SR WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE?
Alen
and unprimed values specifying the same event in another inertial
frame, a general transformation giving primed values in terms
of the unprimed has the form x'(x,y,z,t), y'(x,y,z,t),z'(x,y,z,t),
t'(x,y,z,t). The transformation for x', for example will then have
an equation of the general form x'=f(x,y,z,t). To make this simpler,
let us suppose the event has coordinates (x',0,0,t'), and (x,0,0,t).
Then, the equation for x' will have the simpler form x'=f(x,t). We
know that the actual Lorentz transform equation for x' has the
form x'=g(x-vt). Some people, like *J.H.Field, and others, have
succeeded in deriving this transformation from the general form
x'=f(x,t), using only the most general postulates, such as
reciprocity, and single-valuedness, without reference to any light
postulate, and before g or v are identified as anything other than
general constants, independent of the variables.
I believe it can be shown immediately, however, that, where
the actual physics is supposed to be involved, a light postulate
is already indicated, as follows:
If the variable t represents time, then v is a velocity. Now,
differentiating the equation x'=g(x-vt) wrt t, we have
dx'/dt = g(dx/dt-v). If dx/dt=0, we get dx'/dt = -v, meaning
x' is moving in the opposite direction to the velocity (it would
turn out, in addition, that this would give g an infinite value).
If dx/dt = v, then x' = g(vt-vt) = 0. If dx/dt = p > v, then x' has
positive values, and this is the usual form of the transformation
equation: x'= g(pt - vt). However, here, x = pt and, since t is
a variable that indicates time, which constantly increases, and
v is a relative velocity, p must also be a relative velocity > v.
In this case, even the most generally derived equation already
indicates that x' is a coordinate that is actually being measured
by a probe moving at velocity p, and x signifies the existence
of such a probe, which was not mentioned in the general
postulates in deriving the equation from the general form, x'=f(x,t).
If, in the equation x'= g(pt - vt), we divide across by p, we get
x'/p = g(t - (v/p)t), which has the dimensions of time. If x'/p is to
refer to a transformation of the time in the primed frame, this can
be the case only if the probe velocity in the primed frame is also p,
as it is in the unprimed frame. Otherwise x'/p does not represent
anything that is actually happening in the primed frame. This
requirement, in effect, specifies the need for some 'probe velocity
postulate' and, if p=c, and the probe is light, we will have the light
postulate of SR, and the usual equation x'=g(ct - vt), where ct = x.
All this follows simply from the specification that the variable t
represents time.
It can also be argued from this that the transformation
equations are not as general as normally supposed. If x' = 0,
for example, in the equation for x', we have 0 = ct - vt, or v = c.
If the equation is written with ct as x, as x'=g(x - vt), we get
x = vt, when x' = 0, which makes it appear that the equation
can give a coordinate of the origin of the moving frame, x = vt.
This, however, is not so, for this form of the equation is valid
for only one value of v, that is, where v = c. To use this equation
for other values of v is a false use of the equation. The maths,
indeed, does give the correct result, but such a result really
indicates that t, in the general equation, does not represent
time, but is merely a general variable, and x does not have
to represent a probe moving at velocity c. It follows, therefore,
that, if the transformation equations are thus wrongly used,
they become pure mathematics, and are disconnected from
the underlying physics, in which t is a constantly advancing time.
Einstein's original derivation may not be the most general, but
it is the true derivation in the case where the variable t represents
time. In the context of Einstein's derivation, in which c is the
velocity of a probe, a rod AB, pointing along the x direction in
both frames, is moving at velocity v in the unprimed frame.
A probe, or light pulse, is emitted at A, creating event A,
transmitted along the rod to B, creating event B, and reflected
back to A, creating a second event A. The transformation
equations, thus derived, refer to events of the type B, and
cannot be applied to events of the type A, without a wrong use
of the equations, as argued above. Replacing ct with x in the
equation x'= g(ct - vt), is valid only where x > vt, because the
equation specifies the existence of a probe, with c > v, and
x = vt is valid only in the one case where v approaches c, and
not where c approaches v, which can never be the case.
It follows, therefore, that the general use of the transformation
equations, in which they are applied to ALL events, is invalid,
is purely mathematical, and disconnects them from the actual
underlying physics. It cannot be surprising if this false use of
the equations leads also to false interpretations of the actual
physics to which they are applied.
Alen
* "A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
and the Particle Description of Light." J.H. Field
arXiv:physics/0410262 v1 27 Oct 2004
Dono
>
> * "A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
> and the Particle Description of Light." J.H. Field
> arXiv:physics/0410262 v1 27 Oct 2004
Thank you, the quoted paper is very interesting.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about your ideas, so I had
to snip them.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:1180705379.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> With primed values specifying an event in one inertial frame,
> and unprimed values specifying the same event in another inertial
> frame, a general transformation giving primed values in terms
> of the unprimed has the form x'(x,y,z,t), y'(x,y,z,t),z'(x,y,z,t),
> t'(x,y,z,t). The transformation for x', for example will then have
> an equation of the general form x'=f(x,y,z,t). To make this simpler,
> let us suppose the event has coordinates (x',0,0,t'), and (x,0,0,t).
> Then, the equation for x' will have the simpler form x'=f(x,t). We
> know that the actual Lorentz transform equation for x' has the
> form x'=g(x-vt). Some people, like *J.H.Field, and others, have
> succeeded in deriving this transformation from the general form
> x'=f(x,t), using only the most general postulates, such as
> reciprocity, and single-valuedness, without reference to any light
> postulate, and before g or v are identified as anything other than
> general constants, independent of the variables.
That is old news.
>
> I believe it can be shown immediately, however, that, where
> the actual physics is supposed to be involved, a light postulate
> is already indicated, as follows:
>
> If the variable t represents time, then v is a velocity. Now,
> differentiating the equation x'=g(x-vt) wrt t, we have
> dx'/dt = g(dx/dt-v). If dx/dt=0, we get dx'/dt = -v,
No, we get
dx'/dt = - g v
> meaning
> x' is moving in the opposite direction to the velocity
No, x' is a coordinate. Coordinates don't move.
Coordinates can represent things that move.
You have written dx/dt = 0, so you are talking about something
that does not move in the unprimed frame, and therefore it moves
in the primed frame at velocity dx'/dt' = -v.
Now you write
dx'/dt = -g v
So you take the derivative of a spatial coordinate in the primed
frame w.r.t. to time in the unprimed frame. The name for that
is, as seen in the primed frame, the proper velocity of on object
at rest in the unprimed frame.
> (it would
> turn out, in addition, that this would give g an infinite value).
???
> If dx/dt = v, then x' = g(vt-vt) = 0.
No. Now you start talking about something different: an object at
rest in the primed frame.
If you are still talking about
dx'/dt = g(dx/dt-v),
then
dx/dt = v
implies
dx'/dt = 0
which means that
dx' = 0
which means that
x' = <arbitrary constant>,
not necessarily zero.
> If dx/dt = p > v, then x' has positive values,
No, now you start talking about yet another object, with
dx'/dt having positive values and x' can have any value
what-so-ever, depending on t.
Are you aware of the fact that you have been talking about
3 distinct objects now?
> and this is the usual form of the transformation
> equation: x'= g(pt - vt).
That does not look like any form of the transformation I have
ever seen.
> However, here, x = pt
No, if you posit
dx/dt = p
and p is constant, then
x = p t + k
> and, since t is
> a variable that indicates time, which constantly increases, and
> v is a relative velocity, p must also be a relative velocity > v.
Of course, that is what you *just* said, remember:
"If dx/dt = p > v"
> In this case, even the most generally derived equation already
> indicates that x' is a coordinate that is actually being measured
> by a probe moving at velocity p, and x signifies the existence
> of such a probe, which was not mentioned in the general
> postulates in deriving the equation from the general form, x'=f(x,t).
GASP!
I give up.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1180707508.4...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I guess I should have started at the end, in order to give up
after 10 seconds. That would have saved me 10 minutes.
Dirk Vdm
Dono
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dono" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1180707508.4...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, this would have saved you a lot of time. At least the paper in
arxiv is quite good, worth reading.
Androcles
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1180705379.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Clueless ranting idiot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Eric Gisse
[...]
BORING.
The group theory approach is cleaner, and doesn't use the light
postulate.
Shubee
> succeeded in deriving this transformation from the general form
> x'=f(x,t), using only the most general postulates, such as
> reciprocity, and single-valuedness, without reference to any light
> postulate, and before g or v are identified as anything other than
> general constants, independent of the variables.
