise red ray between 12 and 6 is at least a whole c, whereas
the speed of the clockwise blue ray between 12 and 6 is only c.
Q. Why do the idiots replace
t = (2pi+a)R / (c+v)
and
t = (2pi-a)R / (c-v)
with
tau1 = 2piR / (c+v)
tau2 = 2piR / (c-v)
when we clearly have
t = 2piR / c
in the rotating frame?
A. Because they are stupid.
If you want the argue the point, Poe, do it with algebra, dumbfuck.
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 10:31 am, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 10:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
> > > Lagrange equations to understand GR.
>
> > Something tells me you have no idea what they are. I'm tempted to ask
> > you a simple question about the E-L equations.
>
> If you don't know about the Euler-Lagrange equations, you need to go
> to study them. <shrug>
I'm noting the avoidance of the subject (as was to be expected).
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 17, 12:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The surface area remains to be (4 pi R^2) regardless of the metric.
> > <shrug>
>
> I notice you are evading the answer. The question was:
I notice that you are capable of understand my answer. <shrug>
> compute the area of a
> surface of constant r, given the metric
>
> ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
>
> Don't pull some other variable "R" out of the hat, just answer the
> question.
OK. If you have trouble identifying R with r, (4 pi r^2) has always
been my answer. How many times have I told you that?
> (Of course you cannot do it, all you do is _talk_ about lagrangians,
> Christoffel symbols, and whatnot, all without any understanding of the
> subject whatsoever.)
You have run out of arguments, have you not?
> > If you think you can play God to be able to observe how space or
> > spacetime is curved through a direct observation, you should have
> > realized that you must be wrong. Ahahahaha.
>
> This comment - like almost everything you write - shows a dreamland
> view of science which corresponds to precisely nothing in reality. You
> are inventing a fictitious "better" world in which you are the king
> physicist. Why? I have no idea although inferiority complex is an
> obvious suspect.
You still don't understand mathematics and logical reasoning.
<shrug>
NoEinstein
> AHAHAHA... "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote in messagenews:aP1Hi.1336$9r....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > "Bhanwara" <bhanwa...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8d5ace6e9b761c07?hl=en&
>
> [hanson]
> .... So, the short sense of your long story is:... Drrrrum Rrrrroll.......!
> = Bhanwara said: SR, GR, are totally and completely incorrect.
> == Bill said: The 'c' in SR formula [has] nothing to do with light.
> === Bill quotes Tom for support who said: SR centers on the
> "assumption" that the speed of light 'c' is constant in all
> reference frames.
> ==== Bill lectured Bhanwara: "in a deep sense you, Bhanwara,
> are not aware of you are correct. So, in a sense the 'particle'
> theory of light is wrong."
>
> ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
> SR/GR is so wonderful. SR/GR has something for everybody:
> *** Tons of arguments about whether it is right or wrong *** but
> **nothing else** which is asserted in the righteous crescendo
> by its creator who said in 1954 to Basso shortly before he puffed:
>
> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
> For some unfathomable reason Einstein's Dingleberries do
> refuse to even consider that and much less to accept it, but
> instead they move close to Albert's sphincter... ahahahaha....
>
> Tell me, guys, anyone.... is this Einstein Dingleberry clankering
> a normal phenomenon? --- Were there similar theatrics about
> Newton's theory 50 y after his death / 100 y after his "Principia"?
>
> Thanks for the laughs, dudes. This is hilarious!... ahahaha..
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> PS:... and some irony:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d066c21b87322cde?hl=en&
Dear Readers: There are two teams, the pro Einstein and the con
Einstein. Due to the complexities of the pro Einstein position it is
next to impossible to argue them down. If you ever get close, the pro
Einstein group just dumbs out. [Note: The last sentence isn't a non
sequitur, rather it a requirement for admission to their club.]
Every generation of "intellectuals" realize that they must take a
stand, or choose a team to cheer for. Those supporting the pro
Einstein team do so because they wish to appear superior (even though
they aren't). They know that the pro Einstein team is... undefeated-
at least in their eyes. These are the same people who bet on a ten-to-
one favorite just so that they can brag about winning. But those who
choose bragging over contributing to something are the brakes on the
wheels of progress.
If someone can, please give me the name of a single FORMER pro
Einstein supporter. Those aren't an endangered species, they exist
only in the dreams of us con Einstein team supporters-who just want to
get on with it, and improve the world. - NoEinstein -
NoEinstein
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1190059959.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There are plenty of former Einstein supporters who just disappear
when faced with logic. It's only the dumbfucks that stick around
the newsgroups to argue.
Here's a few:
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
JanPB
Only in the "con" team's mind. The truth is that Einstein's work
happens to be a strict science and anyone with:
1. interest in the subject,
2. honesty,
3. perseverance,
4. certain knack for that sort of strict reasoning -
- can verify for him/herself the validity of Einstein's work.
End of story.
[Further comment/aside:
We are indeed quite fortunate on this NG that we are not debating a
Perec novel or the superiority of Dostoyevsky over Tolstoy, or vice-
versa. Here we can establish beyond _any_ doubt who is right.
Of course - as I said above - to understand the arguments establishing
the truth, one must do some work as a prerequisite. None of the "con"
crowd has done so. So it's only natural to see this fatamorgana as if
it was a real thing - as if there were truly _in fact_ some "two
opposite camps".
All the arguing that's going on here is done by the so-called "pro"
crowd just for entertainment. Why the so-called "con" crowd is
arguing, I haven't the faintest.]
> Due to the complexities of the pro Einstein position it is
> next to impossible to argue them down. If you ever get close, the pro
> Einstein group just dumbs out.
OK, I'll comment on that one too. It simply cannot be helped that GR
and physics in general is a vast, complex, difficult subject. Life is
complicated, you know. And there are no shortcuts to understanding
physics. The only way to "get" it is by a sustained effort taking
years. No dreamland, just hard (but very interesting) work.
The reason you can't argue "us" down is that it simply can't be done.
Period. Established, old, physics theories (which is 99% of what we
discuss on this NG) have been checked, and that's it! Remember, it's
science, not literature or painting. We are not discussing Picasso
here. The "con" crowd could _equally well_ argue that - contrary to
the "brainwashed masses" - it is in fact true that 2+2=5.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 17, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Dear Readers: There are two teams, the pro Einstein and the con
> > Einstein.
>
> Only in the "con" team's mind. The truth is that Einstein's work
> happens to be a strict science and anyone with:
Correction:
Einstein's works represent plagiarism on the subjects that suffer from
mathematical and experimental inconsistencies.
> 1. interest in the subject,
> 2. honesty,
> 3. perseverance,
> 4. certain knack for that sort of strict reasoning -
Correction:
1. Interest in political correctness
2. Dishonesty
3. Lack of perseverance
4. Short on mathematical or logical reasoning
> - can verify for him/herself the validity of Einstein's work.
Anybody with the following traits
1. Interest in the subject
2. Honesty
3. Perseverance
4. Knack for Mathematical and logical reasoning
can verify for him/herself the lack of validity in Einstein's
plagiarized works.
End of story.
