Re: Spacetime is Absolute (only Space & Time Relative)

[Koobee Wublee]

On Dec 2, 4:21 pm, Glyd <glyd_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Agree?
> Martin Gardner of "Relativity Simply Explained" explained:
>
> "The important point to grasp here is that the spacetime structure,
> the four-dimensional structure, of the spaceship is just as rigid and
> unchanging as it is in classical physics. This is the essential
> difference between the discarded Lorentz contraction theory and the
> Einstein contraction theory. For Lorentz, the contraction was a real
> contraction of a three-dimensional object. For Einstein, the "real"
> object is a four-dimensional object that does not change at all. It is
> simply seen, so to speak, from different angles. It's three-
> dimensional projection in space and its one-dimensional projection in
> time may change, but the four-dimensional ship of spacetime remains
> rigid.

Yes. <shrug>

> Here is another instance of how the theory of relativity introduces
> new absolutes. The four-dimensional shape of a rigid body is an
> absolute unchanging shape. We can slice spacetime so the shape of a
> spaceship depends on the motion of the frame or reference from which
> we make the slice, but (as J.J.C. Smart writes in the introduction to
> his anthology, Problems of Space and Time), "the fact that we can take
> slices at different angles through a sausage does not force us to give
> up an absolute theory of sausages"

There are an infinite number of transforms that satisfy the null
results of the MMX and electromagnetism, but the Lorentz transform
does not. All these transforms do not satisfy the principle of
relativity. The closest form of the Lorentz transform that satisfies
these null results of the MMX and electromagnetism is Larmor’s
transform. Both the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms also involve
three parties --- two observers and one observed. The observed is
mutually observed and the two observers. The transform (including the
Galilean) describes how each observer observes the same observed.

In Larmor’s transform, one of the two observers must be the absolute
frame of reference. If bringing in a third observer, both non-
absolute frames must relate their observations to include the absolute
frame as indicated by the mathematics of Larmor’s transform. However,
in the very special circumstance where both of the non-absolute frames
are moving in parallel relative as observed by the absolute frame,
Larmor’s transform becomes the Lorentz transform where all references
to the absolute frame vanish.

Thus, the Lorentz transform does not represent the real world. This
so-called Lorentz invariance (invariance in spacetime) also extends to
Larmor’s transform as well as the other infinite transforms that also
satisfy the null results of the MMX and electromagnetism but NOT the
principle of relativity. Thus, in the sense of mathematical
constructs, the invariance only exists if reflected off the absolute
frame of reference. Otherwise, you would lose any sense of this
invariance.

<shrug>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

allow me to shrug in advance; thank you.

first page of M&M, just *mentions* the anomaly
that they found, not any oft-reported "null."

Minkowski's spacetime, Feynman's pants,
are completely unneeded obfuscations
of ordinary phase-space, not even anything as hard
as an abstract n-diemnsional hamiltonian "configuration
space," nothing but quaternions,
which is the original vector mechanics lingo.

Minkowski at least had an excuse;
Feynman just has his bongos; you --
you are possibly correct about teh Lorentz Twins,
but that ain't going to fund your FTL what ever.

thus:
so, why can't they say, what the angle of total reflection
off Arctic waters are, given the sun angles & a measure
of choppiness?

y'know, folks watch so much TV, they probably believe that
the arcitc & antarctic are always as Sunny as a Club MedTM. but,
when it *is* clear, that is when there is no waveguide by clouds
from the subarctic, and when the angle of total reflection is
of the greatest import, or export.

or, given that jets fly on great-circle bearings,
what does the heat of the exhaust -- the heat
of the jets & wings dissipating & radiating -- do to the N. pole?

or, what do all of the icebreakers' horsepower do,
to the angular momentum of the floating ice?

things that make y'go, Hm.

> > However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

jet exhaust is presumably carrying an excess of heat,
beyond the heat of condensation of the water-of-combustion,
although the presence of chemtrails (!?) depends only
upon relative humidity & temperature.