> * "A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
> and the Particle Description of Light." J.H. Field
> arXiv:physics/0410262 v1 27 Oct 2004
Physicist J. H. Field has plenty of insight and makes two important
points:
"A much weaker statement of the Relativity Principle than Einstein's
first postulate is sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation."
"It was recognised at an early date by Ignatowsky and Frank and Rothe
that Einstein's second postulate was not necessary to derive the
Lorentz Transformation. The questions then arise: what are the weakest
postulates which are sufficient to derive it and what is their minimum
number?" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0410/0410262.pdf
I disagree, however, with the claim that J.H.Field has derived the
Lorentz transformation from the weakest postulates possible. There are
still unnecessary assumptions in those traditional derivations. Eugene
Shubert was the first to discover the leanest derivation and the
weakest postulate.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 1, 6:42 am, Alen <a...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Some people, like *J.H.Field, and others, have
> > succeeded in deriving this transformation from the general form
> > x'=f(x,t), using only the most general postulates, such as
> > reciprocity, and single-valuedness, without reference to any light
> > postulate, and before g or v are identified as anything other than
> > general constants, independent of the variables.
> > * "A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
> > and the Particle Description of Light." J.H. Field
> > arXiv:physics/0410262 v1 27 Oct 2004
>
> Physicist J. H. Field has plenty of insight and makes two important
> points:
>
> "A much weaker statement of the Relativity Principle than Einstein's
> first postulate is sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation."
>
> "It was recognised at an early date by Ignatowsky and Frank and Rothe
> that Einstein's second postulate was not necessary to derive the
> Lorentz Transformation. The questions then arise: what are the weakest
> postulates which are sufficient to derive it and what is their minimum
> number?"http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0410/0410262.pdf
Principle of relativity + demand of finite propagation speed.
Principle of relativity + Maxwell's equations
SO(3,1)
The list goes on...
>
> I disagree, however, with the claim that J.H.Field has derived the
> Lorentz transformation from the weakest postulates possible. There are
> still unnecessary assumptions in those traditional derivations. Eugene
> Shubert was the first to discover the leanest derivation and the
> weakest postulate.
Yea, except for the completely arbitrary choices of several constants,
along with the inability to generalize to higher dimensions, and being
significantly more complicated than the group theory approach...
Oh, and it is really fucking insane to talk about yourself in the
third person, shooby.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
Dono
Field's is a scholarly paper , published in a peer reviewed journal.
Looking at your paper, it is a crank work, unpublishable as well.
Why do you address youeself in the third person, do you think that
this is a forum where you establish claims over a field of science?
This is a three ring cicus where cranks like you are being kicked
around.
Shubee
> On Jun 1, 4:18 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I disagree, however, with the claim that J.H.Field has derived the
> > Lorentz transformation from the weakest postulates possible. There are
> > still unnecessary assumptions in those traditional derivations. Eugene
> > Shubert was the first to discover the leanest derivation and the
> > weakest postulate.
>
> Yea, except for the completely arbitrary choices of several constants,
The greater number of arbitrary functions and constants in my approach
to the LT is a measure of the unnecessary assumptions and false
premises in everyone else's theory. For instance, the provably
unnecessary epsilon in my derivation is a proof that the reciprocity
principle in SR isn't required. Similarly, my most general nonlinear
solution to the Shubertian clock model refutes the misguided arguments
against nonlinearity. The value of c is arbitrary in all the lean
derivations of the LT.
> along with the inability to generalize to higher dimensions,
Blind follower and builder of the Einstein worship movement, why don't
you stop preaching what you can't prove?
> and being
> significantly more complicated than the group theory approach...
Naturally, it takes greater talent, understanding and power to create
a universe out of nothing than to simply rearrange preexisting
material.
> Oh, and it is really fucking insane to talk about yourself in the
> third person, shooby.
Bob Dole, when running for U.S. President, had a very good time always
referring to Bob Dole as Bob Dole. Don't you feel extraordinarily
petty for never being able to distinguish between well-understood
conventions and the substance of physics?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
The physicist Tom Roberts reviewed my paper recently and, as hard as
he tried, could only whine about style and not substance.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84af2e2fe4e5792a
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Dono
I don't think so.....
Eric Gisse
You mean...where he makes the observation that you completely forget
to write down your axioms? Or do you mean the one where you ignore the
possibilities for k that do _not_ lead to special relativity?
You claim to respect his opinion, but when it comes down to it, you
have ignored everything he has said. That doesn't specially surprise
me considering you have been doing that since 2003....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84af2e2fe4e...
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:18 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I disagree, however, with the claim that J.H.Field has derived the
> > > Lorentz transformation from the weakest postulates possible. There are
> > > still unnecessary assumptions in those traditional derivations. Eugene
> > > Shubert was the first to discover the leanest derivation and the
> > > weakest postulate.
>
> > Yea, except for the completely arbitrary choices of several constants,
>
> The greater number of arbitrary functions and constants in my approach
> to the LT is a measure of the unnecessary assumptions and false
> premises in everyone else's theory. For instance, the provably
> unnecessary epsilon in my derivation is a proof that the reciprocity
> principle in SR isn't required. Similarly, my most general nonlinear
> solution to the Shubertian clock model refutes the misguided arguments
> against nonlinearity. The value of c is arbitrary in all the lean
> derivations of the LT.
No, incredibly dishonest Eugene Shubert, it is _NOT_ the case that c
is arbitrary in all 'lean' derivations of the Lorentz Transform. The
transformation group that leaves Maxwell's equations invariant is
SO(3,1) and it makes the exact identification of the finite maximum
speed being Maxwell's c. I mentioned this, and you snipped it without
marking - either you didn't understand what I mean, or you do and are
simply being dishonest.
Furthermore, tossing reciprocity is asinine and has no justification.
You claim it refutes some misguided arguments, but you have no idea
what said arguments _are_ much less why reciprocity is a desirable
quantity. If you toss reciprocity and bring in nonlinearity, you
cannot have Lorentz transformations - the phrase "Lorentz
transformation" has a specific meaning in physics which you are
apparently ignorant of since you haven't actually studied physics.
>
> > along with the inability to generalize to higher dimensions,
>
> Blind follower and builder of the Einstein worship movement, why don't
> you stop preaching what you can't prove?
YAWN
Tom Roberts has made this _exact_ observation, as have I over a fairly
long period of time. You made it work in one space and one time
dimension only. After four years or so, you are stuck at having
derived something with a half dozen unwritten assumptions and another
handful of completely arbitrary choices which I can derive in 10
minutes with group theory.
You do realize I am not bullshitting you, right? I can derive the x-t
Lorentz transformations in about 10 minutes while stating _all_ my
assumptions.
>
> > and being
> > significantly more complicated than the group theory approach...
>
> Naturally, it takes greater talent, understanding and power to create
> a universe out of nothing than to simply rearrange preexisting
> material.
Yea, it takes a _lot_ of talent to unimprove something. *rolls eyes*
Your approach is in _NO WAY_ better than group theory, and group
theory has the advantage of being able to make definite statements
about all three spatial dimensions - your approach has thus far only
been able to handle one. You want to toss out all the exceptionally
important aspects of the structure of the Lorentz group - including
that the transformations _form_ a group. Why? Who the fuck knows - you
certainly haven't been able to articulate a reason thus far.
The group theory approach can also make definite statements about
energy and momentum, which you have not even once touched upon. Ever.
You claim to have derived special relativity via a cleaner and better
approach but you don't talk about the invariants such as squared
energy or the squared distance. Why is that?
Can you even pull a Lagrangian out of this, or would you simply have
no idea where to begin? Do you even know what the special relativistic
Lagrangian _is_? This is what happens when a mathematician attempts to
do physics - the physics is lost, and the mathematician has no clue
why the physicists are annoyed.
>
> > Oh, and it is really fucking insane to talk about yourself in the
> > third person, shooby.
>
> Bob Dole, when running for U.S. President, had a very good time always
> referring to Bob Dole as Bob Dole. Don't you feel extraordinarily
> petty for never being able to distinguish between well-understood
> conventions and the substance of physics?
Bob Dole was never elected, dumbshit.
On the other hand failure is the perfect example for you, but most
likely not what you intended.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Tom Roberts provided sufficient evidence that he has, at least, read
my paper. He made seemingly reasonable attempts at refuting what he
read. The lying detractor Bill Hobba and other gerbils, have not. Any
chimpanzee that follows a higher ranking alpha male can ignorantly ape
their leader, pretending that they can read and ridicule what they
don't understand. What are you, a gerbil or chimpanzee?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Do please explain how Bill Hobba has lied.