> We are indeed quite fortunate on this NG that we are not debating a
> Perec novel or the superiority of Dostoyevsky over Tolstoy, or vice-
> versa. Here we can establish beyond _any_ doubt who is right.
Yes, indeed.
> Of course - as I said above - to understand the arguments establishing
> the truth, one must do some work as a prerequisite. None of the "con"
> crowd has done so. So it's only natural to see this fatamorgana as if
> it was a real thing - as if there were truly _in fact_ some "two
> opposite camps".
The Einstein Dingleberries certain fit in the above description.
<shrug>
> All the arguing that's going on here is done by the so-called "pro"
> crowd just for entertainment. Why the so-called "con" crowd is
> arguing, I haven't the faintest.]
The Einstein Dingleberries are scared sh*tless. <shrug>
> > Due to the complexities of the pro Einstein position it is
> > next to impossible to argue them down. If you ever get close, the pro
> > Einstein group just dumbs out.
>
> OK, I'll comment on that one too. It simply cannot be helped that GR
> and physics in general is a vast, complex, difficult subject. Life is
> complicated, you know. And there are no shortcuts to understanding
> physics. The only way to "get" it is by a sustained effort taking
> years. No dreamland, just hard (but very interesting) work.
Only to you. GR actually is very simple without mathemaGic tricks.
<shrug>
> The reason you can't argue "us" down is that it simply can't be done.
> Period. Established, old, physics theories (which is 99% of what we
> discuss on this NG) have been checked, and that's it! Remember, it's
> science, not literature or painting. We are not discussing Picasso
> here. The "con" crowd could _equally well_ argue that - contrary to
> the "brainwashed masses" - it is in fact true that 2+2=5.
Once again, the Einstein Dingleberries fit the above description down
to the (2 + 2 = 5) nonsense. <shrug>
Daryl McCullough
>> compute the area of a
>> surface of constant r, given the metric
>>
>> ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
>>
>> Don't pull some other variable "R" out of the hat, just answer the
>> question.
>
>OK. If you have trouble identifying R with r, (4 pi r^2) has always
>been my answer.
Yes, but it is *still* the wrong answer. The answer is *not*
4 pi r^2.
Look, consider spherical Earth-centered coordinates. You can
locate any point relative to the Earth by giving three numbers:
the altitude (altitude is height above the surface of the Earth),
the latitude, and the longitude. If I use the variable r to mean
"altitude" then what is the area of a surface of constant r?
You seem to think that it is 4 pi r^2. But let's look at the
special case r=0. If we plug in r=0 into your formula, we get
0 for the surface area. Do you think that answer is correct?
Remember, by the way r is defined, r=0 is the surface
of the Earth. Do you believe that the Earth has surface area
0?
What is the right answer? What is the surface area for the
surface of constant r? Well, it isn't 4pi r^2. We know that.
Maybe it's 4pi (r+a)^2, where a is the radius of the Earth?
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190063060.1...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Vacuous and irrelevant.
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 12:42 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 12:26 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > The surface area remains to be (4 pi R^2) regardless of the metric.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> I notice you are evading the answer. The question was:
>
>I notice that you are capable of understand my answer. <shrug>
>
>> compute the area of a
>> surface of constant r, given the metric
>>
>> ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin^2(Theta) dPhi^2]
>>
>> Don't pull some other variable "R" out of the hat, just answer the
>> question.
>
>OK. If you have trouble identifying R with r, (4 pi r^2) has always
>been my answer. How many times have I told you that?
Asserting the answer is not the same as computing the answer. How many
times have I told you that?
[snip remaining]
Eric Gisse
>On Sep 16, 10:11 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 10:03 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > >You might want to learn the basics of GR especially the calculus of
>> > >variations before applying any indexing notations. <shrug> Plus, the
>> > >mathematics of SR, namely the Lorentz transform, first before
>> > >sputtering like that as a super, super senior struggling to get his BS
>> > >degree from the university of Alaska. <shrug>
>>
>> > 1) You don't need calculus of variations to understand GR. You do,
>> > however, need to understand index notation and placement of indices.
>>
>> You absolutely need the calculus of variations namely the Euler-
>> Lagrange equations to understand GR.
>
>Something tells me you have no idea what they are. I'm tempted to ask
>you a simple question about the E-L equations.
Too hard. Ask him something simpler. I like this one:
Given the E-L equations [affinely] parameterized by a function "s"
such that the parameterization is maximized. Describe the type of
extremum obtained for t if s(t) = - t.
I'm not a mathematician by a long shot but I've tried to not fuck up
the wording too much. If you don't understand why I would suggest
this, remember how proper time is defined.
Watching him [and some others] get the answer consistently wrong has
been a never-ending source of amusement for me.
[...]
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 2:04 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> > Dear Readers: There are two teams, the pro Einstein and the con
>> > Einstein.
>>
>> Only in the "con" team's mind. The truth is that Einstein's work
>> happens to be a strict science and anyone with:
>
>Correction:
>
>Einstein's works represent plagiarism on the subjects that suffer from
>mathematical and experimental inconsistencies.
Hint: Blindly repeating the assertions of Crothers and Bjerkens does
not mean you know what you are talking about.
[...]
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 2:04 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Dear Readers: There are two teams, the pro Einstein and the con
> > > Einstein.
>
> > Only in the "con" team's mind. The truth is that Einstein's work
> > happens to be a strict science and anyone with:
>
> Correction:
More words.
As I said, this is not a Picasso painting we are discussing. Anyone
with enough honesty, stamina, talent, etc., can find out who is right.
It's all verifiable.
Whether you are convinced makes no difference. I like your posts for
entertainment value.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
: On Sep 17, 2:27 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sep 17, 2:04 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > > On Sep 17, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: > > > Dear Readers: There are two teams, the pro Einstein and the con
: > > > Einstein.
: >
: > > Only in the "con" team's mind. The truth is that Einstein's work
: > > happens to be a strict science and anyone with:
: >
: > Correction:
:
: More words.
Yes, that's all you have, vacuous and irrelevant.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
>Whether you are convinced makes no difference. I like your posts for
>entertainment value.
For me there was the inverse educational value - learning why he was
wrong was its' own reward for awhile.
Now I know why he is wrong and he doesn't change his arguments - so
now it is just entertainment.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 17, 2:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> As I said, this is not a Picasso painting we are discussing. Anyone
> with enough honesty, stamina, talent, etc., can find out who is right.
> It's all verifiable.
Yes, we will leave that to the next generations to find out.
> Whether you are convinced makes no difference. I like your posts for
> entertainment value.
Really, you have seemed to be so pissed. That is no entertainment in
my book. Ahahahaha.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
> > OK. If you have trouble identifying R with r, (4 pi r^2) has always
> > been my answer.
>
> Yes, but it is *still* the wrong answer. The answer is *not*
> 4 pi r^2.
I still remain to my original answer. IT IS (4 PI R^2). The
Orwelling education continues...
> Look, consider spherical Earth-centered coordinates. You can
> locate any point relative to the Earth by giving three numbers:
> the altitude (altitude is height above the surface of the Earth),
> the latitude, and the longitude. If I use the variable r to mean
> "altitude" then what is the area of a surface of constant r?