> why shouldn't the heat of the exhaust
> of a jetplane be accounted for -- or,
> give necessary and/or sufficient reason to account for it.

thus:
there is just no historical data for most glaciers. yes,
the ones close to civilization with some data,
do tend to "retreat," although it is really very cyclical
with very little comprehension of the cause ... or,
even if it means that any particular glacier is actually diminishing,
overall.

on the very hour that I heard from the Man from NOAA,
Swiss affiliate, that the hieghths of GrIS and AnIS had
*only* increased, since measurement began,
I drew the obvious conclusion. at the second catered event,
I asked him about this, and he disagreed, although
he couldn't think of a reason, at the momentbeing.

anyway, til *either* a Confirmerist or a Denierist will
actually read Morner's overview paper in the magazine,
I am probably not going to believe in putative sealevel rise,
especially, if they are not going to even bother
with erosion, loss of soil-water & so on.

I would like to say, though, in hearing about subglacial volcanos
on Iceland, that it is possible for this to incease,
especially in Antarctica at Mt. Erebus, which could lead
to significant transients of sealevel rise ... because
vulcanism actually increases by an order of magnitude,
during the glacial phases of the Quaternary Period.

> "surface mass balance (net accumulation)"

thus:
the Kyoto Protocol is a huge, voluntary carbon emmissions scheme,
which follows the market of the larger EU mandatory scheme,
following the launching of CCX in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War, and
of ICE in 2005.

presumbaly, the primary "players" in these hedge-funds,
are the oilcos ... perhaps even the Koch bros.,
whether or not they erroneously call it a "tax."

thus:
my source on this is _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011,
which is a blow-by-blow acount of the history
of these glocal circulation models.

-- the Kyoto Protocol is *nothing* but cap & trade,
which I prefer to call "free-er trade," as a large vehicle
for hedge funds, such as CCX, that Sen. Obama started
in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War. and, you probably thought that
only Sen. Gore had his own hedgie!

[Koobee Wublee]

On Dec 11, 7:43 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Actually, GR has no aether (regardless of what some people around here think,
> and independent of an aberrant quote from Einstein that some idiots around here
> repeatedly reference, ignoring the whole body of his work).

Don’t be so sure. GR capitalizes on the spacetime equation which is a
concise way of writing down all four equations of the Lorentz
transform. However, Larmor’s transform also converge to the exact
same spacetime equation. Larmor’s transform does indicate the Aether,
for it does not satisfy the principle of relativity. To play God, you
need to understand more about the mathematics that leads to your model
of faith --- that fat castle in the air known as GR. <shrug>

> For instance, any
> aspect of the GR model you attempt to identify as "aether" has no energy
> density, has no rest frame, and does not participate in electromagnetic
> phenomena.

Larmor’s transform does indicate an absolute frame of reference.
<shrug>

> In the FRW manifolds

Why are you continually dropping the ‘L’ (Lemaitre) from LFRW metric?
Do you despise religious folks that can do and understand GR better
than most physicists? Are you jealous of a Catholic priest that
understood the field equations inside out better than anyone else?
<shrug>

> that are the basis of big-bang cosmology,

But FLRW does not satisfy Newtonian law of gravity at short
distances. So, it is just wrong. Excuse Him. He meant “invalid”.
<shrug>

> the CMBR is
> related to the surface of last scattering, and is isotropic in local coordinates
> that are based on the cosmological time of the manifold. The CMBR is, as its
> name implies, RADIATION, and is also not any sort of "aether". Yes, the CMBR is
> detectable, but that only shows us our relationship to the surface of last
> scattering, not any sort of "aether".

The absolute frame of reference should be just like another frame of
reference except it takes the advantage of having the Aether at rest.
The most important thing is that it still has to obey all laws of
physics just like others. Just what do you expect out of this
absolute frame of reference anyway? <shrug>

[mpc755]

There is zero evidence of an aether rest frame.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

it's just a simple phase-space,
easily analyzed with quaternions, at minimum,
which is vectors.

sheesh.

[mpc755]

On Dec 13, 8:10 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mathematics are used to represent what occurs physically in nature and
do not actually explain what is occurring physically in nature.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically
displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is
pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system
is evidence of the aether.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter by aether
displaced by matter is gravity.