Also be sure to explain how come you keep posting here since you end
up insulting everyone who doesn't end up with their mouth on your
dick.
Why do you even bother posting here, Shooby? You don't respect the
opinion of even _one_ person here, and you are completely incapable of
rationally responding to criticism.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Tom Roberts
> The physicist Tom Roberts reviewed my paper recently and, as hard as
> he tried, could only whine about style and not substance.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84af2e2fe4e5792a
This is plain not true. Please do not make completely invalid claims
about what I said.
As anyone can tell by referring to my writing, my basic complaint is
that your paper is completely without substance (i.e. no axioms in a
paper supposedly about "the axiomatization of physics"). But I did not
phrase it that way so you missed it. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> * "A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
> and the Particle Description of Light." J.H. Field
> arXiv:physics/0410262 v1 27 Oct 2004
Interesting. Initially I thought there would be a mistake as I know that
the basic group theory approach yields a choice among 3 groups (Lorentz,
Galilei, Euclid) and I didn't think he could eliminate 2 of them with
his postulates. He eliminated the Euclid group with the uniqueness
requirement applied to the composition of velocities -- an interesting
approach about which I must think some more. AFAICT he never eliminated
the Galilei group, which is the limit of the Lorentz transform as
c->infinity (his V->infinity). As long as one considers the free
parameter (c, his V) to be determined by experiment, that's OK.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > The physicist Tom Roberts reviewed my paper recently and, as hard as
> > he tried, could only whine about style and not substance.
>
> This is plain not true. Please do not make completely invalid claims
> about what I said.
>
> As anyone can tell by referring to my writing, my basic complaint is
> that your paper is completely without substance (i.e. no axioms in a
> paper supposedly about "the axiomatization of physics"). But I did not
> phrase it that way so you missed it. <shrug>
>
> Tom Roberts
As I said before, my axiom is on page 6. Also, your claim that you
recognize all my assumptions but not my basic axiom, even when I told
you directly, is about as inconsistent and irrational as when you said
that my paper needs to state an axiom to determine when two real
numbers are equal. You have a very limited view of substance.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/15ee3c04529c61de
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
What exactly is the Euclid group, Tom? I get the impression, based
upon the available choices, that it is the c--->0 case.
As I recall you have three viable options when you dig out the
available groups via the principle of relativity - Lorentz group [c
finite, nonzero], Galileian group [limiting case of Lorentz group - c->
\infty] and a third group in which effectively nothing moves. I am
thinking the third group is the Euclid group - the rotation group.
Topical irony: Shooby has all three within his reach, and he
vehemently ignores them.
Alen
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Alen" <a...@westserv.net.au> wrote in messagenews:1180705379.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I believe it can be shown immediately, however, that, where
> > the actual physics is supposed to be involved, a light postulate
> > is already indicated, as follows:
>
> > If the variable t represents time, then v is a velocity. Now,
> > differentiating the equation x'=g(x-vt) wrt t, we have
> > dx'/dt = g(dx/dt-v). If dx/dt=0, we get dx'/dt = -v,
>
> No, we get
> dx'/dt = - g v
Yes, sorry, I forgot the g.
>
> > meaning
> > x' is moving in the opposite direction to the velocity
>
> No, x' is a coordinate. Coordinates don't move.
> Coordinates can represent things that move.
Not quite. What you say is true, so what is
actually moving must be something scanning the
coordinate axis, and not a coordinate itself.
> You have written dx/dt = 0, so you are talking about something
> that does not move in the unprimed frame, and therefore it moves
> in the primed frame at velocity dx'/dt' = -v.
My argument views everything only from the uprimed
frame, so views from the primed frame don't have to
be involved.
>
> Now you write
> dx'/dt = -g v
> So you take the derivative of a spatial coordinate in the primed
> frame w.r.t. to time in the unprimed frame. The name for that
> is, as seen in the primed frame, the proper velocity of on object
> at rest in the unprimed frame.
Whatever about that, if dx'/dt has a value, it means
that the primed frame coordinate must refer to something
moving in the primed frame, as seen from the perspective
of the unprimed frame.
> > (it would
> > turn out, in addition, that this would give g an infinite value).
>
> ???
Sorry, that is reversed. If c were 0, g would be 0.
>
> > If dx/dt = v, then x' = g(vt-vt) = 0.
>
> No. Now you start talking about something different: an object at
> rest in the primed frame.
> If you are still talking about
> dx'/dt = g(dx/dt-v),
> then
> dx/dt = v
> implies
> dx'/dt = 0
> which means that
> dx' = 0
> which means that
> x' = <arbitrary constant>,
> not necessarily zero.
OK, x' is an arbitrary constant. The
important thing is that it has no
necessary value, and the arbitrary
constant can be set at zero, in
accordance with the equation as it
was before the differentiation.
>
> > If dx/dt = p > v, then x' has positive values,
>
> No, now you start talking about yet another object, with
> dx'/dt having positive values and x' can have any value
> what-so-ever, depending on t.
Yes, x' increases with t. That doesn't mean that
the coordinate is changing. It must mean that the
coordinate axis is being scanned. That is the point
of introducing the concept of a probe. x' must represent
the current x'-coordinate position of a scan in
the primed frame
> Are you aware of the fact that you have been talking about
> 3 distinct objects now?
I have been talking about 3 different possibilities
for the value of dx/dt, in the most general sense,
and their consequences. Only one of them is relevant
to the actual transformation equations.
> > and this is the usual form of the transformation
> > equation: x'= g(pt - vt).
>
> That does not look like any form of the transformation I have
> ever seen.
I meant that that is the 'form' of the usual equation,
not the actual equation. p is not yet identified
as c. x'= g(ct - vt)is the derived form in Einstein's
derivation, because x = ct, the distance travelled by
a light pulse in the stationary, or unprimed, frame.
> > However, here, x = pt
>
> No, if you posit
> dx/dt = p
> and p is constant, then
> x = p t + k
OK, but k can be put at zero, as it normally
is in the transformation equations.
> > and, since t is
> > a variable that indicates time, which constantly increases, and
> > v is a relative velocity, p must also be a relative velocity > v.
>
> Of course, that is what you *just* said, remember:
> "If dx/dt = p > v"
I am merely emphasising that simply interpreting t
as time, in the generally derived equation, inevitably
implies that the x coordinate is the coordinate of
something moving at a velocity, which I therefore
called a 'probe'.
> > In this case, even the most generally derived equation already
> > indicates that x' is a coordinate that is actually being measured
> > by a probe moving at velocity p, and x signifies the existence
> > of such a probe, which was not mentioned in the general
> > postulates in deriving the equation from the general form, x'=f(x,t).
>
> GASP!
> I give up.
>
> Dirk Vdm
You said yourself that coordinates don't move.
What can it mean, then, if x' does change value
with time? Only that x' represents the current
coordinate of something scanning the x' axis.
A theory that announces to humanity 'the end of
universal time' is a serious matter for mankind's
understanding of the reality he inhabits. Yet,
possible alternatives to the Minkowski interpretation
of SR have never been fully explored. If the physics
establishment won't ever examine such possibilities,
we must do it for ourselves.
Alen
Bill Hobba
"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180745519.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
How can you look yourself in the mirror and claim such outrageous lies
while simultaneously claiming to hold religious values as well. You would
have to have one of the most perverted sense of values I have ever seen.
Bill
Alen
That doesn't persuade me of anything, since
it doesn't surprise me. The five stars you and
others are getting in Google doesn't surprise me
either. Androcles hasn't got five stars yet. I
wonder if he will?
Alen
Bilge
>
> The physicist Tom Roberts reviewed my paper recently and, as hard as
> he tried, could only whine about style and not substance.
Your so-called paper contains no substance.
Bilge
> On Jun 1, 7:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>> > The physicist Tom Roberts reviewed my paper recently and, as hard as
>> > he tried, could only whine about style and not substance.
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84af2e2fe4e...
>>
>> This is plain not true. Please do not make completely invalid claims
>> about what I said.
>>
>> As anyone can tell by referring to my writing, my basic complaint is
>> that your paper is completely without substance (i.e. no axioms in a
>> paper supposedly about "the axiomatization of physics"). But I did not
>> phrase it that way so you missed it. <shrug>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> As I said before, my axiom is on page 6. Also, your claim that you
> recognize all my assumptions but not my basic axiom, even when I told
> you directly, is about as inconsistent and irrational as when you said
> that my paper needs to state an axiom to determine when two real
> numbers are equal. You have a very limited view of substance.