4 pi r^2
> You seem to think that it is 4 pi r^2.
I know so.
> But let's look at the
> special case r=0. If we plug in r=0 into your formula, we get
> 0 for the surface area.
That is correct.
> Do you think that answer is correct?
Absolutely.
> Remember, by the way r is defined, r=0 is the surface
> of the Earth. Do you believe that the Earth has surface area
> 0?
Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.
> What is the right answer?
4 pi r^2
> What is the surface area for the
> surface of constant r?
4 pi r^2
> Well, it isn't 4pi r^2. We know that.
> Maybe it's 4pi (r+a)^2, where a is the radius of the Earth?
No, it is (4 pi r^2).
The Orwelling education fails.
However, if you point a gun at my head, I will say (4 pi (r + a)^2).
The Orwelling education shall continue in the meantime.
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 4:05 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 2:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > As I said, this is not a Picasso painting we are discussing. Anyone
> > with enough honesty, stamina, talent, etc., can find out who is right.
> > It's all verifiable.
>
> Yes, we will leave that to the next generations to find out.
The verification was done years ago. I know this all looks to you like
black magic but believe it or not, to some people it's very
transparent and its correctness is as clear as that of trigonometry.
You can get there too if you stop toying with silly delusions and get
to honest work. There are no shortcuts.
> > Whether you are convinced makes no difference. I like your posts for
> > entertainment value.
>
> Really, you have seemed to be so pissed. That is no entertainment in
> my book. Ahahahaha.
It's just a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the
circulation.
--
Jan Bielawski
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 3:03 pm, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee says...
> > > OK. If you have trouble identifying R with r, (4 pi r^2) has always
> > > been my answer.
>
> > Yes, but it is *still* the wrong answer. The answer is *not*
> > 4 pi r^2.
>
> I still remain to my original answer. IT IS (4 PI R^2). The
> Orwelling education continues...
It's the wrong answer. Daryl's question had no "R" in it in the first
place.
> > Look, consider spherical Earth-centered coordinates. You can
> > locate any point relative to the Earth by giving three numbers:
> > the altitude (altitude is height above the surface of the Earth),
> > the latitude, and the longitude. If I use the variable r to mean
> > "altitude" then what is the area of a surface of constant r?
>
> 4 pi r^2
>
> > You seem to think that it is 4 pi r^2.
>
> I know so.
>
> > But let's look at the
> > special case r=0. If we plug in r=0 into your formula, we get
> > 0 for the surface area.
>
> That is correct.
???
> > Do you think that answer is correct?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > Remember, by the way r is defined, r=0 is the surface
> > of the Earth. Do you believe that the Earth has surface area
> > 0?
>
> Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.
Daryl, I must congratulate you. You have finally reduced Koobee -
after a couple of years - to making a short, understandable, statement
that's obviously incorrect to any sane person:
*The surface of the Earth has area zero*
Brilliant!
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Don Stockbauer
******************
Of course. Isn't everyone you hate always totally and completely
wrong?
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 17, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I still remain to my original answer. IT IS (4 PI R^2). The
> > Orwelling education continues...
>
> It's the wrong answer. Daryl's question had no "R" in it in the first
> place.
It does not matter how you play the game of word salad. As I said
before, the answer is always (4 pi r^2) or (4 PI R^2). <shrug>
> Daryl, I must congratulate you. You have finally reduced Koobee -
> after a couple of years - to making a short, understandable, statement
> that's obviously incorrect to any sane person:
>
> *The surface of the Earth has area zero*
If and only if the radius of the earth is zero as Mr. McCullogh had
fantasized. <shrug>
> Brilliant!
There is nothing brilliant about figuring out the surface area of a
sphere!
AutoCrank
>
> "AutoCrank" <auto...@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:rud2oalsjdh1.14...@40tude.net...
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:39:34 GMT, hanson wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9a11424a4f4296b0?hl=en&
It "IS" CLEAR that its probabilistic FERMIONS in a Planck length
should destroy THE discrete stars' positive coordinate systems 'FROM'
THE 'electromagnetic' error! 'The' rulers' 'probabilistic' 'well'
behaved photons are electrical if the photon IS its atmosphere.
> >> [hanson]
> >> ... AHAHAHAHAHA... why, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> >> did you crank yourself? I didn't mean to get to you, Bill, but you
> >> really posted rubbish... ahaha... Now read again what Einstein,
> >> your icon or con-man said.
> >> Here it is again for your benefit, including Andro's comments:
> >
> [AutoCrank]
> > The rarified cosmic "rays'" interior eigenvectors in its derivatives might
> > REMAIN the molecules for their CENTERS when its gluons in the electric
> > field lines are THE exterior GALAXIES. Mainstream physicists claim
> > THAT their exterior fixed harmonic is ITS core.
One of my postulates IS that the eigenvectors might "be" the field
lines. My theory IS that the gluon of 'their' GALAXIES might
annihilate its eigenvector's rarified galaxies.
> [hanson]
> In the light and field of Mehrman-Maleki transforms, disregarding
> the influence of Allahshian vector conflections (AVC), what you
> just have stated above makes it not only true but absolutely true.
> This then of course renders the rest of your lengthy discourse
> below as utterly trivial and unnecessarily ilk-conditioned, like the
> lost vanishing tail in applicable advanced math procedures known
> as WBSPMS, wagging the blind sun-dog perturbation matrix set.
> Best regards,
> hanson
Because ITS fluid has THE BODIES for the 'rulers,' THEIR length falls
into the field's length. The absolute length of THE length must BE
ABSOLUTE.
> snipped....
The EMITTED values' observed current will alter the values' reference
frames. SRian hypnotists CLAIM THAT its discrete EXOTIC ONE-WAY space
of its light will DESTROY the wormholes in the VACUUMS.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Sep 17, 10:40 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > I still remain to my original answer. IT IS (4 PI R^2). The
>> > Orwelling education continues...
>>
>> It's the wrong answer. Daryl's question had no "R" in it in the first
>> place.
>
>It does not matter how you play the game of word salad. As I said
>before, the answer is always (4 pi r^2) or (4 PI R^2).
That depends on what "R" is measuring! If R is *altitude* above
the surface of the Earth, then the area is certainly not
4 pi R^2.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Sep 17, 3:03 pm, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>> Look, consider spherical Earth-centered coordinates. You can
>> locate any point relative to the Earth by giving three numbers:
>> the altitude (altitude is height above the surface of the Earth),
>> the latitude, and the longitude. If I use the variable r to mean
>> "altitude" then what is the area of a surface of constant r?
>
>4 pi r^2
>> You seem to think that it is 4 pi r^2.
>
>I know so.
>
>> But let's look at the
>> special case r=0. If we plug in r=0 into your formula, we get
>> 0 for the surface area.
>
>That is correct.
Okay, you are absolutely a loony. The surface area of the
Earth is 510,065,600 km2, not zero.
Daryl McCullough
>> Look, consider spherical Earth-centered coordinates. You can
>> locate any point relative to the Earth by giving three numbers:
>> the altitude (altitude is height above the surface of the Earth),
>> the latitude, and the longitude. If I use the variable r to mean
>> "altitude" then what is the area of a surface of constant r?