In de Broglie wave mechanics the particle is in continuous energetic
contact with a hidden medium. This energetic contact with a hidden
medium is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

[Martin]

On December 13, 2011, XX:XX xm, Martin <marty....@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Dec 8, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:21 pm, Glyd <glyd_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Agree?
> > Martin Gardner of "Relativity Simply Explained" explained:
>
> > "The important point to grasp here is that the spacetime structure,
> > the four-dimensional structure, of the spaceship is just as rigid and
> > unchanging as it is in classical physics. This is the essential
> > difference between the discarded Lorentz contraction theory and the
> > Einstein contraction theory. For Lorentz, the contraction was a real
> > contraction of a three-dimensional object. For Einstein, the "real"
> > object is a four-dimensional object that does not change at all. It is
> > simply seen, so to speak, from different angles. It's three-
> > dimensional projection in space and its one-dimensional projection in
> > time may change, but the four-dimensional ship of spacetime remains
> > rigid.
>
> Yes.  <shrug>
>
> > Here is another instance of how the theory of relativity introduces

> > new absolutes these are the equations I have been working so hard to derive. I do
not have any real access to academic resources or opinions and it
would really mean a great deal to me if you could somehow have them
seen.

Thank you so much. You are a great friend.

Best regards,
Martin M. Musatov

EQUATION [1]

Due to the Law of The Conservation of Energy we may revise Special
Relativity to account for Quantum Irregularity by this equation:

E = (mc^2) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2

My basis for this equation is derived by what I would like to be
called the 'M' transform.

SET [2]

Let M < 1
Let N = 1 and P = 2

If M > 0 then N + N + M = P - M
If M < 0 then N + N + M < P

The above Set is the Resolution to P Versus NP
--

Your first equation is inconsistent with natural observations. The
second equation looks like a bunch of numbers tossed together that a
preschooler could have come up with. It is also untrue.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

No it is not untrue. You talk a lot but you do not do the
mathematics.

If you speak it is untrue then prove it.

I will for your benefit explain it slowly for you.

Natural observation tells us what comes in must come out if it is
energy as energy
is transferred but does not vanish according to GR and SR (General)
and *Special* Relativity.

Imagine a light shining on you as you are running away from it.

The light has energy. Any light has energy.

The light is shining on you.

If we simply say

I am HERE and I am X.

Buy the time I say

I am X I am HERE - and.

So Let X be X is consistent with observeobservation

But let Y be X is not unless X is X - Y

So here is the light shining 1 = > X

But the light shines also > 0 < 1 => X

So if SR begins looking at 1 = > X what it sees is true
but
what it misses is the energy and light
from
> 0 < 1 which is very small magnitude
(we hardly miss it)

but it grows
The further X moves away from the source of light

Now on the second equation and set - this is slowly proven
if you will look and learn

N = 1
P = 2

Let 'M' be all quantities less than 'N'
By this definition 'M' is all quantities less than 1

We may claim

'M' = < 1 = always true
'M' = < 0 = may or may not be true by definition

But still the set 'M' contains all quantities infinitely M < 1

We write

N + N + M = P - M

For all sets where 'M' is greater than zero.
For all sets: 'M' > 0 < 1

Do the math:

Let 'M' equal .5

N = 1

N + N + M = P - M

1 + 1 + .5 = 2.5 - .5

But for cases where 'M' is negative
But for cases where 'M' < 0

We may state with certainty
For the cases where M < 0
(i.e. where 'M' is negative or -M)
The case is true that
N + N + M < P
Q.E.D.

If you dismiss me again without citing mathematics and numerics
you prove your ignorance in the face of greater intelligence
and truth than you hold as supreme to your opinion.

And if you do not know what this means get up and go look
at a dictionary and write the definitions next to each
word. This is what it means.

I am tired of individuals dismissing what they do not
understand as wrong or foolish when they are the ones
that do not understand.

Martin Michael Musatov

proved (revised) proved (revised) Special and General Relativity in
August of 2009 at the same time the basis of his
work has been and was a large part of his mission
to bring the applaudant resolution to the P Verus NP problem and
to donate the $1MM dollars to cure childhood cancer with
the prize from The Clay Mathematics Institutue.-t

The fact is Clay may not have the money because-t=time.now
they simply decided the problems are unsolvable+t=time.now-or they
may have the money TO PAY IT TO CLAIMANT as satisfies above
and simply choose to offer the reward problem and
problem prize to leverage the attempts to solve
the problem to further their political not math
patriarchal organization. I claim this is the
case until they donate the prize I have earned
to the children dying of cancer and not hold it
ransom for a figment of their minds they proclaim
to be mathematics when it is morose politics in
that many have solved it but remain ignored because
they could not produce the desired results expected
from the solution. I will end this and the desired
results and solutions that will marvel the masses
because of their inherent design ease of access
and beauty in elegance surpassed their complicated
symbolic systems and relied solely on the nature
of inherent faith in purposeful creation and beauty
already present in the exists all including you as
you read this. In elegant construction there are no
accidents and nothing is wasted. Life is the same.