Apparently, so all of the journals who have rejected your magnum anus
on relativity.
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
popular derivations) isn't required. Similarly, please consider my
assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbfee645
These points are present in http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
Certainly, Roberts presented no proof, nor did he say that my goal of
achieving greater clarity in my paper is unattainable. So, considering
the contrast between my startling claims, the real substance of my
paper, and Tom Roberts descending into the absurdity of my paper
needing to state an axiom to determine when two real numbers are
equal, I think it's fair to conclude that Roberts is unable to devise
a real, honest objection.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/15ee3c04529c61de
Shubee
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:1180759265.3...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 12:31 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
[snip]
>> GASP!
>> I give up.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> You said yourself that coordinates don't move.
> What can it mean, then, if x' does change value
> with time? Only that x' represents the current
> coordinate of something scanning the x' axis.
You should have stopped right after this part of your original message:
| "With primed values specifying an event in one inertial frame,
| and unprimed values specifying the same event in another inertial
| frame"
because from *everything* you write, it is clear that you
have no idea whatsoever what it means.
>
> A theory that announces to humanity 'the end of
> universal time' is a serious matter for mankind's
> understanding of the reality he inhabits. Yet,
> possible alternatives to the Minkowski interpretation
> of SR have never been fully explored. If the physics
> establishment won't ever examine such possibilities,
> we must do it for ourselves.
See
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/Delusion (2b)
Dirk Vdm
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
> SR WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE?
Throw out the baby, keep the bathwater.
Bill Hobba
Everyone who has has formed one conclusion - you are a total idiot.
Rest of probable junk snipped and not even read.
Bill
Alen
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Alen" <a...@westserv.net.au> wrote in messagenews:1180759265.3...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I see you are back to your usual
'too_clever_by_half' self!
Alen
Dono
>
> Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
> prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> popular derivations) isn't required.
Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
called transforms are not invertible.
> Similarly, please consider my
> assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbf...
Bcause you arrive at non-linear transforms they are non-invertible .
Thus you are violating one of the fundamental principles of symmetry
rendering your "nonlinear solution" as pure crap.
> These points are present inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
> TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
> and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
> as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
Tom REJECTED your paper.
Alen
> On Jun 1, 6:42 am, Alen <a...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> BORING.
>
> The group theory approach is cleaner, and doesn't use the light
> postulate.
>
I don't think it is cleaner. SR can't be a physical
theory without light, so why not include light at
the beginning? I believe that overgeneralisation
causes dangers of misinterpreting the physical reality.
Alen
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse wrote:
> The
> transformation group that leaves Maxwell's equations invariant is
> SO(3,1)
SO(3,1) is merely a subgroup of the full invariance group of the M.E.
The full group is sometimes called the "conformal group" (not to be
confused with a mathematical group of the same name). This group has 15
parameters; SO(3,1) has only 10. The additional 5 parameters represent
various types of scale changes, so "conformal" is not a completely crazy
name; as physicists invariably use fixed units they are not of great
importance (or better: these transforms underlie the justification of
doing that). Another reason the changes of scale are not very important
is that the quantum theory is not invariant under those transforms (if
the world did not obey QM we would have no clocks or rulers; but then of
course we would not exist...).
But yes, combining the M.E. with SR does indeed fix the value of c in
the Lorentz transform to be the speed of light in vacuum.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> On Jun 2, 2:16 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
> > prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> > popular derivations) isn't required.
>
> Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
> requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
> called transforms are not invertible.
My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
anything new at the high school level.
> > Similarly, please consider my
> > assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> > clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> > nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbf...
>
> Bcause you arrive at non-linear transforms they are non-invertible .
Wow. You really are ignorant of simple mathematics, aren't you? My
nonlinear transforms are invertible.
> Thus you are violating one of the fundamental principles of symmetry
> rendering your "nonlinear solution" as pure crap.
You not understanding Shubertian physics and nonlinear transformations
render you unqualified to make any judgment on the question.
> > These points are present inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
> > TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
> > and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
> > as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
>
> Tom REJECTED your paper.
Tom rejected my paper on the basis that my paper failed to state an
axiom to determine when two real numbers are equal and other such rot
and most definitely not for its explicit assertion about the very
general nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz solution to the Shubertian clock
model.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Dono
> On Jun 2, 6:56 am, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 2:16 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
> > > prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> > > popular derivations) isn't required.
>
> > Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
> > requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
> > called transforms are not invertible.
>
> My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
> Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
> anything new at the high school level.
>
Of course they AREN'T : the non-linear recursive functions that you
use are NOT invertible.
> > > Similarly, please consider my
> > > assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> > > clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> > > nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbf...
>
> > Bcause you arrive at non-linear transforms they are non-invertible .
>
> Wow. You really are ignorant of simple mathematics, aren't you? My
> nonlinear transforms are invertible.
>
The Non-linear, Recursive functions you are using AREN'T. Show how
you invert them , in this thread.
> > Thus you are violating one of the fundamental principles of symmetry
> > rendering your "nonlinear solution" as pure crap.
>
> You not understanding Shubertian physics and nonlinear transformations
> render you unqualified to make any judgment on the question.
>
"Shubertian physics". Are you confined in a lunatic asylum?
> > > These points are present inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > > yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
> > > TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
> > > and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
> > > as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
>
> > Tom REJECTED your paper.
>
> Tom rejected my paper on the basis that my paper failed to state an
> axiom to determine when two real numbers are equal and other such rot
> and most definitely not for its explicit assertion about the very
> general nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz solution to the Shubertian clock
> model.
>
Tom and everyone else REJECTED your paper. This is why it isn't
published and will never be .
Shubee
In other words, if what I wrote were true, then you would have to stop
worshipping at the Einstein altar and you aren't prepared to do that.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Tom Roberts
> What exactly is the Euclid group, Tom?
In 3d, the Euclid group consists of 3 rotations and 3 translations. In
this case the relevant group is the 4d Euclid group, consisting of 6
rotations and 4 translations. It does not make physical sense, as it is
possible to combine two velocities in the +x direction into a velocity
in the -x direction (plus other unphysical implications).
In 4d, the Euclid group is the isometry group of 4d Euclidean space,
just as the Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) is the
isometry group of Minkowski spacetime.
> I get the impression, based
> upon the available choices, that it is the c--->0 case.
No. Like the Lorentz transform it requires a scale [#], and in the usual
formulas it corresponds to c -> ic (i=sqrt(-1)).
There are identities like sinh(ix) = i sin(x), that
relate them, once one remembers that Lorentz boosts are
really a hyperbolic rotation.
[#] For the Lorentz transform this is a velocity scale, for
the Euclid group it relates angles to slopes and is
conventionally set to 1. In both cases this is merely a
units conversion between the 3 spatial coordinates and the
time coordinate.
> As I recall you have three viable options when you dig out the
> available groups via the principle of relativity - Lorentz group [c
> finite, nonzero], Galileian group [limiting case of Lorentz group - c->
> \infty] and a third group in which effectively nothing moves. I am
> thinking the third group is the Euclid group - the rotation group.
Yes, the third group is the Euclid group. In a 4d spacetime, however,
things could move just as they do in SR because one axis is time. But
the time axis is treated EXACTLY the same as the spatial axes, and that
conflicts with basic observations of the world we inhabit.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> On Jun 2, 8:14 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 6:56 am, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 2:16 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
> > > > prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> > > > popular derivations) isn't required.
>
> > > Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
> > > requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
> > > called transforms are not invertible.
>
> > My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
> > Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
> > anything new at the high school level.
>
> Of course they AREN'T : the non-linear recursive functions that you
> use are NOT invertible.
You are simply too poorly educated to know if they are or not. You're
just guessing. Ask Tom Roberts if my nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz
solution to the Shubertian clock model is invertible or not. I believe
that he is competent enough to do the math.
> > > > Similarly, please consider my
> > > > assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> > > > clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> > > > nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbf...
>
> > > Bcause you arrive at non-linear transforms they are non-invertible .
>
> > Wow. You really are ignorant of simple mathematics, aren't you? My
> > nonlinear transforms are invertible.
>
> The Non-linear, Recursive functions you are using AREN'T. Show how
> you invert them , in this thread.
Replace v with -v, x for x' and t for t', just like in the ordinary
Lorentz transformation.
> > > Thus you are violating one of the fundamental principles of symmetry
> > > rendering your "nonlinear solution" as pure crap.
