Principle of Relativity
Koobee Wublee
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
Inertial
news:a44c4ff1-ef5d-44d3...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> Where
>
> ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
and Galilean transforms. Its not really the principle of relativity,
howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
negative of b relative to a
> Let�s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> #1, and #2.
>
> ** [v_12] = [v_02] � [v_01]
> ** [v_21] = [v_01] � [v_02]
>
> Where
>
> ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> first equation.
>
> Does anyone have any objections?
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
addition/subtraction. Lorentz transforms don't have that .. composition is
not simple vector arithmetic.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
> and Galilean transforms.
Not directly. Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
referencing to Point #1. I am referring to how Point #1 observes
Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1. You really need to
understand the difference. <shrug>
> Its not really the principle of relativity,
> howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
> negative of b relative to a
What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict
a satisfaction in the principle of relativity. No bucketfuls of word
salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical
description of the principle of reatlvity.
> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > #1, and #2.
>
> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> > first equation.
>
> > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
> transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
> addition/subtraction.
Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform
satisfying the principle of relativity, it agree with the simple
mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
> Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly
the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug>
You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a
college dropout. <shrug>
> composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written
down, I will take you to the next level. In doing so, the next few
steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz
transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
I can hear Professor Robert’s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle
in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing
so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on
what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence
pretending not to have read my post. <shrug>
Inertial
> On Oct 28, 6:33 pm, "Inertial" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> > Where
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
>> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>
>> That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
>> and Galilean transforms.
>
> Not directly. Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
> how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
> transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
> referencing to Point #1.
You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
observers doesn't help you
> I am referring to how Point #1 observes
> Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1.
Which is what LT and GT also describe
> You really need to> understand the difference. <shrug>
It is not significant, one is a subset of the other
>> Its not really the principle of relativity,
>> howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
>> negative of b relative to a
>
> What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict
> a satisfaction in the principle of relativity.
Nope .. just measuring velocities isn't really enough .. unless you're only
talking about the principle of relativity as it applies to velocities :)
> No bucketfuls of word
> salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical
> description of the principle of reatlvity.
If L is any law of physics, and L(S) is a predicate that is true iff law L
applies in inertial frame S, then we have
L(S) == L(S;')
for all inertial frames S and S;'
>> > Let�s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
>> > #1, and #2.
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] � [v_01]
>> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] � [v_02]
>>
>> > Where
>>
>> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
>> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>>
>> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
>> > first equation.
>>
>> > Does anyone have any objections?
>>
>> I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
>> transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
>> addition/subtraction.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform
> satisfying the principle of relativity,
They don't, as there are laws that apply in one frame that do not apply in
another with Galilean transforms.
> it agree with the simple
> mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
Not really, no
>> Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
>
> The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly
> the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug>
> You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a
> college dropout. <shrug>
I understand it already, thanks.
>> composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
>
> That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written
> down, I will take you to the next level.
I can hardly wait
> In doing so, the next few
> steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz
> transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
I don't really have a choice
> I can hear Professor Robert�s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle
> in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing
> so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on
> what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence
> pretending not to have read my post. <shrug>
I'm not worried.
eric gisse
[...]
Personally, I am always amused at the obvious ego trip this guy gets at the
proverbial act of 'pissing on the skyscraper'.
I don't even know what his point is this time.
Juan R.
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
>
>
>
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
> > [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > #1, and #2.
>
> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 ** [v_02] =
> > Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very first
> > equation.
>
> > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
>
> No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that
use the same dingleberrism"
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--
as usually understood at the present time--
when applied to moving bodies, leads to
asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which
either the one or the other of these bodies is in
motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet an electric field with a certain
definite energy, producing a current at the places
where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion,
no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is
no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--
assuming equality of relative motion in the two
cases discussed--to electric currents of the same
path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces in the former case."
Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle
of Relativity:
"But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor
in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood
of the magnet"
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
It is clear that a correct Principle of relativity
would say that magnet is actually moving in a frame
where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there
must be an electric field. So, that phenomenon should
be described by the same equations, because there is
symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations are a load
of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load
of crap!
And Juan R., your assertion
"The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for
'low' velocities."
will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody
how idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive.