>
>4 pi r^2
Okay, you are a babbling idiot. What in the world are you doing
discussing "Christoffel symbols"? You don't know how to compute
surface areas.
Maybe you believe that the variable r *always* means distance from
the center of a sphere? Variables are just arbitrary names. Their
meaning is not given by the *name*, but by their properties. The
properties of variables are captured by the *metric*.
>The Orwelling education fails.
I would leave off the "Orwelling" in your case.
Alen
> Alen wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 1:55 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
> >> See the following ancient but IMHO still excellent
> >> post by Tom Roberts:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
>
> I wrote that more than 15 years ago, when I was just beginning to become
> re-interested in physics after a hiatus of many years. I had A LOT to
> learn at that time, and I cringe a bit whenever Bill posts a reference
> to it. While it displays the basic idea, its attempt at rigor fails. It
> was indeed based on "dimly remembered ideas from graduate school" (at
> the time ~20 years earlier, so they must have stuck pretty well but not
> perfectly (:-)).
Such a perception is, indeed, a bit
painful. But then I like to think there is
also the good thought, as it is said:
'nothing ventured, nothing gained'
> > I don't see that a mapping principle has to be
> > a coordinate transformation.
>
> That "mapping principle" is just the notion that one can apply
> coordinates to the world, and since the world is independent of how one
> does that the other aspects I mentioned are required.
>
> > In a coordinate
> > transformation, a spacetime point is mapped onto
> > itself,
>
> Hmmm. More accurately: the COORDINATES of a given point are transformed
> (mapped) into the new COORDINATES of that same point. There is no
> mapping of points to points, there is just mapping of one type of
> coordinate values to another type of coordinate values.
>
> > but a transfer of information between two frames
> > could just as well map a spacetime point onto another
> > spacetime point. How is that possibility excluded?
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps the understanding
> that there is no "mapping of points to points" here will resolve your
> question.
>
> Tom Roberts
It just occurred to me that entirely generalised equations
connecting x,y,z, for example, to x',y',z' could equally
mean:
1 a transformation of the coordinates of one point,
2 a relationship of two points in the same coordinate
frame, or
3 a relationship of two points in two different
frames.
If the coordinate transformations of one point is
arbitrarily selected from these possibilities, then
perhaps, one day, some one will discover that
one of the other possibilities might apply. But I have
no definite argument of my own about it. It was just
a thought.
Alen
T.M. Sommers
>
> It's just a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the
> circulation.
That sounds like a quotation, but I can't place it.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Alen
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1189951050.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>news:1189894126.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Bhanwara's blog: http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/
>
> >> "light
> >> propagation" issue, which was the Big Question in physics in late
> >> 1800's.'
>
> >> That should be 'was'. It is now known that it has nothing to do with it.
> >> The c that appears in SR formula are a consequence of space-time
> >> geometry -
> >> nothing to do with light. See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO still
> >> excellent
> >> post by Tomn
> >> Roberts:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
> >> Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that the
> >> speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation given
> >> here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal speed
> >> (c)
> >> is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis of the
> >> derivation. General symmetry properties of space-time are sufficient to
> >> determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation [to within a
> >> topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE
> >> to
> >> formulate an alternative to Special Relativity, while obeying the
> >> observed
> >> symmetries of space-time and agreeing with the experimental evidence [see
> >> below about the limitations of the symmetry postulates used in this
> >> derivation].'
>
> > [...]
> >> Bill
>
> > I don't see that a mapping principle has to be
> > transformation, a spacetime point is mapped onto
> > could just as well map a spacetime point onto another
> > spacetime point. How is that possibility excluded?
>
> view invariance demands that such exists ie if you describe the same process
> in another coordinate system the assumption is the transform obeys the group
> postulate. While extremely intuitive, and assumed in many proofs in math,
> not just physics, it none the less is an assumption. Just recently I saw a
> proof of the Erdos Feller Pollard theorem that assumed you could find a map
> between different ensembles started at the same time. While something I
> would not care to doubt it still is an assumption.
>
> Bill
>
OK - thanks - I take your point
Alen
JanPB
> On Sep 17, 10:40 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > I still remain to my original answer. IT IS (4 PI R^2). The
> > > Orwelling education continues...
>
> > It's the wrong answer. Daryl's question had no "R" in it in the first
> > place.
>
> It does not matter how you play the game of word salad. As I said
> before, the answer is always (4 pi r^2) or (4 PI R^2). <shrug>
>
> > Daryl, I must congratulate you. You have finally reduced Koobee -
> > after a couple of years - to making a short, understandable, statement
> > that's obviously incorrect to any sane person:
>
> > *The surface of the Earth has area zero*
>
> If and only if the radius of the earth is zero as Mr. McCullogh had
> fantasized. <shrug>
But he didn't! He said: let r denote "the height above the surface of
the Earth". Question: what is the area of the surface of constant r in
those coordinates (i.e., in (r,theta,phi))?
--
Jan Bielawski
PD
If he doesn't say, "Oh, OK" and then just write the answer down, I'm
going to track down the school that gave him an engineering degree and
file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
PD
JanPB
He is an engineer? Funny how many engineers end up in this anti-
Einstein goofiness. Kind of makes me worried about bridges and such.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
> If he doesn't say, "Oh, OK" and then just write the answer down, I'm
> going to track down the school that gave him an engineering degree and
> file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
OK, I said it. So, go ahead and track down what university gave me
all these degrees. Next, complain to the Better Business Bureau.
Tell them Professor Draper and his Einstein Dingleberries got their
asses kicked so badly in usenet debates on the subjects which you are
supposedly to be experts on. Ahahahahaha...
Koobee Wublee
> He is an engineer? Funny how many engineers end up in this anti-
> Einstein goofiness. Kind of makes me worried about bridges and such.
Regardless I am an engineer or not, you still have not got it. It is
not about Einstein but SR and GR crap. Einstein was just there right
in the middle of it. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Saying anything else about Einstein, I would be guilty of lying. I
still possess moral values unlike the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
> >4 pi r^2
>
> Okay, you are a babbling idiot. What in the world are you doing
> discussing "Christoffel symbols"? You don't know how to compute
> surface areas.
Where in your quote did I discuss Christoffel symbols? You are the
one who is a babbling buffoon. <shrug>
> Maybe you believe that the variable r *always* means distance from
> the center of a sphere? Variables are just arbitrary names. Their
> meaning is not given by the *name*, but by their properties. The
> properties of variables are captured by the *metric*.
In my answer, I can choose whatever coordinate system I choose as long
as I have properly disclose that information. <shrug>
> >The Orwelling education fails.
>
> I would leave off the "Orwelling" in your case.
Is that a threat? What you are doing is purely Orwelling. <shrug>
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:%knHi.3122$ZA5....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Alen wrote:
> >> On Sep 16, 1:55 pm, "BillHobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
> >>> See the following ancient but IMHO still excellent
> >>> post byTom
>
> > I wrote that more than 15 years ago, when I was just beginning to become
> > re-interested in physics after a hiatus of many years. I had A LOT to
> > it. While it displays the basic idea, its attempt at rigor fails. It was
> > indeed based on "dimly remembered ideas from graduate school" (at the time
> > ~20 years earlier, so they must have stuck pretty well but not perfectly
> > (:-)).