Physics and Science are Beauty in Truth and God
created Mathematics.

Martin Michael Musatov

Los Angeles, California (was in)


I Read:

Special relativity is accurate only when gravitational potential is
much less than c2; in a strong gravitational field one must use
general relativity (which becomes special relativity at the limit of
weak field). At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and
below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in
quantum gravity. However, at macroscopic scales and in the absence of
strong gravitational fields, special relativity is experimentally
tested to extremely high degree of accuracy (10-20)[48] and thus
accepted by the physics community. Experimental results which appear
to contradict it are not reproducible and are thus widely believed to
be due to experimental > On Aug 14, 3:07 pm, Uncle Al
<Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
> > NoEinstein wrote:
> >
> > > Recently, in a reply on sci.math, Eleaticus
> recognized that Einstein's
> > > SR equation wasn't "symmetrical" as regards the
> requirement of the Law
> > > of the Conservation of Energy that energy IN must
> = energy out.
> >
>
> Musatov Diagram Proof:
>
> SR ignores symmetry
>
> [
> E E
> = =
> E = MCCM = E
> = =
> E E
> ]
>
> URL Reference:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
> browse_thread/thread/50a9b4439453b389/fdcf93f29aaa45c7
> #fdcf93f29aaa45c7
>
> Here is the full exchange:
>
> On Aug 14, 3:07 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
> > NoEinstein wrote:
> >
> > > Recently, in a reply on sci.math, Eleaticus
> recognized that Einstein's
> > > SR equation wasn't "symmetrical" as regards the
> requirement of the Law
> > > of the Conservation of Energy that energy IN must
> = energy out.
> >
>
> Musatov's proof:
>
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E
>
> sci.physics.relativity
> >
> > 1) Special Relativity for yard
> apeshttp://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
> >
> > 2)Experimental constraints on General Relativity
> > Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
> > Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR
> model
> >
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006
> -3/>
> >
> <http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title
> /Einstein_Unruff...>
> >
> <http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039http://ianparker.g3z
> .com/Relativity/
> >
> > idiot
> >
> > And as for the Prince Regent of Idiots you the
> plebeian idiot
> > referenced,
> >
> > 3) eleaticus, Oren Webster, is a despised and
> stooopid
> troll,http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/F
> umbles/Crimes.html
> > "Several crimes against logic and science" Ha ha
> ha!
> >
> > 4) Were there to be internal inconsistencies in
> SR (meaning
> > inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical
> nature) that would
> > automatically lead to contradictions in number
> theory, itself, and
> > arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski
> geometry is
> > equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and
> with arithmetic.
> >
> > 5) Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is
> completely ignorant
> > of multivariable calculus. He has no concept of
> the Chain Rule in
> > multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean
> Transformation goo and
> > dribble:
> >
> > t' = t,
> > x' = x - vt,
> > y' = y,
> > z' = z.
> >
> > His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as
> a separate
> > variable springs from a massive empirical stupidity
> re space and time
> > are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with
> four coordinates
> > instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional
> manifold, and that
> > the change of coordinate system should be a change
> of four
> > coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of
> three coordinates.
> > This is particularly vital when it comes to fields
> over space and time
> > (electric and magnetic fields for example).
> >
> > The transformation law for the differential
> operators under the
> > Galilean transformation is given by:
> >
> > d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
> > d/dx' = d/dx,
> > d/dy' = d/dy,
> > d/dz' = d/dz.
> >
> > This shows the necessity of introducing a new
> variable t', since
> > partial differentiation with respect to t'
> (constant x', y', z') is a
> > different operation to partial differentiation with
> respect to t
> > (constant x, y, z). The above transformation law
> is determined by the
> > Chain Rule:
> >