>
> > You not understanding Shubertian physics and nonlinear transformations
> > render you unqualified to make any judgment on the question.
>
> "Shubertian physics". Are you confined in a lunatic asylum?
>
> > > > These points are present inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > > > yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
> > > > TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
> > > > and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
> > > > as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
>
> > > Tom REJECTED your paper.
>
> > Tom rejected my paper on the basis that my paper failed to state an
> > axiom to determine when two real numbers are equal and other such rot
> > and most definitely not for its explicit assertion about the very
> > general nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz solution to the Shubertian clock
> > model.
>
> Tom and everyone else REJECTED your paper. This is why it isn't
> published and will never be .
What respectable physics or math journal would want to publish
anything at the high school level?
Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bilge
Uh, Hello? Since it appears you have just joined your own discussion,
the magnitude of your boasts is precisely what is being considered.
Your boasts are many orders of magnitude greater than anything upon
which your boasting could be based.
> such as my claim of being able to
> prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> popular derivations) isn't required. Similarly, please consider my
> assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.
Consider my model of a 4-dimensional shubertian shubee in which
shubert's head is inserted into his rectum to form non-orientable,
one-sided asshole. As is well known, such an object cannot divide
space into an inside or an outside, so this explains shubees
complete inability to hold any information. Furthermore, since
shubee cannot be embedded in three spatial dimensions, this model
explains why he is out of touch with the universe that the rest of
us inhabit and refer to as the spatial part of spacetime. Since a
klein bottle is free of singularities, yet shubee appears to be
infinitely dense, there is a problem which I solve by proposing
the 4-dimensional shubertian shubee is not isomorphic to the klein
bottle, but instead defines a new class of manifolds obtained
by adding to bijections, injections and surjections, new classes
of mappings called ``rejections'' and ``invections.''
Bilge
> On Jun 2, 2:16 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
>> prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
>> popular derivations) isn't required.
>
> Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
> requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
> called transforms are not invertible.
Maybe he could try using his theory in court the next time he gets
speeding ticket based on a radar reading. ``But judge - the transformations
are not invertible so his radar can't ever agree with my speedometer.''
Maybe being hit with a gavel will help.
Dono
> On Jun 2, 8:20 am, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 8:14 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 6:56 am, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 2, 2:16 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Consider the magnitude of my boasts, such as my claim of being able to
> > > > > prove that presupposing the reciprocity principle to derive the LT (in
> > > > > popular derivations) isn't required.
>
> > > > Reciprocity is a requirement that exopresses "symmetry", a fundamental
> > > > requirement of physics. Your derivation violates symmetry : your so
> > > > called transforms are not invertible.
>
> > > My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
> > > Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
> > > anything new at the high school level.
>
> > Of course they AREN'T : the non-linear recursive functions that you
> > use are NOT invertible.
>
> You are simply too poorly educated to know if they are or not. You're
> just guessing. Ask Tom Roberts if my nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz
> solution to the Shubertian clock model is invertible or not. I believe
> that he is competent enough to do the math.
I do not need to ask anybody, your so-called transforms are not
invertible.
Try writing down the inverses. Let's see it.
>
> > > > > Similarly, please consider my
> > > > > assertion that my very general nonlinear solution to the Shubertian
> > > > > clock model refutes the misguided arguments against groups of
> > > > > nonlinear spacetime transformations for inertial frames of reference.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1915ad2dbf...
>
> > > > Bcause you arrive at non-linear transforms they are non-invertible .
>
> > > Wow. You really are ignorant of simple mathematics, aren't you? My
> > > nonlinear transforms are invertible.
>
> > The Non-linear, Recursive functions you are using AREN'T. Show how
> > you invert them , in this thread.
>
> Replace v with -v, x for x' and t for t', just like in the ordinary
> Lorentz transformation.
>
>
If you do the above simple substitution for a linear transformation
you obtain the same resuls as executing the function inversion. This
is not true for YOUR nonlinear, recursive functions. So, you are
simply showing your ignorance of basic math. Did you say you had a BS
in math? You now know that it stands for B(ull)S(hit).
>
> > > > Thus you are violating one of the fundamental principles of symmetry
> > > > rendering your "nonlinear solution" as pure crap.
>
> > > You not understanding Shubertian physics and nonlinear transformations
> > > render you unqualified to make any judgment on the question.
>
> > "Shubertian physics". Are you confined in a lunatic asylum?
>
You are writing from a lunatic asylum, that much is clear.
> > > > > These points are present inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > > > > yet Tom Roberts focused on critiquing the ease of readability of
> > > > > TAOFS1 (which I promised to improve), which is an objection to style
> > > > > and not substance. The fact is, Roberts quickly figured out my meaning
> > > > > as soon as I resolved his confusion over the "BIG RED FLAG" paradox.
>
> > > > Tom REJECTED your paper.
>
> > > Tom rejected my paper on the basis that my paper failed to state an
> > > axiom to determine when two real numbers are equal and other such rot
> > > and most definitely not for its explicit assertion about the very
> > > general nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz solution to the Shubertian clock
> > > model.
>
> > Tom and everyone else REJECTED your paper. This is why it isn't
> > published and will never be .
>
> What respectable physics or math journal would want to publish
> anything at the high school level?
>
Especially since it contains gross errors as the mad notion that non-
linear, recursive functions can be inverted by a simple inversion of
arguments. This property applies ONLY to linear functions. This is why
your paper is rejected everywhere.
> Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
> Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
> but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
> are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
>
The above may apply to valid papers, your paper isn't one of them.
Tom Roberts
> SO(3,1) is merely a subgroup of the full invariance group of the M.E.
> The full group is sometimes called the "conformal group" (not to be
> confused with a mathematical group of the same name). This group has 15
> parameters; SO(3,1) has only 10. The additional 5 parameters represent
> various types of scale changes, so "conformal" is not a completely crazy
> name; as physicists invariably use fixed units they are not of great
> importance (or better: these transforms underlie the justification of
> doing that). Another reason the changes of scale are not very important
> is that the quantum theory is not invariant under those transforms (if
> the world did not obey QM we would have no clocks or rulers; but then of
> course we would not exist...).
One more point which might not be obvious to some: SO(3,1) is a subgroup
of the isometry group of Minkowski spacetime -- those additional 5
transforms mentioned above are NOT isometries (they change scale).
The isometry group of a manifold with metric is the set
of all diffeomorphisms that preserve the metric. Any
coordinate transform is a diffeomorphism, and any
diffeomorphism can be represented as a coordinate transform
within a suitably small region (for Minkowski spacetime
"suitably small" includes the entire manifold).
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> On Jun 2, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
> > > > Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
> > > > anything new at the high school level.
>
> > > Of course they AREN'T : the non-linear recursive functions that you
> > > use are NOT invertible.
>
> > You are simply too poorly educated to know if they are or not. You're
> > just guessing. Ask Tom Roberts if my nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz
> > solution to the Shubertian clock model is invertible or not. I believe
> > that he is competent enough to do the math.
>
> I do not need to ask anybody, your so-called transforms are not
> invertible.
Dono don't know.
> Try writing down the inverses. Let's see it.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Exercise 3. To get the inverse of the nonlinear transformation in
exercise 1, replace v with -v and exchange x with x' (likewise x' with
x) and exchange t with t' (likewise t' with t). Dono still don't know
how to do that?
> If you do the above simple substitution for a linear transformation
> you obtain the same resuls as executing the function inversion. This
> is not true for YOUR nonlinear, recursive functions. So, you are
> simply showing your ignorance of basic math. Did you say you had a BS
> in math? You now know that it stands for B(ull)S(hit).
I graduated summa cum laude with a BA in mathematics from UCSD in
1987.
> > What respectable physics or math journal would want to publish
> > anything at the high school level?
>
> Especially since it contains gross errors as the mad notion that non-
> linear, recursive functions can be inverted by a simple inversion of
> arguments.
Not all nonlinear functions, but certainly the nonlinear epsilon-
Lorentz solution to the Shubertian clock model has this feature.
> This property applies ONLY to linear functions.
Not all linear functions but certainly to the Lorentz transformation.
> This is why your paper is rejected everywhere.
This is not the reason for the Tom Roberts objection and there isn't
any reason to believe that Roberts is as incompetent and uneducated as
you are.
> > Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
> > Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
> > but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
> > are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
>
> The above may apply to valid papers, your paper isn't one of them.
Dono don't know.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Dono
> On Jun 2, 8:56 am, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > My transformations are invertible. You are simply hypnotized by
> > > > > Einstein's relativity principle, making you incapable of understanding
> > > > > anything new at the high school level.