>
> see someone babbling on about the constancy of the speed of light it is the
> best rebuttal I know. I will try to limit my links to it.
Hobba Hobba you are wrong. 15 years ago Master Tom Roberts was still
an enthusiastic zombie applying for a Government grant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
http://guardian.curtin.edu.au/cga/art/tv.html
Tom Roberts (15 years ago): "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd
like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think
that with Government backing I could make it very silly."
So with Government backing in 2006 Master Tom Roberts produced this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
Master Tom Roberts: IOW: if it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced).
Mike: If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]
Master Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of
postulates are used to derive the same set of theorems. The
interpretations, of course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same
interpretations => same theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time
warp at 1905.
So Hobba Hobba always refer to Master Tom Roberts's 2006 great
discovery and Master Tom Roberts will be happy.
Pentcho Valev
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Sep 18, 4:00 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee says...
>
>> >4 pi r^2
>> Okay, you are a babbling idiot. What in the world are you doing
>> discussing "Christoffel symbols"? You don't know how to compute
>> surface areas.
>> Maybe you believe that the variable r *always* means distance from
>> the center of a sphere? Variables are just arbitrary names. Their
>> meaning is not given by the *name*, but by their properties. The
>> properties of variables are captured by the *metric*.
>
>In my answer, I can choose whatever coordinate system I choose as long
>as I have properly disclose that information.
I gave you a specific problem in which the coordinates were *specified*.
I said "Let r be the altitude above the surface of the Earth. What
is the area of the sphere defined by r=0." You said 0. You don't see
that that's a wrong answer?
If r is the height above the surface of the Earth, then the entire
surface of the Earth satisfies r=0. So what is the surface area of
this surface? You said zero. You don't see that that is wrong?
Daryl McCullough
>I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
>where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
Do you not understand the relationship between "observed radius"
and "metric"? If we have a line element
ds^2 = -A(r,t) dt^2 + B(r,t) dr^2 + C(r,t) [dTheta^2 + sin(Theta)^2 dPhi^2]
then what is the "observed radius"? It *isn't* r! It is
square-root(C). For such a metric, r is *not* the radius in any
sense. It's just a coordinate that happens to be given the name "r".
The specific example that I gave you, and which you got so completely
wrong that you should be embarassed, was the case in which r represents
*altitude*. The height above the surface of the Earth. In that case,
the metric for constant t is approximately
ds^2 = dr^2 - (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin(Theta)^2 dPhi^2]
where a = 6400 kilometers.
The "observed radius" for such a problem is *not* r. It is
r+a! The area of the surface r=0 is *not* 0, it is the
surface area of the Earth.
PD
> On Sep 18, 10:43 am, PD < wrote:
>
> > If he doesn't say, "Oh, OK" and then just write the answer down, I'm
> > going to track down the school that gave him an engineering degree and
> > file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
>
> I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
> where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
Well, using your definition of r, that's clearly wrong. If you had
designed an airplane wing with a comparable mistake, you would have
had your head handed to you in a engineering review.
>
> OK, I said it. So, go ahead and track down what university gave me
> all these degrees. Next, complain to the Better Business Bureau.
> Tell them Professor Draper and his Einstein Dingleberries got their
> asses kicked so badly in usenet debates on the subjects which you are
> supposedly to be experts on. Ahahahahaha...
Got our asses badly kicked by the repetition of an elementary mistake
that a 10th grader would be able to correct on a second inspection?
Has it occurred to you, KW, that your congenital inability to say
"D'oh!" is an impediment to your learning anything about a subject
that others are supposedly experts on?
PD
JanPB
You lack the following values:
- intellectual honesty,
- self-criticism.
You also feel absolutely no remorse over accusing someone of:
- stupidity,
- plagiarism,
- lying,
...while either:
(1) knowing full well you have not understood the evidence,
...or:
(2) not knowing you have not understood the evidence.
(1) is simply disgusting to see in an adult, (2) is a personality
defect.
I'm assuming it's (2) in your case.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190215472.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
I'm assuming it's (1) in your case, Bielawski, you disgusting cunt.
hanson
Yo, Andro & KooBee keep on with beating & grinding Einstein's
Dingleberries . You guys have achieved by now that they are
beginning to turn into Einstein's Hemorrhoids as relativistic
martyrs dragging their cross, ehh, frames, exactly like those kikes,
ass-venters & biblebeaters, the religious fundamentalists do, who
even after they do "re-normalise" still do believe in anything as
long as it is a holey pie in the sky, like SR/GR is for Einstein's
Dingleberries.
So, carry on fellas. This is great!... Thanks for the laughs guys....
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in
message news:IrbIi.126324$xp6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190215472.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> : On Sep 18, 9:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Sep 18, 11:48 am, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > > He is an engineer? Funny how many engineers end up in this anti-
> : > > Einstein goofiness. Kind of makes me worried about bridges and such.
> : >
> : > Regardless I am an engineer or not, you still have not got it. It is
> : > not about Einstein but SR and GR crap. Einstein was just there right
> : > in the middle of it. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
> : > Saying anything else about Einstein, I would be guilty of lying. I
> : > still possess moral values unlike the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
> :
> : You lack the following values:
> : You also feel absolutely no remorse over accusing someone of:
> : ...while either:
> : (1) knowing full well you have not understood the evidence,
> : ...or:
> : (2) not knowing you have not understood the evidence.
> : (1) is simply disgusting to see in an adult, (2) is a personality
> : defect. I'm assuming it's (2) in your case.
>
[Andro]
PD
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
The thing that distinguishes the carrion-eating hyena's call is that
it resembles a laugh, but a laugh with no one else laughing along.
PD
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:uydIi.16241$mk2.5762@trnddc07...
: ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Aww.. I'm so remorseful, seeing Bilewacky accuse KW of the very
things Bilewacky is guilty of.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190226670.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Sure we are laughing along, Phuckwit Duck, it's a scream a minute.
If we took you fuck-faced baboons and lying trolls seriously we'd have
a logical breakdown.
"BTW, you fuck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz the fucking imbecile.
Ya gotta love "nor could it".
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear] -- Phuckwit Duck.
Still, at least we have absolute proof that nobody should take any notice
whatsoever of these arseholes.
Androcles.
hanson
news:fEeIi.130277$xp6.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> : Yo, Andro & KooBee keep on with beating & grinding Einstein's
> : Dingleberries . You guys have achieved by now that they are
> : beginning to turn into Einstein's Hemorrhoids as relativistic
> : martyrs dragging their cross, ehh, frames, exactly like those kikes,
> : ass-venters & biblebeaters, the religious fundamentalists do, who
> : even after they do "re-normalise" still do believe in anything as
> : long as it is a holey pie in the sky, like SR/GR is for Einstein's
> : Dingleberries.
> : So, carry on fellas. This is great!... Thanks for the laughs guys....
> : ahahaha... ahahahanson
[Andro]
> Aww.. I'm so remorseful, seeing Bilewacky accuse KW of the very
> things Bilewacky is guilty of.