Some guys seem to be less idiotic once they passed away, as
they stay silent, :-D . Fortunately, you are in good company.
Gullibility and idiotism are not seldom features of relativists.
I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the
realm of physics a century ago and still remains in it, without
any kind of embarrassment of lucid minds.
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
waldofj
jbriggs444
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
>
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.
Albertito
You don't know what is
voltimeter,
neighborhood,
stationary,
magnet,
measure,
voltage
Try again. Study the reason why a moving
magnet with respect to a stationary conductor
produces an electric current in the latter.
And also study the reason why a moving
conductor with respect to a stationary magnet
produces the very electric current in the former.
Those two apparent different effects are
actually one and the same, but by means of
the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are
described following different laws. That's not
how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
Androcles
"jbriggs444" <jbrig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:682c8f6a-6e92-4e47...@b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
============================================
That isn't what it means at all.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
You have to know what "relative" means before he can say what relative
means.
>
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
==============================================
Yeah, stage magicians do that. It's called "misdirection".
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial.
=====================================
Rubbish, the paper is bullshit.
Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works.
======================================
Bullshit.
The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.
============================================
Go on then, prove this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
Juan R.
This is not the principle of relativity, you are once again wrong :-D
*Lucid minds* do not embarrass because understand science and the
theory of relativity.
However, *unlucid minds* as your embarass a lot of :_-D
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
> > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
> > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
> > referencing to Point #1.
>
> You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
> observers doesn't help you
It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
Inertial
> On Oct 29, 1:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> > Where
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
>> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>
>> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
>> > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
>> > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
>> > referencing to Point #1.
>>
>> You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
>> observers doesn't help you
>
> It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
Wrong again
> Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
> random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of
relativity .. but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is
your confusion.
doug
Koobee Wublee wrote:
We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether
we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated
ignorance of science.
>
>
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Begin to move toward a wall. Do you set the wall into motion. What
space is the wall beginning to move through? What coordinate system
for this walls motion is there?
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:0bb7007f-313b-4b3f...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
No .. you have changed your frame of reference to one in which the wall was
already in motion. So whereas you used to measure the wall as being at rest
relative to you, you now measure it as being in motion relative to you. But
it is yourself that you put in motion, not the wall, and so changed your
personal frame of reference and coordinate system
Every inertial observer will agree that the wall has not changed its motion.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing
acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
> What
> space is the wall beginning to move through?
It is not 'beginning' to do anything ... it is still moving through the same
space it always moved through, and is still stationary in the same space it
was always stationary in.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing
acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
> What coordinate system
> for this walls motion is there?
The one centered on what is now your current location in which you are now
at rest. Your old location (and the wall) are in motion in that coordinate
system.
Really.. this is just very basic classical physics.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDC2yWBSkY&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (2 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJvlZpQ8Fs&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (3 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFL9l7TfOc&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (4 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF7RpyKFwtI&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (5 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NErj5A53mL0&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (6 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woTvANyolkY&feature=related
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:pan.2009.10...@canonicalscience.com...
> Albertito wrote on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:34:51 -0700:
>
>> On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>>
>>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>>
>>> > Where
>>>
>>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
>>> > [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>>
>>> > Let�?Ts look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point
>>> > #0,
>>> > #1, and #2.
>>>
>>> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] �?" [v_01]
>>> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] �?" [v_02]
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
> > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
> > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
> > referencing to Point #1.
>
> > Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
> > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
>
> Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of
> relativity ..
Let me ask you again. If I can show ([v_12] + [v_21] != 0), would
that falsify the principle of relativity?
> but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is
> your confusion.
If you don’t have anything else to contribute, please step aside and
go back to your college-dropout crowd. Stop polluting my thread of
discussions with garbage. OK?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity is the appearence of opposite motion in the aether. The sun
precesses across the sky in the opposite direction than the Earth
rotates.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
So, there is no objections. Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform? Do you think I am bluffing? Does anyone want to call my
bluff?
Inertial
> On Oct 28, 5:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> Where
>>
>> ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
>> ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>
>> #1, and #2.
>>
>> ** [v_12] = [v_02] � [v_01]
>> ** [v_21] = [v_01] � [v_02]
>>
>> Where
>>
>> ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
>> ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>>
>> Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
>> first equation.
>>
>> Does anyone have any objections?