> > d/dt' = dt/dt' d/dt + dx/dt' d/dx + dy/dt' d/dy +
> dz/dt' d/dz,
> > d/dx' = dt/dx' d/dt + dx/dx' d/dx + dy/dx' d/dy +
> dz/dx' d/dz,
> > d/dy' = dt/dy' d/dt + dx/dy' d/dx + dy/dy' d/dy +
> dz/dy' d/dz,
> > d/dz' = dt/dz' d/dt + dx/dz' d/dx + dy/dz' d/dy +
> dz/dz' d/dz.
> >
> > The presence of the term involving d/dx in the
> expression for d/dt' is
> > indicative of the fact that x depends on t' (x',
> y', z', being held
> > constant), as can be seen from the fact that the
> coefficient of d/dx
> > in the expression for d/dt' is dx/dt'. Because of
> the now
> > demonstrated fact that Eleaticus has no formal
> education in
> > multivariable calculus, he has managed, somehow, to
> get it into his
> > head that the presence of the term involving d/dx
> in the expression
> > for d/dt' is indicative of t' depending on x (t, y,
> z, being held
> > constant). Because of his stupidty Eleaticus
> cannot get the correct
> > transformation law for the differential operators
> under the Galilean
> > Transformation, and he cannot determine the
> invariance or otherwise of
> > Maxwell's Equations under the Galilean
> Transformation. The first
> > advice to Eleaticus is to learn multivariable
> calculus.
> >
> > Eleaticus should not pretend that he can understand
> how to determine
> > invariance or otherwise of Maxwell's Equations
> under the Galilean
> > Transformation, or under the Lorentz
> Transformation, until he
> > understands the multivariable calculus which
> underlies such
> > considerations. Eleaticus is a loud idiot.
> >
> > The homogeneous Maxwell equations are invariant
> under the Galilean
> > Transformation, with transformation laws:
> >
> > E_x' = E_x,
> > E_y' = E_y - v B_z,
> > E_z' = E_z + v B_y,
> > B_x' = B_x,
> > B_y' = B_y,
> > B_z' = B_z.
> >
> > The derivation of these transformation laws was
> determined using the
> > transformation laws for the differential operators
> given above. These
> > transformation laws have the additional advantage
> that they determine
> > the correct transformation for the force law, thus
> providing further
> > evidence in favour of the transformation law for
> the differential
> > operators, as above.
> >
> > The inhomogeneous Maxwell equations are also
> invariant under the
> > Galilean transformation, with transformation laws:
> >
> > E_x' = E_x,
> > E_y' = E_y,
> > E_z' = E_z,
> > B_x' = B_x,
> > B_y' = B_y + v/c^2 E_z,
> > B_z' = B_z - v/c^2 E_y,
> > \rho' = \rho,
> > J_x' = J_x - v \rho,
> > J_y' = J_y,
> > J_z' = J_z.
> >
> > Note the the transformation laws for the charge
> density and current
> > density are as they should be under the Galilean
> transformation.
> >
> > Homogeneous equations are invariant under the
> Galilean Transformation,
> > and inhomogeneous equations are invariant under the
> Galilean
> > Transformation, but Maxwell's Equations as a whole
> are NOT invariant
> > under the Galilean Transformation, since the
> transformation laws
> > required for the EM field for the two cases are
> inconsistent with each
> > other. The transformation law for the EM field
> which makes the
> > homogeneous equations invariant will not also make
> the inhomogeneous
> > equations invariant. The transformation law for
> the EM field which
> > makes the inhomogeneous equations invariant will
> not also make the
> > homogeneous equations invariant.
> >
> > On the other hand, all of Maxwell's equations are
> invariant under the
> > Lorentz Transformation, with transformation laws:
> >
> > E_x' = E_x,
> > E_y' = \gamma (E_y - v B_z),
> > E_z' = \gamma (E_z + v B_y),
> > B_x' = B_x,
> > B_y' = \gamma (B_y + v/c^2 E_z),
> > B_z' = \gamma (B_z - v/c^2 E_y),
> > \rho' = \gamma (\rho - v/c^2 J_x),
> > J_x' = \gamma (J_x - v \rho),
> > J_y' = J_y,
> > J_z' = J_z,
> >
> > where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
> >
> > Hey, stooopid troll Eleaticus - Do you want
> EVIDENCE? Each of the 24
> > GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic
> clocks or three
> > rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full
> relativistic corrections
> > being applied.
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most
> mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
> browse_thread/thread/50a9b4439453b389/fdcf93f29aaa45c7
> #fdcf93f29aaa45c7
>
> On Jul 29, 5:19 pm, Eleaticus <scribe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:02 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >
> >
> >
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> message
> >
> > >
>
> 61848e7a-b393-4681-bca6-43f3c22bd...@e27g2000yqm.goog
> legroups.com
> >