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA...NO, you ain't, but your relative intension is noted.
ahahaha... Jan's example shows the mentation that Einstein
Dingleberries turned (into) Einstein Hemorrhoids do exhibit...
ahahahahahaha... It's considered to be a serious aberration
in the secular realm but it's highly priced and promoted in the
religo-physical domain where rational critical thought is replaced
by ordained beliefs which are exploited by the ruse masters of
what PentchoValev has termed as "Einstein's Criminal Cult"...
ahahahaha....
hanson
>
"PD"-Paul <TheDrap...@gmail.com> CRANKED himself and
began to "drag his frame", yet never "renormalized" in his message
news:1190226670.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[PD ]
> The thing that distinguishes the carrion-eating hyena's call is that
> it resembles a laugh, but a laugh with no one else laughing along.
> PD
>
ahahaha.... So you ain't laughing, Paul, but you cranked yourself
instead and you couldn't help yourself commenting on the "ahaha..."
>
Paul, it says in the " *** FAQ about ahahahaha ***
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
::: " Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha...
::: AHAHAHA" you know right off the bat that you've got a real
::: stupid fool & uptight mooch on your hands worth having big
::: time fun with".
>
So, let us have fun, Paul, since your attitude indicates that you
must have metamorphosed into one of Einstein's Hemorrhoids,
a downgrade from you having been 1 of Einstein's Dingleberries.
.... ahahaha.... ---- Now, therefore Paul ------:
For your sake and soul saving experience, here it is again for
your benefit, for you to erudiate exactly what so cranked you.
Don't say the same thing again for that would turn you into a
self-certified Einstein Turd.... ahahaha... Escape that fate, Paul!
>
>
-- The post that created PD, the newest Einstein Hemorrhoid --
-------- Begin the begin ---------
Thanks for the laughs, Paul. You are a good sport for playing!
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
PD
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... Good one... AHAHAHA...
>
> began to "drag his frame", yet never "renormalized" in his messagenews:1190226670.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> because "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
> [PD ]
> > The thing that distinguishes the carrion-eating hyena's call is that
> > it resembles a laugh, but a laugh with no one else laughing along.
> > PD
>
> [hanson]
> ahahaha.... So you ain't laughing, Paul, but you cranked yourself
> instead and you couldn't help yourself commenting on the "ahaha..."
>
And you can't help commenting on what other people say, either. Does
that mean you're "cranked up" because you commented?
Actually, I *was* laughing when I commented on your post. That's
because you're quite laughable. I hope that's what you're intending.
I'd hate to misconstrue... Perhaps you didn't know I was laughing,
and so instead you presumed that I was cranked up over something. How
big of you to think you have such influence over people that if they
comment on something you say, they must have gotten cranked up!
Now, I don't know if you're going to comment on this post. And if you
do, does that mean that you've gotten yourself all cranked up over it?
PD
Whoops....forgot: ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Androcles
: ahahaha... "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in
Sheep of a feather bleat together.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
I have a "HAHAHA!" in this one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
Bhanwara
> post by Tomn Roberts:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
> Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption"
I did point out to Tom Roberts later why he was wrong, and
how the "c" in GR comes right out of special relativity.
Apparently he had read some GR material,
and thought that because GR was based upon
Lorentzian geometry, it was not related to C, but
rather emitted C somehow. He was rather adamant
that "it is not logically possible to base GR upon SR".
As a matter of fact, the very first postulate of
GR is that the universal Reimannian manifold M is
locally Minkowskian. In other words, the very starting
point of GR (once the selection of mathematical
tools is out of the way) is that SR holds at every
given point in space and time. This postulate is
how the "c" gets into GR, it doesn't just appear as
a magical constant of space and time. GR is totally
based upon SR. (And that's why the GR experts
who add a second helping of SR into
Satellite Synchronization calculations to make
the calculations come out better, are
obviously into cheating.)
See http://www.mukesh.ws/grmisc1.html for
this old thread. Tom Roberts did not respond
to my comments and did not point out any
flaws in my reasoning. But neither did I ever
see any open retraction of his earlier understanding.
That's not how I would have behaved, so I must
admit that this gave me the idea we were not in
the same intellectual integrity category. When
my first attempt at explaining photo-electricity
using my theory turned out to be wrong, I immediately
and openly admitted to being wrong about it.
(And _therefore_ was able to arrive at the correct
explanation in short order, rather than clinging to,
and cringingly continuing to defend my earlier
incorrect explanation.)
Of course, in the intellectual integrity category,
we both are head and shoulders above those
who can merely display their ignorance by
depending upon nothing but rude comments!
Androcles
Subject: Was Einstein totally and completely wrong?
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Whoops... didn't forget. ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Androcles
"Bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1190239989....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
:> nothing to do with light. See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO still
GR come fron SR and SR comes from :
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Show your intellectual integrity category now.
hanson
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... PRICELESS!... AHAHAHA...
news:1190236888.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
AHAHAHAHAHA... Paul "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com>
has announced and certified himself as being an **Einstein Turd**!
ahahahaha....
--------- **** See here this dramatic news evolution **** -----------
>
> On Sep 19, 4:05 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... Good one... AHAHAHA...
>> "PD"-Paul <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> CRANKED himself and
>> began to "drag his frame", yet never "renormalized" in his message
news:1190226670.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> because "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>
>> [PD ]
>> > The thing that distinguishes the carrion-eating hyena's call is that
>> > it resembles a laugh, but a laugh with no one else laughing along.
>> > PD
>>
>> [hanson]
>> ahahaha.... So you ain't laughing, Paul, but you cranked yourself
>> instead and you couldn't help yourself commenting on the "ahaha..."
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
>>::: " Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha...
>>::: AHAHAHA" you know right off the bat that you've got a real
>>::: stupid fool & uptight mooch on your hands worth having big
>>::: time fun with".
>>
>>So, let us have fun, Paul, since your attitude indicates that you
>>must have metamorphosed into one of Einstein's Hemorrhoids,
>>a downgrade from you having been 1 of Einstein's Dingleberries.
>>.... ahahaha.... ---- Now, therefore Paul ------:
>>For your sake and soul saving experience, here it is again for
>>your benefit, for you to erudiate exactly what so cranked you.
>>Don't say the same thing again for that would turn you into a
>>self-certified Einstein Turd.... ahahaha... Escape that fate, Paul!
>>
>> ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
>
ahahahaha.. But as can be seen below escape is always the last
thing in the religo-physical mentation of believers like Paul, and so
Paul, the Einstein Hemorrhoid defended his Einstein Dingleberry
faith with:
>
[PD]
> And you can't help commenting on what other people say, either. Does
> that mean you're "cranked up" because you commented?
> Actually, I *was* laughing when I commented on your post. That's
> because you're quite laughable. I hope that's what you're intending.
> I'd hate to misconstrue... Perhaps you didn't know I was laughing,
> and so instead you presumed that I was cranked up over something. How
> big of you to think you have such influence over people that if they
> comment on something you say, they must have gotten cranked up!
> Now, I don't know if you're going to comment on this post. And if you
> do, does that mean that you've gotten yourself all cranked up over it?