>
> So, there is no objections.
Noone has indicated there is any problem with that. What does it matter if
they do or not .. you don't need permission ot post.
And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a
relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative
to a.
> Now, would the following falsify the
> principle of relativity?
>
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
> Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
> transform?
Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
found a problem with them yet.
> Do you think I am bluffing?
No .. but probably wrong
> Does anyone want to call my
> bluff?
Fine .. show your hand
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > #1, and #2.
>
> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> > first equation.
>
> > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a
> relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative
> to a.
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
> > Now, would the following falsify the
> > principle of relativity?
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
>
> If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
> reference.
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug>
> > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
> > transform?
>
> Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
> found a problem with them yet.
>
> > Do you think I am bluffing?
>
> No .. but probably wrong
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
> > Does anyone want to call my
> > bluff?
>
> Fine .. show your hand
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity? This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
Inertial
> On Oct 31, 9:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> > Where
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
>> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>
>> > #1, and #2.
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] � [v_01]
>> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] � [v_02]
Not at all.
> Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
> call my bluff.
>
> Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
> nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
> any stones in that pond.
>
> After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
> How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
> satisfy the principle of relativity?
I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that
it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
> This should be a sure bet for
> the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
> without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
> so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing
games. Shame .. it might have been fun
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > #1, and #2.
>
> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> > first equation.
>
> > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> > If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
> > principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
> > down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
>
> > All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
> > not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
> > physics but magics. <shrug>
>
> > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
> > transform?
>
> > It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
> > bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
> > before. Ahahaha...
>
> > Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
> > Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
>
> > Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
> > call my bluff.
>
> > Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
> > nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
> > any stones in that pond.
>
> > After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
> > How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
> > satisfy the principle of relativity?
> I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
> think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that
> it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
> engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
> > This should be a sure bet for
> > the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
> > without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
> > so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
>
> Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing
> games. Shame .. it might have been fun
Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper,
Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know
that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so
proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut
way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense
is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
Inertial
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8007cf97-a3dc-4635...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> > Where
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
>> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>>
>> > Let�s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
>> > #1, and #2.
>>
>> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] � [v_01]
>> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] � [v_02]
Come on .. this is getting boring
>> > This should be a sure bet for
>> > the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
>> > without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
>> > so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
>>
>> Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just
>> playing
>> games. Shame .. it might have been fun
>
> Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper,
> Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know
> that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so
> proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut
> way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense
> is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
Not really.. I know that whatever you come up with is either you
minudnerstanding of the PoR or just a mistake
PD
> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of
relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the
principle of relativity.
>
> Where
>
> ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> #1, and #2.
>
> ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
PD
Why come down hard? It's simply not the principle of relativity.
What makes you think every foolish nonsense you utter is worth
comment?
>
> > > Now, would the following falsify the
> > > principle of relativity?
>
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
>
> > If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
> > reference.
>
> All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
> not) must obey the same laws of physics.
Actually, only inertial reference frames require that the laws of
physics take the same form. It's known already from classical physics
that they don't respect that rule in noninertial frames. Do catch up.
> If not so, there is no
> physics but magics. <shrug>
>
> > > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
> > > transform?
>
> > Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
> > found a problem with them yet.
>
> > > Do you think I am bluffing?
>
> > No .. but probably wrong
>
> It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
> bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
> before. Ahahaha...
>
> > > Does anyone want to call my
> > > bluff?
>
> > Fine .. show your hand
>
> Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
> Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
You overestimate your influence.
>
> Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
> call my bluff.
>
> Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
> nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
> any stones in that pond.
What??
PD
You are insane, you know that, right?
Koobee Wublee
> On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of
> relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the
> principle of relativity.
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
objection. <shrug>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > #1, and #2.
>
> > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> > first equation.
>
> > Does anyone have any objections?
Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse
the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz
transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity. It
always depends on an independent frame of reference for any outcome.
Writing the Lorentz transform in its more general form where the
direction of travel does not have to be in parallel with one of the
spatial axes, we have the following. Notice the math involve there
afterwards is merely algebra.
** dt_0 = (dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_02] = d[s_12] + [B_01] (c dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
Where
** dt_i = Time measurement or flow rate at Point #i
** d[s_ij] = Displacement segment vector at Point #j as observed by
#i
** [B_ij] c = Velocity of Point #j as observed by #i
** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the vectors A and B
Then, as a homework assignment, show that the reverse transform
becomes the following.