> > > > On Jul 29, 5:58 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Dear Dirk: I detect a certain fatalism
> regarding whether or not you
> > > > believe Einstein will ever be dethroned as a...
> genius (ha, ha, HA!).
> > > > I'm not fatalistic, but I know that 95% of
> those on these groups who
> > > > comment about SR and GR do so because they wish
> to be associated with
> > > > "a genius" so that they themselves will "seem"
> smart.
> >
> > > I know that 100% of the crackpots on these groups
> who
> > > comment about SR and GR do so because they are
> really
> > > truly honestly convinced that they are infinitely
> smarter than
> > > one particular person who is more or less
> universally
> > > considered to have been a genius.
> >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E
>
> sci.physics.relativity
>
>
> Eleaticus
> View profile
> (1 user) More options Jul 29, 5:19 pm
> Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics,
> sci.physics.relativity
> From: Eleaticus <scribe...@aol.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Wed, Jul 29 2009 5:19 pm
> Subject: Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the =
> Sign
> Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print |
> Individual message | Show
> original | Remove | Report this message | Find
> messages by this author
> On Jul 29, 2:02 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> message
>
> >
>
> 61848e7a-b393-4681-bca6-43f3c22bd...@e27g2000yqm.goog
> legroups.com
>
> > > On Jul 29, 5:58 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Dirk: I detect a certain fatalism regarding
> whether or not you
> > > believe Einstein will ever be dethroned as a...
> genius (ha, ha, HA!).
> > > I'm not fatalistic, but I know that 95% of those
> on these groups who
> > > comment about SR and GR do so because they wish
> to be associated with
> > > "a genius" so that they themselves will "seem"
> smart.
>
> > I know that 100% of the crackpots on these groups
> who
> > comment about SR and GR do so because they are
> really
> > truly honestly convinced that they are infinitely
> smarter than
> > one particular person who is more or less
> universally
> > considered to have been a genius.
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> SR ignores symmetry:
> E E
> = =
> E = MCCM = E
> = =
> E E
>
> Uncle Al
> More options Jul 29, 5:25 pm
> Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics,
> sci.physics.relativity
> From: Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:25:24 -0700
> Local: Wed, Jul 29 2009 5:25 pm
> Subject: Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the =
> Sign
> Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print |
> Individual message | Show
> original | Report this message | Find messages by
> this author
> Eleaticus wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E
>
>
> NoEinstein
> More options Jul 30, 12:35 pm
> Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics,
> sci.physics.relativity
> From: NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Thurs, Jul 30 2009 12:35 pm
> Subject: Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the =
> Sign
> On Jul 29, 8:19 pm, Eleaticus <scribe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
> > On Jul 29, 2:02 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> message
>
> > >
>
> 61848e7a-b393-4681-bca6-43f3c22bd...@e27g2000yqm.goog
> legroups.com
>
> > > > On Jul 29, 5:58 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Dirk: I detect a certain fatalism
> regarding whether or not you
> > > > believe Einstein will ever be dethroned as a...
> genius (ha, ha, HA!).
> > > > I'm not fatalistic, but I know that 95% of
> those on these groups who
> > > > comment about SR and GR do so because they wish
> to be associated with
> > > > "a genius" so that they themselves will "seem"
> smart.
>
> > > I know that 100% of the crackpots on these groups
> who
> > > comment about SR and GR do so because they are
> really
> > > truly honestly convinced that they are infinitely
> smarter than
> > > one particular person who is more or less
> universally
> > > considered to have been a genius.
>
> > > Dirk Vdm
>
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear Eleaticus: You sir are a RARE thinker! The Law
> of the
> Conservation of energy demands that: E sub OUT = E
> sub IN. All
> mathematicians worth their salt should realize that E
> = (mc^2) / (1 -
> v^2/c^2)^1/2 has the energy OUT being a variable
> exponent greater than
> unity, while the energy IN, 'v' is increasing
> LINEARLY. The latter
Thx
Eleaticus was a name I used for absolute/relative proof you may call
me Martin Michael Musatov-errors.