> PD
> Whoops....forgot: ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... and predictably Paul, the Einstein Hemorrhoid,
dragged his frame and without any renormalization itched to
announce to the world that he now is an ***Einstein Turd**:
>
**"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com>, the Einstein Turd **
>
... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs, Paul!
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
>
Reprieve for Paul: "GAGA-TATA-CACCA"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/238affeb3f3aa1e3
ahahaha....
Dono
[crap snipped]
>
> Of course, in the intellectual integrity category,
> we both are head and shoulders above those
> who can merely display their ignorance by
> depending upon nothing but rude comments!
No, Mukesh, you are simply an ignorant imbecile.
PD
> ** The Einstein Turd "PD" in the <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>**
>
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... PRICELESS!... AHAHAHA...news:1190236888.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> AHAHAHAHAHA... Paul "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
Gee, I don't recall saying anything about Einstein or my faith to you.
I just recall laughing at you, just as I'm doing now.
But since you've had to resort to "Einstein Dingleberry" comments and
couldn't resist commenting on my comments, I take it that you've
gotten pretty cranked up over it. No worries, hanson! Just keep it up!
You provide plenty to laugh at here! Just don't have an apoplexy over
people laughing at ya, OK??
>
>
>
> [PD]
> > And you can't help commenting on what other people say, either. Does
> > that mean you're "cranked up" because you commented?
> > Actually, I *was* laughing when I commented on your post. That's
> > because you're quite laughable. I hope that's what you're intending.
> > I'd hate to misconstrue... Perhaps you didn't know I was laughing,
> > and so instead you presumed that I was cranked up over something. How
> > big of you to think you have such influence over people that if they
> > comment on something you say, they must have gotten cranked up!
> > Now, I don't know if you're going to comment on this post. And if you
> > do, does that mean that you've gotten yourself all cranked up over it?
> > PD
> > Whoops....forgot: ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> [hanson]
> ahahahaha... and predictably Paul, the Einstein Hemorrhoid,
> dragged his frame and without any renormalization itched to
> announce to the world that he now is an ***Einstein Turd**:
>
> **"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>, the Einstein Turd **
>
> ... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs, Paul!
> ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
> Reprieve for Paul: "GAGA-TATA-CACCA"http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/238affeb3f3aa1e3
> ahahaha....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
>
> >I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
> >where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
It does not matter what coordinate system you picked. Regardless how
space is curved, the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi
r^2) where r is the observed radius of the sphere.
The reason is that when directly observing a geometry even if
distorted we always use the metric (in association with the already
established choice of coordinate system) that would result in the
undistorted geometry or flat space. This is because we have no idea
how space is curved out there except by observing how an object
behaves through its geodesic motion. Since the metric (in association
with the already established choice of coordinate system) of space is
unknown, the fall back is always the metric that would result in flat
space when doing the actual observation.
This should be common sense, and yet Mr. McCullough, Mr. Bielawski,
Professor Draper, and no-college-degree Gisse all have failed the most
basic common sense. You know you are an Einstein Dingleberrie when
you are willing to sell out truth, logic, and self integrity just to
promotion the nonsense of the works wrongfully credited to Einstein
and the Godhood of Einstein himself. I bet you are always willing to
sell out your family too towards Einstein's cause. Yes, THEY have
trained you well.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 18, 11:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
> > where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
>
> Well, using your definition of r, that's clearly wrong. If you had
> designed an airplane wing with a comparable mistake, you would have
> had your head handed to you in a engineering review.
But no body designs an airplane in curved space. <shrug>
> > OK, I said it. So, go ahead and track down what university gave me
> > all these degrees. Next, complain to the Better Business Bureau.
> > Tell them Professor Draper and his Einstein Dingleberries got their
> > asses kicked so badly in usenet debates on the subjects which you are
> > supposedly to be experts on. Ahahahahaha...
>
> Got our asses badly kicked by the repetition of an elementary mistake
> that a 10th grader would be able to correct on a second inspection?
What mistakes are you referring to? You are just digging yourself
into more absurd reputation for yourself.
> Has it occurred to you, KW, that your congenital inability to say
> "D'oh!" is an impediment to your learning anything about a subject
> that others are supposedly experts on?
I do not accept the Orwelling education unless a gun is pointed on my
head. <shrug>
Have you tracked down the college that gave me all these degrees yet?
Don't forget also to tell this college that you as a professor who is
supposed to be an expert in the subject of discussions got your ass
kicked so badly. Ahahahahaha...
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 18, 9:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Regardless I am an engineer or not, you still have not got it. It is
> > not about Einstein but SR and GR crap. Einstein was just there right
> > in the middle of it. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
> > Saying anything else about Einstein, I would be guilty of lying. I
> > still possess moral values unlike the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
>
> You lack the following values:
>
> - intellectual honesty,
> - self-criticism.
What do these mean? Is this a way of whining after getting your ass
kicked?
> You also feel absolutely no remorse over accusing someone of:
>
> - stupidity,
These are what I can compile on the top of my head. Einstein
** Derived the Lorentz transform in the most gibberish way.
** Threw out two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out the
Lorentz transform.
** Took a long time to understand Newtonian gravity.
** After finally understood Newtonian gravity, he thought he
discovered the principle of equivalence.
** Tried to understand gravity by picturing himself as that falling
apple in which Newton observed under the influence of gravity.
** Equated acceleration with speed to derive gravitational red shift.
** Suggested negative mass density in vacuum.
With achievements like these, I have to conclude that Einstein was a
nitwit.
> - plagiarism,
> - lying,
Einstein fudged the Lorentz transform in his 1905 paper in doing so
without even mentioning the work of Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor,
Lorentz, and Poincare.
With low self integrity like that, I conclude that he was a plagiarist
and a liar.
> ...while either:
>
> (1) knowing full well you have not understood the evidence,
You on the other hand are willing to lie about your understanding of
Einstein's 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform. You also have
very low self integrity.
> ...or:
>
> (2) not knowing you have not understood the evidence.
The evidence is all in the mathematics luckily in this rare event.
The Einstein Dingleberries can distort history or mutilate historic
documents, but the forensic evidence is all in the very mathematics.
<shrug>
> (1) is simply disgusting to see in an adult,
Yes, your lie about the validity of Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
Lorentz transform is truly disgusting.
> (2) is a personality defect.
It is a personal defect of yours as well.
> I'm assuming it's (2) in your case.
I have given reasons. You have not besides perpetuating the lies.
JanPB
> On Sep 19, 8:24 am, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 9:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Regardless I am an engineer or not, you still have not got it. It is
> > > not about Einstein but SR and GR crap. Einstein was just there right
> > > in the middle of it. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
> > > Saying anything else about Einstein, I would be guilty of lying. I
> > > still possess moral values unlike the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
>
> > You lack the following values:
>
> > - intellectual honesty,
> > - self-criticism.
>
> What do these mean? Is this a way of whining after getting your ass
> kicked?
Well, you are just proving my point. You had made earlier a monumental
mistake and instead of admitting it, you just lie about it. Do you
think that by redefining your mistake as _us_ getting "ass kicked"
anything will change? Is this intellectual honesty?