>
> > > > Of course they AREN'T : the non-linear recursive functions that you
> > > > use are NOT invertible.
>
> > > You are simply too poorly educated to know if they are or not. You're
> > > just guessing. Ask Tom Roberts if my nonlinear epsilon-Lorentz
> > > solution to the Shubertian clock model is invertible or not. I believe
> > > that he is competent enough to do the math.
>
> > I do not need to ask anybody, your so-called transforms are not
> > invertible.
>
> Dono don't know.
>
> > Try writing down the inverses. Let's see it.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>
> Exercise 3. To get the inverse of the nonlinear transformation in
> exercise 1, replace v with -v and exchange x with x' (likewise x' with
> x) and exchange t with t' (likewise t' with t). Dono still don't know
> how to do that?
Repeating the same error doesn't fix it, it just shows how stupid you
are.
Shubee
You asked for the inverse. That's the inverse. If you want help with
the computation, ask someone more mathematically competent than you
are, which is just about everyone.
Shubee
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zYf8i.11637$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
: Yes, the third group is the Euclid group. In a 4d spacetime, however,
: things could move just as they do in SR because one axis is time. But
: the time axis is treated EXACTLY the same as the spatial axes,
Which is unphysical. Time doesn't go backwards... FUCKHEAD!
Dono
Hey, BS-er
1.What is the inverse of f(x)=sin(sqrt(x)) ?
2. Now, try applying the same theory to your non-linear ,recursive
function.
Eric Gisse
Eric Gisse
> [In the spirit that valid arguments should be correct]
>
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > The
> > transformation group that leaves Maxwell's equations invariant is
> > SO(3,1)
>
> SO(3,1) is merely a subgroup of the full invariance group of the M.E.
> The full group is sometimes called the "conformal group" (not to be
> confused with a mathematical group of the same name). This group has 15
> parameters; SO(3,1) has only 10. The additional 5 parameters represent
> various types of scale changes, so "conformal" is not a completely crazy
> name; as physicists invariably use fixed units they are not of great
> importance (or better: these transforms underlie the justification of
> doing that). Another reason the changes of scale are not very important
> is that the quantum theory is not invariant under those transforms (if
> the world did not obey QM we would have no clocks or rulers; but then of
> course we would not exist...).
15 parameters? Are you one short?
At any rate, a QFT book I picked up has a _good_ section on group
theory. The kind of group theory I care about - significant discussion
of generators, which I now marginally understand, and things such as
the Lorentz group in more detail. So many group theory books for
mathematicians...*shudder*...
Definitely need to understand the first few chapters of that book
because it is clear I'm missing some some subtle details of this
subject. And some of the not so subtle details. But not as much as
Shooby, so it is ok...
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
> Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
> but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
> are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
You cling to that statement like it is the only way you can
rationalize why folks would reject your junk.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 2, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
> > Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
> > but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
> > are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
>
> You cling to that statement like it is the only way you can
> rationalize why folks would reject your junk.
I don't have to imagine anything. Tom Roberts made it very clear why
he disapproves of my paper: I don't state an axiom to determine when
two real numbers are equal, among other dishonest quibbles. And Dono
rejects my paper because he can't believe that my nonlinear solution
to the Shubertian clock model is invertible. And Tom Roberts isn't
about to correct him. And you are too incensed by the sheer audacity
and unconventionality of my claims because you follow the relativity
worship movement and are simply too stupid to understand a new idea at
the high school level.
I genuinely thank Roberts for being petty and small and not addressing
the substance of my paper. That means that I only have to work making
my presentation clearer and I agree that my paper needs it.
But once I'm finished simplifying it, what respectable physics or math
journal would want to publish anything at the high school level?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
bz
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
If you ever fix ALL the problems, there are plenty of science education
focused journals that look for articles that highschool science teachers
can use.
One of the problems anyone hoping to really be published must fix is the
'attitude problem' that seems common to many that place their ideas here
and act as if they were casting pearls to swine.
An article that is clearly written by someone with a chip on their shoulder
will NOT be published by any reputable journal.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 2, 2:35 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Consider this: "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical
> > > Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them,
> > > but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand
> > > are usually published." - Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
>
> > You cling to that statement like it is the only way you can
> > rationalize why folks would reject your junk.
>
> I don't have to imagine anything. Tom Roberts made it very clear why
> he disapproves of my paper: I don't state an axiom to determine when
> two real numbers are equal, among other dishonest quibbles. And Dono
> rejects my paper because he can't believe that my nonlinear solution
> to the Shubertian clock model is invertible. And Tom Roberts isn't
> about to correct him. And you are too incensed by the sheer audacity
> and unconventionality of my claims because you follow the relativity
> worship movement and are simply too stupid to understand a new idea at
> the high school level.
Congratulations at continuing to purposefully misunderstand and
misrepresent the claims of your critics in a childish manner.
>
> I genuinely thank Roberts for being petty and small and not addressing
> the substance of my paper. That means that I only have to work making
> my presentation clearer and I agree that my paper needs it.
You mean, where he complains that you routinely make arbitrary and
unfounded choices of constants and ignore the consequences of the
choices you did not take?
>
> But once I'm finished simplifying it, what respectable physics or math
> journal would want to publish anything at the high school level?
Why would a physics journal publish this, even if you did clean it up?
It contains no physics!
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 2, 3:18 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't have to imagine anything. Tom Roberts made it very clear why
> > he disapproves of my paper: I don't state an axiom to determine when
> > two real numbers are equal, among other dishonest quibbles. And Dono
> > rejects my paper because he can't believe that my nonlinear solution
> > to the Shubertian clock model is invertible. And Tom Roberts isn't
> > about to correct him. And you are too incensed by the sheer audacity
> > and unconventionality of my claims because you follow the relativity
> > worship movement and are simply too stupid to understand a new idea at
> > the high school level.
>
> Congratulations at continuing to purposefully misunderstand and
> misrepresent the claims of your critics in a childish manner.
Where does Tom Roberts deny my claim that my nonlinear solution to the
Shubertian clock model is invertible?
> > I genuinely thank Roberts for being petty and small and not addressing
> > the substance of my paper. That means that I only have to work making
> > my presentation clearer and I agree that my paper needs it.
>
> You mean, where he complains that you routinely make arbitrary and
> unfounded choices of constants and ignore the consequences of the
> choices you did not take?
Roberts needs no clown interpreter to translate his self-incriminating
denunciation.
> > But once I'm finished simplifying it, what respectable physics or math
> > journal would want to publish anything at the high school level?
>
> Why would a physics journal publish this, even if you did clean it up?
> It contains no physics!
Where does Roberts say that the niceties and formal elegance that my
derivation presently lacks can't be inserted at a later time and that
the LT derived from the Shubertian clock concept contains no physics?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
On Jun 3, 2:41 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:49 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 3:18 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I don't have to imagine anything. Tom Roberts made it very clear why
> > > he disapproves of my paper: I don't state an axiom to determine when
> > > two real numbers are equal, among other dishonest quibbles. And Dono
> > > rejects my paper because he can't believe that my nonlinear solution
> > > to the Shubertian clock model is invertible. And Tom Roberts isn't
> > > about to correct him. And you are too incensed by the sheer audacity
> > > and unconventionality of my claims because you follow the relativity
> > > worship movement and are simply too stupid to understand a new idea at
> > > the high school level.
>
> > Congratulations at continuing to purposefully misunderstand and
> > misrepresent the claims of your critics in a childish manner.
>
> Where does Tom Roberts deny my claim that my nonlinear solution to the
> Shubertian clock model is invertible?
That was Dono, dumbshit. Is your memory so bad that you have already
forgotten what you were told yesterday?
You can't even honestly state what Tom's complaints are, much less
honestly respond to them.
>
> > > I genuinely thank Roberts for being petty and small and not addressing
> > > the substance of my paper. That means that I only have to work making
> > > my presentation clearer and I agree that my paper needs it.
>
> > You mean, where he complains that you routinely make arbitrary and
> > unfounded choices of constants and ignore the consequences of the
> > choices you did not take?
>
> Roberts needs no clown interpreter to translate his self-incriminating
> denunciation.
You whine like death-rage.
>
> > > But once I'm finished simplifying it, what respectable physics or math
> > > journal would want to publish anything at the high school level?
>
> > Why would a physics journal publish this, even if you did clean it up?
> > It contains no physics!
>
> Where does Roberts say that the niceties and formal elegance that my
> derivation presently lacks can't be inserted at a later time and that
> the LT derived from the Shubertian clock concept contains no physics?