Special relativity is mathematically self-consistent, and it is an
organic part of all modern physical theories, most notably quantum
field theory, string theory, and general relativity (in the limiting
case of negligible gravitational fields).

Newtonian mechanics mathematically follows from special relativity at
small velocities (compared to the speed of light) -- thus Newtonian
mechanics can be considered as a special relativity of slow moving
bodies. See Status of special relativity for a more detailed
discussion.

Several experiments predating Einstein's 1905 paper are now
interpreted as evidence for relativity. (Of these, Einstein was only
aware of the Fizeau experiment before 1905.)

* The Trouton-Noble experiment showed that the torque on a
capacitor is independent of position and inertial reference frame.
* The famous Michelson-Morley experiment gave further support to
the postulate that detecting an absolute reference velocity was not
achievable. It should be stated here that, contrary to many
alternative claims, it said little about the invariance of the speed
of light with respect to the source and observer's velocity, as both
source and observer were travelling together at the same velocity at
all times.
* The Fizeau experiment measured the speed of light in moving
media, with results that are consistent with relativistic addition of
velocities.

A number of experiments have been conducted to test special
relativity
against rival theories. These include:

* Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments - electron deflection in
approximate agreement with Lorentz-Einstein prediction.
* Kennedy-Thorndike experiment - time dilation in accordance with
Lorentz transformations
* Rossi-Hall experiment - relativistic effects on a fast-moving
particle's half-life
* Experiments to test emitter theory demonstrated that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the (emitter) M(e).
* Hammar experiment - no "aether flow obstruction"

In addition, particle accelerators routinely accelerate and measure
the properties of particles moving at near the speed of light, where
their behavior is completely consistent with relativity theory and
inconsistent with the earlier Newtonian mechanics. These machines
would simply not work if they were not engineered according to
relativistic principles.

The math is there too:


But not here where it belongs if you claim to correct me.
It isn't the most professional of sources, but it's a great general
overview of Special Relativity with easy access and numerous reliable
sources.

Note the accuracy of the equations when put into practice. The only
loophole is that is does not fully account for quantum gravity,
something which cannot be completely explained as of yet by ANYONE,
including yourself. What you should realize after reading all of
this,
and I mean ALL of it, is that it makes both MATHEMATICAL and LOGICAL
sense, unlike your little equations and theories.
What does not make sense about them?

You have not said it.
If you were to
actually put your suggested equation into practice to try and account
for quantum irregularity, you will be very disappointed when you
realize that the equation just does not correspond accurately to
anything that we see in the real world. It's just flawed,
I have put it to use. How does it differ if you claim it does?
You simply state it is wrong over and over but give no explanation of
why.
I don't know
how to make this any clearer to you.

I (and other defenders of logic and reason) do not always post the
equations behind our logic because we take them for granted. We take
them for granted because they are a significant part of the topic of
discussion. We assume that anyone who argues that they disproved one
of the greatest physical theories of all time, revolutionizing the
scientific and mathematical world as we know it, and undermining
modern physics and mathematics would AT LEAST have read and
understood
the theory in question.

But no. The benefit of the doubt is far too generous a gift for the
likes of you.
And the fact that you are considering your perception of my
deservedness of what you perceive to be a claim of worthiness to be
allowed to participate in the mathematics has shown the state of
mathematics has slipped past reason into conformity and politics.

The truth is whether I deserve it or not in your eyes has no impact
on
the correctness of the math which you in your motives have once again
failed to address and vaguely dismissed despite my repeated request
for a valid mathematics refute.
It takes more than an amateur in his backyard
proclaiming, "I think the world is like this because I say it is, and
these phony numbers prove it" to contribute to modern physics today.
You don't understand multivariable calculus, you don't understand
special relativity, you don't understand physics. How is anyone
going to believe this proposed equation if it not only is founded on
faulty principles, but simply fails to explain any occurrence in
nature?

Try putting your precious little equation into practice. The numbers
don't add up.
I have put mine into practice and they are revolutionizing mathematics
as you read this and they have registered impact.-ref

MMM. The four-dimensional shape of a rigid body is anf

Atlas did what?