** dt_1 = (dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_12] = d[s_02] - [B_01] (c dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
The velocity transformation can easily be shown to be the following.
** [B_12] = ([B_02] sqrt(1 – B_01^2) - [B_01] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_01^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
Where
** B_ij c = d[s_ij]/dt_i
The above shows how Point #2 is observed by #1 referenced to #0. The
following shows how Point #1 is observed by #2 referenced to #0.
** [B_21] = ([B_01] sqrt(1 – B_02^2) - [B_02] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_02^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
One can easily show that
** B_12^2 = B_21^2
However, the following is true in general
** [B_12] + [B_21] != 0
Thus, Point #0 must uniquely exist. The above can only equate when
** [B_01] * [B_02] = B_01 B_02, ie. moving in parallel such as the
special case in the Lorentz transform
Lorentz transform is a special case that has misled the self-styled
physicists for over 100 years. The null results of the MMX actually
support the existence of an absolute frame of reference. It is proven
100 years later by a Doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation.
The Aether must exist. The principle of relativity is absolutely
false. It is only relatively true at low speeds. The ever so humble
Koobee Wublee, yours truly, certainly has a lot of fun showing the
fallacy believed in by the self-styled physicists for over 100 years.
<shrug>
PD
> On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
> > OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of
> > relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the
> > principle of relativity.
>
> So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
> why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
> falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
> objection. <shrug>
You are SO much fun, Kooky Wobbly!
You've really dipped below the horizon, you know that?
>
>
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> > > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > > #1, and #2.
>
> > > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> > > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> > > first equation.
>
> > > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse
> the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz
> transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity.
Hmmm... The Lorentz transform is not a physical law. Does it need to
satisfy the principle of relativity?
Since the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics retain
their mathematical form when being transformed from one inertial frame
to another, should the Lorentz transform retain its mathematical form
when being transformed from one inertial frame to another? Especially
since the transform itself is a relation between quantities in two
different inertial frames?
Kooky Wobbly, you've gone a little goofball nutty.
PD
> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>
>
> ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
> ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> #1, and #2.
>
> ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> Where
>
> ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
> ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
> first equation.
>
> Does anyone have any objections?
Methinks you've gotten a little attention starved and are looking for
solace in your usual form -- the picking of a fight, usually
instigated by you stating something completely stupid.
Koobee Wublee
a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee
to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of
incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics
aside and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the
picture below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
It is no wonder that his grandkids do not come to visit this ranting
and terribly bitter old man anymore. <shrug>
PD
> It looks like PD the ranting old man who calls himself a professor had
> a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee
> to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of
> incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics
> aside
:>) And what "logics" would those be?
> and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the
> picture below.
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
>
> It is no wonder that his grandkids do not come to visit this ranting
> and terribly bitter old man anymore. <shrug>
Oh, PLEASE tell me how old I am, Kooky Wobbly, and then <shrug> if I
appear to be unaware of my true age.
How are things at the "institute"? http://www.griquas.com/2007/ten/7.jpg
Inertial
> On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
>> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
>> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
>> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>>
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>
>> OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of
>> relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the
>> principle of relativity.
>
> So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
> why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
> falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
> objection. <shrug>
We've all been telling you it is not a definition of the PoR
And noone is worried
Koobee Wublee
have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of
distress in anticipating what I have to come up with to show in
general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the
principle of relativity. The special case where the two frames of
references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving.
Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric
ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more. This
reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They
don't understand physics but only pretend to. They all worship
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy
tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the
principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz
transform from that. Well, now the symmetry is pointed out to be
broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics,
Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history
books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so
mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to
the bone. <shrug>
Being bitter about it is not doing science any good but defending a
failing religion. <shrug> Gee! What a bunch of fvcking morons!
<shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
His mother should be.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> The ranting old man is just bitter that I got PD all figured out. I
> have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of
> distress in anticipating what I have to come up
I love it when you claim to have things all figured out. It's SO
FUNNY.
> with to show in
> general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the
> principle of relativity.
What?
> The special case where the two frames of
> references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving.
> Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric
> ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more.
Hmmmm? Whatever gave you the idea that the Lorentz transform is a
physical law or ever was?
> This
> reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They
> don't understand physics but only pretend to.
Ah, but YOU do, singular that you are. :>)
> They all worship
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy
> tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the
> principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz
> transform from that.
Who said he did it single-handedly? I believe it's called the Lorentz
transform for a reason, not the Einstein transform.
> Well, now the symmetry
WHAT symmetry?
> is pointed out to be
> broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics,
Ah, yes, Kooky Wobbly, the True Scholar of Physics.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xEw_wnCvE_0/RjTAC4V1fmI/AAAAAAAABTI/M9ZLwrEI0yI/s400/jerry_lewis_the_nutty_professor_1963.jpg
> Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
> the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history
> books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein
> Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so
> mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to
> the bone. <shrug>
Someday, someday, Kooky Wobbly will be vindicated. You'll see. And
you'll all BE SORRY!
Koobee Wublee
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well. I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug>
PD
> Hmmm...
>
> PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
> is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
> Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
> Lorentz transform as well.
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
> I think you need to seek help before
> turning psychotic. <shrug>
I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission.
Androcles
Phuckwit Duck is already psychotic, has been for years.
He wrote:
"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]
PD "
Inertial
news:3a54ffd5-b27a-469a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
>> is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
>
> "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
>
>> Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
>> Lorentz transform as well.
>
> What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
> have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
Koobee Wublee
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
>
> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
> transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
> relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
> velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get
> that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say
> the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections and ever so stupidly offered that
the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result. You have no
credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
crowds.
Koobee Wublee
> On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
> > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
>
> "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
<shrug>
> > Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
> > Lorentz transform as well.
>
> What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
> have to do with the principle of relativity?
So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
problem. <shrgu>
> > I think you need to seek help before
> > turning psychotic. <shrug>
>
> I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission.
Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
eric gisse
> On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
>> > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
>>
>> "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
>
> Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
> <shrug>
Why don't you go ahead and cite a specific textbook?
[...]
PD
> On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
> > > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
>
> > "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
>
> Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
> <shrug>
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
physics that respects the principle of relativity?
Inertial
> On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
>> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
>>
>> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
>> transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
>> relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
>> velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only
>> get
>> that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis
>> (say
>> the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
>
> When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
> 0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
> and ever so stupidly offered that
> the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
They do
> You have no
> credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
> wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
> are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
>
> Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
> crowds.
Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your
stupidity.
BURT
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I care about yours inertial.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:799d64d8-b2f6-428e...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
I don't have any.
Koobee Wublee
> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
> > 0), you did not raise any objections
>
> Why should I?
Because you are grossly ignorant. As I said, go back to your college
dropout crowd. Get the fvck lost, would you?
Koobee Wublee
> On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
> > <shrug>
>
> Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
> physics that respects the principle of relativity?
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
> > So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
> > symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
> > problem. <shrgu>
>
> What so-called symmetry are you referring to?
Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
> And what would symmetry
> have to do with the principle of relativity?
Ditto.
> > Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug>
Inertial
> On Nov 5, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>
>> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
>> > 0), you did not raise any objections
>>
>> Why should I?
>
> Because you are grossly ignorant.
Not at all. I'm not the one here who is confused about the PoR. That would
be you
> As I said, go back to your college
> dropout crowd. Get the fvck lost, would you?
Fuck off, you idiot. You're a waste of valuable time
eric gisse
> On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
>> physics that respects the principle of relativity?
>
> Which one do you have? [...]
Why is it that you can not name even one textbook which supports your
opinions?
eric gisse
Try to not get any of his sense of superiority on your shoes.
PD
> On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
> > physics that respects the principle of relativity?
>
> Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
>
> > > So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
> > > symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
> > > problem. <shrgu>
>
> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to?
>
> Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
You have one you can cite?
>
> > And what would symmetry
> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
>
> Ditto.
You have one you can cite?
I love this Kooky. You make an irrational statement, then state that
any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one
that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check
on it. It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
>
> > > Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
>
> Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
> principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
> v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
understand what semantic equivalence would require?
Koobee Wublee
> On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
>
> I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
So, without a book, a self-claimed professor like yourself cannot
discuss any subject with any confidence, is that right?
> > Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
>
> You have one you can cite?
There are just too numerous to site. Which book controls your mind
now? Would that go with moon phase?
> I love this Kooky.
I am still not sure what you love. <shrug>
> You make an irrational statement, then state that
> any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one
> that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check
> on it.
What irrational statement? So, this is how you deal with your sanity
in keeping a religion alive by labeling all things that would destroy
your religion outright as irrational. <shrug>
> It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
What is that again? It does not compute.
> > Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the
> > principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 +
> > v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
>
> You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
> understand what semantic equivalence would require?
Do you understand the implication of the equation [v_12 + v_21 != 0]
to the principle of relativity? I don't think you do. I think your
institution should re-evaluate your tenure because one day the truth
is going to triumph. Your institution should not jeopardize its
future reputation by employing someone who does not even understand
the principle of relativity to teach the new generation of self-styled
physicists. <shrug>
> > but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste
> > a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug>
The cycle of Einstein Dingleberries proliferating another generation
of Einstein Dingleberries will come to an end someday. Just mark your
ever so humble Kooblee Wublee's words on this. Please do so. <shrug>
PD
> On Nov 6, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
>
> > I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
>
> So, without a book, a self-claimed professor like yourself cannot
> discuss any subject with any confidence, is that right?
Doesn't it just SUCK to have your bluff called and to be holding a
pair of threes?
PD
> On Oct 29, 1:17 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
> > > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > > > Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
>
> > > > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
> > > > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
> > > > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
> > > > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>
>
> > > > > Where
>
> > > > > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
> > > > > [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>
> > > > > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
> > > > > #1, and #2.
>
> > > > > ** [v_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > > > > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]
>
> > > > > Where
>
> > > > > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 ** [v_02] =
> > > > > Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>
> > > > > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very first
> > > > > equation.
>
> > > > > Does anyone have any objections?
>
> > > > The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
>
> > > > No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
>
> > > Principle of relativity:
>
> > > "All relativists tell the same
> > > stupidities, regardless the forum,
> > > and can be described as entities that
> > > use the same dingleberrism"
>
> > > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES
> > > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
>
> > > "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--
> > > as usually understood at the present time--
> > > when applied to moving bodies, leads to
> > > asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be
> > > inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
> > > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
> > > and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
> > > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
> > > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
> > > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which
> > > either the one or the other of these bodies is in
> > > motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
> > > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood
> > > of the magnet an electric field with a certain
> > > definite energy, producing a current at the places
> > > where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
> > > the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion,
> > > no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
> > > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
> > > electromotive force, to which in itself there is
> > > no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--
> > > assuming equality of relative motion in the two
> > > cases discussed--to electric currents of the same
> > > path and intensity as those produced by the electric
> > > forces in the former case."
>
> > > Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle
> > > of Relativity:
>
> > > "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor
> > > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood
> > > of the magnet"
>
> > Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
> > measure. No voltage.
>
> You don't know what is
>
> voltimeter,
> neighborhood,
> stationary,
> magnet,
> measure,
> voltage
>
> Try again. Study the reason why a moving
> magnet with respect to a stationary conductor
> produces an electric current in the latter.
> And also study the reason why a moving
> conductor with respect to a stationary magnet
> produces the very electric current in the former.
> Those two apparent different effects are
> actually one and the same, but by means of
> the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are
> described following different laws. That's not
> how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
>
>
>
> > > What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
>
> > The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
> > Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
> > describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
> > thinking about the situation.
>
> > Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
>
> > If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
> > identical.
> > If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
> > suffice for both cases.
> > That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
> > the rest of the paper.
>
> > Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
> > measured voltage
> > is as they predict.
>
> > What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
> > together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
> > values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
> > from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
> > also true is that experiment matches prediction.
>
>
Hey, Albertito: http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/atlas2009-collision-vp1-140541-171897-new.png
First collisions at LHC.
Are you going to shut up as promised yet?
BURT
> First collisions at LHC.
>
> Are you going to shut up as promised yet?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity is wrong. But its principle in the appearence of motion
will stay.
Objects move with absolute motion of their own individually. But their
difference in absolute space reveal themselves as a motion inbetween
the objects that Einstein called frames.
You can get behind light.
Mitch Raemsch