*sigh*
Your derivation contains ZERO physics.
ZERO mentioning of energy or momentum. ZERO mention of the other
spatial dimensions. ZERO mention of anything physicists actually care
about.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Jun 3, 2:41 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 11:49 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 3:18 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't have to imagine anything. Tom Roberts made it very clear why
> > > > he disapproves of my paper: I don't state an axiom to determine when
> > > > two real numbers are equal, among other dishonest quibbles. And Dono
> > > > rejects my paper because he can't believe that my nonlinear solution
> > > > to the Shubertian clock model is invertible. And Tom Roberts isn't
> > > > about to correct him. And you are too incensed by the sheer audacity
> > > > and unconventionality of my claims because you follow the relativity
> > > > worship movement and are simply too stupid to understand a new idea at
> > > > the high school level.
>
> > > Congratulations at continuing to purposefully misunderstand and
> > > misrepresent the claims of your critics in a childish manner.
>
> > Where does Tom Roberts deny my claim that my nonlinear solution to the
> > Shubertian clock model is invertible?
>
> That was Dono, dumbshit. Is your memory so bad that you have already
> forgotten what you were told yesterday?
I consider Dono dumbshit to be a critic.
> You can't even honestly state what Tom's complaints are, much less
> honestly respond to them.
Who am I to detract from Tom Roberts' thorough self-abasement?
> > > > But once I'm finished simplifying it, what respectable physics or math
> > > > journal would want to publish anything at the high school level?
>
> > > Why would a physics journal publish this, even if you did clean it up?
> > > It contains no physics!
>
> > Where does Roberts say that the niceties and formal elegance that my
> > derivation presently lacks can't be inserted at a later time and that
> > the LT derived from the Shubertian clock concept contains no physics?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Your derivation contains ZERO physics.
>
> ZERO mentioning of energy or momentum. ZERO mention of the other
> spatial dimensions. ZERO mention of anything physicists actually care
> about.
My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
before but never got around to writing it up.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5615b98eafe9da6a
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Shubee wrote:
[...]
>
> My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
> relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
> before but never got around to writing it up.
If it is as "elegant" as your derivation of the Lorentz
transformation, don't bother.
Go study the group theory derivation of special relativity and learn
what true elegance is.
Dono
> My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> Shitbertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation > of relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this >discovery before but never got around to writing it up.
>
>
...ahh, we see, never got around to write it up :-)
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
> > My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> > Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
> > relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
> > before but never got around to writing it up.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5615b98eafe9da6a
>
> If it is as "elegant" as your derivation of the Lorentz
> transformation, don't bother.
As I've said in the link, my derivation of SR's mass-energy-momentum
relations assumes less than JD Jackson's derivation in his Classical
Electrodynamics. But we all know that physicists aren't impressed with
Hilbert's program to do physics with the greatest amount of
generality. I will write it up anyway.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
It has only occurred to me recently that I can use my old approach to
derive the mass-energy-momentum mechanics for the 3+1 dimensional
spacetime that has a negative spacetime structure constant. I don't
believe that anyone knows the right equations for mechanics in that
space.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 3, 5:41 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> > > Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
> > > relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
> > > before but never got around to writing it up.
>
> > If it is as "elegant" as your derivation of the Lorentz
> > transformation, don't bother.
>
> As I've said in the link, my derivation of SR's mass-energy-momentum
> relations assumes less than JD Jackson's derivation in his Classical
> Electrodynamics. But we all know that physicists aren't impressed with
> Hilbert's program to do physics with the greatest amount of
> generality. I will write it up anyway.
Oh look, here comes Eugene Shubert attaching Hilbert's name to his own
asinine version of physics. The energy-momentum relation requires the
following:
1) The Minkowski metric
2) A definition for four-momentum
3) There is no 3).
All that is done is the evaluating the scalar product of the four-
momentum with itself, and you have the invariant energy-momentum
relation. This is explained on page 538 in Jackson, which apparently
just isn't good enough for you.
I cannot fucking _wait_ to see how you mangle something so amazingly
simple. Most likely it will be very contrived, and will have Hilbert's
name stuck all over it as if it were some kind of talisman which
protects from criticism.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
>
> > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> > > > Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
> > > > relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
> > > > before but never got around to writing it up.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5615b98eafe...
>
> > > If it is as "elegant" as your derivation of the Lorentz
> > > transformation, don't bother.
>
> > As I've said in the link, my derivation of SR's mass-energy-momentum
> > relations assumes less than JD Jackson's derivation in his Classical
> > Electrodynamics. But we all know that physicists aren't impressed with
> > Hilbert's program to do physics with the greatest amount of
> > generality. I will write it up anyway.
>
> Oh look, here comes Eugene Shubert attaching Hilbert's name to his own
> asinine version of physics. The energy-momentum relation requires the
> following:
>
> 1) The Minkowski metric
> 2) A definition for four-momentum
> 3) There is no 3).
That's not correct. The most elegant results are achieved with
pretensors (a Gene Shubert creation).
> All that is done is the evaluating the scalar product of the four-
> momentum with itself, and you have the invariant energy-momentum
> relation. This is explained on page 538 in Jackson, which apparently
> just isn't good enough for you.
That's correct. Jackson simply isn't general enough.
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 3, 6:26 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > > My first noteworthy contribution to modern physics, even before the
> > > > > Shubertian clock model of spacetime, was a very elegant derivation of
> > > > > relativistic mass-energy and momentum. I've mentioned this discovery
> > > > > before but never got around to writing it up.
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5615b98eafe...
>
> > > > If it is as "elegant" as your derivation of the Lorentz
> > > > transformation, don't bother.
>
> > > As I've said in the link, my derivation of SR's mass-energy-momentum
> > > relations assumes less than JD Jackson's derivation in his Classical
> > > Electrodynamics. But we all know that physicists aren't impressed with
> > > Hilbert's program to do physics with the greatest amount of
> > > generality. I will write it up anyway.
>
> > Oh look, here comes Eugene Shubert attaching Hilbert's name to his own
> > asinine version of physics. The energy-momentum relation requires the
> > following:
>
> > 1) The Minkowski metric
> > 2) A definition for four-momentum
> > 3) There is no 3).
>
> That's not correct. The most elegant results are achieved with
> pretensors (a Gene Shubert creation).
I can't wait to see how you fuck this up.
>
> > All that is done is the evaluating the scalar product of the four-
> > momentum with itself, and you have the invariant energy-momentum
> > relation. This is explained on page 538 in Jackson, which apparently
> > just isn't good enough for you.
>
> That's correct. Jackson simply isn't general enough.
...and how much of Jackson have you studied?
Why are you even using Jackson as a relativity reference, anyway?
Jackson teaches electrodynamics.
Shubee
> > > All that is done is the evaluating the scalar product of the four-
> > > momentum with itself, and you have the invariant energy-momentum
> > > relation. This is explained on page 538 in Jackson, which apparently
> > > just isn't good enough for you.
>
> > That's correct. Jackson simply isn't general enough.
>
> ...and how much of Jackson have you studied?
Don't make me laugh. I have less respect for Jackson's book than does
Wolfgang Rindler. And remember, I'm a mathematician.
> Why are you even using Jackson as a relativity reference, anyway?
> Jackson teaches electrodynamics.
I was shocked that Jackson's textbook, being such a widely accepted
standard at the graduate level of physics, had such an inept
presentation of special relativity. It confirmed my belief that
physicists are trained to be chimpanzees whereas mathematicians are
trained to think in terms of the most modern and beautifully elegant
mathematics. Why is it that Jackson never learned any kind of
invariant theory? How did Jackson's inelegant treatment of
electrodynamics become such a standard physics text?
Eric Gisse
Shubee wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:56 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > All that is done is the evaluating the scalar product of the four-
> > > > momentum with itself, and you have the invariant energy-momentum
> > > > relation. This is explained on page 538 in Jackson, which apparently
> > > > just isn't good enough for you.
> >
> > > That's correct. Jackson simply isn't general enough.
> >
> > ...and how much of Jackson have you studied?
>
> Don't make me laugh. I have less respect for Jackson's book than does
> Wolfgang Rindler. And remember, I'm a mathematician.
It is painfully obvious that you are a mathematician - you are
unwilling to pay attention to what physicists consider important.
That, and your complete unwillingness to actually discuss physics.
Your smug idiocy is quite insulting, so I can reasonably assure you
that you will never get a damn thing published with that kind of
attitude.
>
> > Why are you even using Jackson as a relativity reference, anyway?