> > You also feel absolutely no remorse over accusing someone of:
>
> > - stupidity,
>
> These are what I can compile on the top of my head. Einstein
>
> ** Derived the Lorentz transform in the most gibberish way.
>
> ** Threw out two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out the
> Lorentz transform.
>
> ** Took a long time to understand Newtonian gravity.
>
> ** After finally understood Newtonian gravity, he thought he
> discovered the principle of equivalence.
>
> ** Tried to understand gravity by picturing himself as that falling
> apple in which Newton observed under the influence of gravity.
>
> ** Equated acceleration with speed to derive gravitational red shift.
>
> ** Suggested negative mass density in vacuum.
>
> With achievements like these, I have to conclude that Einstein was a
> nitwit.
And this just confirms that your self-criticism is equal to that of a
teenager. The posts you have seen that came as responses to your
arguments over the last couple of years should have raised in any
normal person's mind an entire forest of red flags. But no, you have
to continue to post utter idiocies like the one above - why? What are
you getting out of this? You must know that the chance you are correct
is precisely zero. So why do you even bother? What is it that's
stopping you from studying the subject for real? If you like the
subject, then why do you avoid gaining at least enough competence to
avoid stumbling at each and every step? What makes you prefer living
in a fantasy world in which you are a king rather than in reality in
which you are your true self?
> > - plagiarism,
> > - lying,
>
> Einstein fudged the Lorentz transform in his 1905 paper in doing so
> without even mentioning the work of Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor,
> Lorentz, and Poincare.
Again, you cannot make statements like this one and remain honest.
It's that simple.
> With low self integrity like that, I conclude that he was a plagiarist
> and a liar.
You cannot accuse anyone of anything like this without evidence. We
all know now that you have no evidence. This is dishonesty.
> > ...while either:
>
> > (1) knowing full well you have not understood the evidence,
>
> You on the other hand are willing to lie about your understanding of
> Einstein's 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform. You also have
> very low self integrity.
I can explain every detail about it and over the years me and many
others here have gone through the 1905 paper's first part in grinding
detail. If you don't understand it - ask questions. You have no right
to accuse Einstein or anybody else of anything at this point.
> > ...or:
>
> > (2) not knowing you have not understood the evidence.
>
> The evidence is all in the mathematics luckily in this rare event.
> The Einstein Dingleberries can distort history or mutilate historic
> documents, but the forensic evidence is all in the very mathematics.
> <shrug>
>
> > (1) is simply disgusting to see in an adult,
>
> Yes, your lie about the validity of Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
> Lorentz transform is truly disgusting.
>
> > (2) is a personality defect.
>
> It is a personal defect of yours as well.
>
> > I'm assuming it's (2) in your case.
>
> I have given reasons. You have not besides perpetuating the lies.
You are a dishonest man.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 19, 10:52 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What do these mean? Is this a way of whining after getting your ass
> > kicked?
>
> Well, you are just proving my point. You had made earlier a monumental
> mistake and instead of admitting it, you just lie about it. Do you
> think that by redefining your mistake as _us_ getting "ass kicked"
> anything will change? Is this intellectual honesty?
Oh, I just proved the point that you got your ass kicked so badly.
<shrug> This is a very honest assessment.
> > These are what I can compile on the top of my head. Einstein
>
> > ** Derived the Lorentz transform in the most gibberish way.
>
> > ** Threw out two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out the
> > Lorentz transform.
>
> > ** Took a long time to understand Newtonian gravity.
>
> > ** After finally understood Newtonian gravity, he thought he
> > discovered the principle of equivalence.
>
> > ** Tried to understand gravity by picturing himself as that falling
> > apple in which Newton observed under the influence of gravity.
>
> > ** Equated acceleration with speed to derive gravitational red shift.
>
> > ** Suggested negative mass density in vacuum.
>
> > With achievements like these, I have to conclude that Einstein was a
> > nitwit.
>
> And this just confirms that your self-criticism is equal to that of a
> teenager. [...]
These are all in historic records. Just do a little bit more
research, instead of hiding in Einstein's butt-hole and yelling how
great it is living in someone's excrement. <shrug>
Oh, did I forget the field equations. There was and remains still
only one way to properly derive the field equations. That is through
the BS Lagrangian that Hilbert pulled out of his ass. It is
astronomically small that two persons, not to mention a nitwit like
Einstein, were able to achieve the same feat within a week of each
other. This is so because Hilbert had been working on the curvature
of spacetime longer than Einstein did. After Minkowski derived the
mathematical concept of spacetime from the Lorentz transform, Hilbert,
Schwarzschild, Klein, and Minkowski himself were already
mathematically exploring the curvature of spacetime.
> > Einstein fudged the Lorentz transform in his 1905 paper in doing so
> > without even mentioning the work of Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor,
> > Lorentz, and Poincare.
>
> Again, you cannot make statements like this one and remain honest.
> It's that simple.
Yes, I remain my honest stand. I know you are very dishonest. The
title of being a mathematician should not be claimed but respectfully
given to. Your self claim of being a mathematician is very
laughable. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So who taught you your version of GR?
Daryl McCullough
>What mistakes are you referring to?
I asked:
>> If I use the variable r to mean "altitude" then what is the area of a
>> surface of constant r?
You replied:
>4 pi r^2
That's a mistake. I followed up with
>> But let's look at the
>> special case r=0. If we plug in r=0 into your formula, we get
>> 0 for the surface area.
You replied
>That is correct.
No, it's not. If r denotes altitude, then the surface area of
a sphere of constant r is given by Area = 4pi(r+a)^2, where
a = the radius of the Earth.
Your answer was a mistake.
Daryl McCullough
>On Sep 19, 4:12 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee says...
>>
>> >I say the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi r^2),
>> >where r is the observed radius, regardless what the metric is.
>
>It does not matter what coordinate system you picked. Regardless how
>space is curved, the observed surface area of a sphere is always (4 pi
>r^2) where r is the observed radius of the sphere.
This doesn't have anything to do with curved space. It has to
do with understanding what the metric is, and how it is related
to area. The following metric is for *flat* space:
ds^2 = dr^2 + (r+a)^2 [dTheta^2 + sin(Theta)^2 dPhi^2]
How do you compute the area of the surface with the following
bounds:
Theta runs from 0 to Pi
Phi runs from 0 to 2 Pi.
r = constant
This has nothing to do with gravity or curved space. It has to
do with your understanding of what a "metric" is, and how it
is related to area. Your answer, 4pi r^2, is just *wrong*.
It's *nonsensical*. Trying to say that "r is the observed
radius" is nonsensical, as well. In the problem, r is a
coordinate. If you want to introduce a new quantity, the
"observed radius", that's fine, but pick a different variable
than "r" since that variable is already in use. Define how
to compute your "observed radius" for this problem.
>The reason is that when directly observing a geometry even if
>distorted we always use the metric (in association with the already
>established choice of coordinate system) that would result in the
>undistorted geometry or flat space.
The problem at hand *is* flat space.
>This should be common sense
That the surface area of a sphere of constant altitude r is
not equal to 4 pi r^2 is, indeed, common sense.