> > Jackson teaches electrodynamics.
>
> I was shocked that Jackson's textbook, being such a widely accepted
> standard at the graduate level of physics, had such an inept
> presentation of special relativity. It confirmed my belief that
> physicists are trained to be chimpanzees whereas mathematicians are
> trained to think in terms of the most modern and beautifully elegant
> mathematics. Why is it that Jackson never learned any kind of
> invariant theory? How did Jackson's inelegant treatment of
> electrodynamics become such a standard physics text?
Jackson's style is perfectly acceptable for physicists. Physicists
aren't mathematicians, and there is not a damn thing wrong with his
presentation. Perhaps if you could actually explain what makes you so
damn butthurt for a change, rather than the usual bitching and
moaning.
You continually shit all over physicists despite having _NO_ interest,
or knowledge, regarding physics. You continually whine about how
special relativity is presented and then you reject every derivation
of special relativity for your own personal little shitpile that adds
nothing to the discussion.
Leave physics to the physicists, and we will leave pedantic whining to
the mathematicians.
Shubee
>
> Leave physics to the physicists, ...
But Hilbert said that "Physics is too difficult for physicists" so
obviously that great universal genius meant that mathematicians should
take over.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 3, 8:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Leave physics to the physicists, ...
>
> But Hilbert said that "Physics is too difficult for physicists" so
> obviously that great universal genius meant that mathematicians should
> take over.
...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
theory.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> ...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
> theory.
OK. I choose the page http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Can you do exercise 1?
Shubee
Dono
> On Jun 3, 9:30 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
> > theory.
>
>
> Can you do exercise 1?
>
> Shubee
1. What is the inverse of f(x)=sin(sqrt(x)) ? You never answered
that.
A slightly tougher question:
2. What is the inverse of f(x)=sin(sqrt(f(x)0) ?
YBM
> On Jun 3, 9:30 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
>> theory.
>
> OK. I choose the page http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
This is not a mathematician book or paper. This is a piece of shit from a
brain-dead religious fanatic (look at his "forum") who happened to study
some math, with poor success, at school.
Shubee
> Shubee a écrit :
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:30 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
> >> theory.
>
>
> This is not a mathematician book or paper. This is a piece of shit from a
> brain-dead religious fanatic (look at his "forum") who happened to study
> some math, with poor success, at school.
So what you're saying in between the lines of your lame excuse is that
you most definitely can't do exercise 1?
Shubee
Eric Gisse
>
> > ...so take a page out of the mathematician's book and learn some group
> > theory.
>
>
> Can you do exercise 1?
I said "learn some group theory" not "point me to another crap page on
Eugene Shubert's worthless web site".
Your head is so far up your ass that you honestly seem to think that
transformations with arbitrary functions are indistinguishable from
the Lorentz group. If you had some actual knowledge of the Lorentz
group you wouldn't be here whining about how everyone is ignoring your
paper.
The Lorentz transformations are derivable from the Lorentz group with
about 10 minutes of work. Would you like to see an actual elegant
derivation or would you like to keep your head up your ass?
>
> Shubee
Shubee
math, what are you doing here, besides rehearsing tradition?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Tom Roberts
> [To Schubee]
> It is painfully obvious that you are a mathematician
Not to me. Any sensible mathematician would know what axioms are, and
how important it is to present them in a paper with "Axiomatization" in
its title.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Does Tom Roberts know what axioms are? The answer is given by Tom
Roberts himself:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
> EricGissewrote:
I never said he was a good mathematician.
>
> Tom Roberts
It's a Miracle
said nO because I was too sick but ran myself into the ground at a
convenienvce store never saw him after that I dont think.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
Shubee
Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. Today, it takes a Ph.D. in
physics to no longer understand that. Your confusion is perfectly
understandable.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
YBM
> On Jun 4, 8:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>> [To Schubee]
>>> It is painfully obvious that you are a mathematician
>> Not to me. Any sensible mathematician would know what axioms are, and
>> how important it is to present them in a paper with "Axiomatization" in
>> its title.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
> along a continuum of numbers is a clock. Today, it takes a Ph.D. in
> physics to no longer understand that. Your confusion is perfectly
> understandable.
You've never get the point at all about synchronisation, haven't you ?
As most cranks, your problem with SR understanding comes from the
very beginning of A.E. 1905 paper where he defined what it means
for two clocks to be synchronized.
It's a Miracle
that wanted to cheat and I cured him and nust have made him intelligent
and looks like he got 2001 also and Bob hope made a joke about me and
him something about going to school and seeing someones soul so maybe we
saw each others soul and both of us worked for the Tampa college.I did
physical stuff and he did other things not sure but thought he was
getting extra help.Forgaot YOUR name sorry its a humpty dumpty
thing.Maybe youll tell me or Ill figure it out but remembered your from
indiana so maybe your the midcontinent TV guy that made those fine
commercial I really love MOST of the time or part of the time depending
on whats happening>
Good one DUDE
Have a cigar youll fly high your never going to die.You can make it if
you try.
Seems to fit the occassion doesnt IT?
Dont know what you did to me though harder to say as usual but thanks.
It's a Miracle
with lack and white pencil and not color so I bet teen age qweere wolf
got color pencil which Im kinda clueless but got a nice set and I dont
draw anything anymore.Its a drag for me to create anything.
Dont know what I become.
It's a Miracle
hard work regardless not a work saving cheating.
It's a Miracle
all it was that tracing thingy didnt want to tear up paper kinda respect
for paper?
It's a Miracle
started making me intelligent and I like MR FIX IT
Thats my positive character flaw but I can do without my brains getting
ripped out if YA know what I mean?
It's a Miracle
untill they are turned on.I bet thats it!
It's a Miracle
Fun isnt It?
Love doing that one
Chrome is harder
Not sure If I topped that but too much chrome looks blue and some chrome
comes out red but not sure why ask a plater or restorer heard about it
but never saw it.Maybe we should start an art newsgroup that would be
fun is that the new science group?
I should ask webtv FOUNDATIONS ore something?They are quick webtv but
the plusses are almost dead and the new one just has MSN groups which
maybe better.
Should checkit out but Im broke.
It's a Miracle
Kinda stupid here!
jem
> And remember, I'm a mathematician.
What you /are/, Shooby, is a comedian, but what you /need/ is a new joke - that one's gotten old.
To that end, I'd like to offer you some inspiration in a little exercise based on your Goofy Transformation (you'll recall that's my term for what you laughably call the "Generalized Lorentz Transformation", whenever its arbitrary function f happens to be non-linear).
So here's the exercise: produce 2 Inertial reference frames whose spacetimes are related by the Goofy Transformation. This simple exercise is guaranteed to result in a good new joke (though hopefully you'll be inspired to come up with more than some funny excuses for your inability to complete the exercise).
It's a Miracle
Saw some stupid junk on one with fake plastic bolt heads I hate that who
would do that?
I had a perfect radio except for that but I got used to it and Dallas
stole it and said it broke and he trashed it.
It's a Miracle
better it looks like a whistle liiks better than a fender.Starnge? Isnt
it
Gave a kid my whistle but got an aluminum one but liked the other one
better.I said looks better than a fender up above
It's a Miracle
great
And who knows the tricks but vaccumm metalized plastic looks good and
seen some nivce head lamp designs lately really sharp looking.
It's a Miracle
matters with those babbys
Im still Mr training wheels with mazda
maybe Ill find something like cammaro or mustang?Watergate girl said she
would rather have a haorse than a man and I left a 65 mustang at east
brunswick foreign car and my mother was impossible to get the title from
and give it to Attila I bet it got restored and I dont know whose
getting ot or got it.No Idea but suspicious,
Nice wedding car though baby blue with torquoise interior nicest vinyl
seat color I ever saw but the threads were rotted otherwise perfect.
It's a Miracle
be I bet who knows?
It's a Miracle
frayed.
Wonder what happened to it suspicious but not expecting anything and
they are shutting car doors and crawling away with cars in parking lot
angry like car doors shutting and sneaky drive away.
It's a Miracle
brown.Really beautiful brown if you get a chance 1990 mazda 323.not
quite perfect Ya really cant shine it up perfectly but its exact anyway.
It's a Miracle
lawnmower here where you stick your toes in maybe ski clamp thigy and
really manuverable but dont know why they like standing cutting
grass.Looks like hes having fun and zippidy do da fER SURE
It's a Miracle
kick out of watching it.
It's a Miracle
heard in my head just a guess.
It's a Miracle
flatter not as digital is what I think and a confirmation vchirpy