Re: A conversation during office hours

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sep 19, 11:40 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> - "Professor R?"
> "Yes, come in."
> [Reset of boring play snipped]

Here is a more interesting and educational play on Relativity:

Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.

Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
assumptions which I have proudly speculated. The first speculation is
the principle of relativity, and the second one is the constancy in
the speed of light.

Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
relativity.

Newton: Yes, that is so true. The principle of relativity is the
basis of my works. I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

Galileo: Thank you, Mr. Newton. I was lucky to be born right at the
start of the Renaissance.

Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
mechanism to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley
experiment as the constancy in the observed speed of light regardless
if the principle of relativity holds or not. That is how I derived
the Voigt transformation. In another words, my transformation does
not satisfy the principle of relativity but explains the null results
of the Michelson-Morley experiment through the constancy in the speed
of light.

Larmor: Well, the Voigt transformation is certainly not the only one
that explains these null results. I have discovered another one by
dividing one side of the Voigt transformation by the square root
quantity which is the inverse of the so-called gamma factor. It also
does not satisfy the principle of relativity in general. Just like
the Voigt transformation, one of the two observers must be the
absolute frame of reference. All observations must reference back to
this absolute frame of reference.

Galileo: What good are the Voigt and the Lorentz transformations when
neither satisfies the principle of relativity? Mind you that the
Galilean transformation allows the two observers to be anyone. All
observations are relative, and space is relative.

Michelson: My interferometer works because time must be absolute. If
time were to be relative, there would be no coherent interference
patterns, and there would be no definitive null results to all my
experiments related to the measurements on earth-Aether drift
velocity.

Maxwell: There is no scientific axiom that requires the principle of
relativity to hold. In fact, Maxwell’s equations explain the
propagation of light without the principle of relativity. The
absolute frame of reference must exist to allow for the propagation of
light, and the Aether must exist.

Lorentz: Well, Mr. Maxwell is correct, and I have come across an
infinite such transformations on top of what Mr. Voigt and Mr. Larmor
have discovered. They all satisfy the null results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment but not the principle of relativity. This is
getting more interesting since electromagnetism.

Maxwell: Good point, Mr. Lorentz, Mr. Larmor, and Mr. Voigt. These
null results actually prove the existence of the Aether.

Michell: Hold it, gentlemen. The ballistic theory of light explains
these null results and satisfies the principle of relativity. In
fact, the ballistic theory of light has the strongest support in the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein: Hooray! My speculation which is based on farce can turn
out to be correct after all, and it is all mine.

Galileo: <whispering to Newton> After stealing my discovery on the
principle of relativity, this idiot does not realize his second
speculation fails the ballistic theory of light.

Newton: Although I am the founding father describing light as
classical particles, I have to disagree with Mr. Michell. The
ballistic theory of light cannot explain light propagation as waves
under electromagnetism.

Lorentz: Mr. Maxwell’s work represents one of mankind’s finest
achievements by writing down the mathematical model explaining
definitively how light propagates as waves and at a certain speed
relative to the stationary background of the Aether. Mr. Michell was
before electromagnetism, and he cannot discount electromagnetism
easily.

Poincare: Then among all these infinite numbers of transformations
that Mr. Lorentz discovered, which one is valid? Wait, gentlemen.
With the way Mr. Larmor wrote down his transformation, the absolute
frame of reference vanishes for this special case.

Galileo: Yes, Mr. Poincare. This is a special case where both
observers are moving in parallel relative to the absolute frame of
reference.

Larmor: Sorry about the way I wrote down my transformation. It
caused a lot of confusion. It is valid only when both observers are
moving in parallel relative to the stationary background of the
Aether. In general where both observers are moving in any arbitrary
directions does not yield a transformation that satisfies the
principle of relativity.

Galileo: In case if the audience does not know what Mr. Michelson and
Mr. Larmor are talking about, even my transformation, the good old
Galilean transformation, is a tale of three parties. You can call
them points, frames, or whatever you want. They can move around in
any way they choose. There is no condition that they have to be
inertial or not whatever inertial means. The parties are two
observers and one observed. The transformation merely relates how the
observations done by each observer on the same observed are related.

Poincare: Nevertheless, we can “bastardize” Mr. Larmor’s
transformation into a new one where the two observers can be anyone
just like the Galilean transformation. In this case, the principle of
relativity is preserved. Let’s now call the bastardized version of
Mr. Larmor’s transformation the Lorentz transformation, OK?

Larmor: That is not right. My transformation cannot be
“bastardized”. What you call the Lorentz transformation has nothing to
do with the real world.

Michelson: I agree with Mr. Larmor. The Lorentz transformation
reflects no experimental bases. It is created in the minds of man.
We are dealing with physics, and physicists should not play God.

Einstein: Shut up, Mr. Michelson. You don’t understand relativity.
My groundless speculations have finally paid off. I will now attempt
to fudge the Lorentz transformation into the Maxwell’s equations.

Maxwell: Where did they get this clown from? <shaking his head>

Einstein: Mr. Maxwell, do you think I am stupid. Well then, I have
personally discovered spacetime.

Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who first wrote down all the equations
of the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then
only becomes very obvious from then on.

Voigt: The Voigt transformation can also be written into a single,
concise equation.

Larmor: So is the transformation I have discovered and the infinite
others that Mr. Lorentz has discovered.

H. G. Wells: Well, Mr. Einstein, I don’t know if you have read my
book “The Time Machine”. In it, I have already described time and
space forming a single entity in which a time traveler can travel from
one set of time and space to another.

Langevin: Hold it, gentlemen. There is a serious flaw in the Lorentz
transformation. It manifests a time paradox through the mutual time
dilation. Say a pair of twins start out together at rest relative to
each other. One twin travels away and comes back at rest to the other
twin again. The difference in time elapsed by each twin will render a
paradox.

Poincare: So what? That is because simultaneity is relative.

Michelson: Hey, you guys don’t know what you are talking about.
Simultaneity must be absolute, or else again there would be no
coherent interference patterns.

Einstein: <giving Michelson the middle finger> The Lorentz
transformation must be regarded as valid regardless of any
experimentations because I said so.

Tom: I have to agree. I have compiled a list of so-called
experiments that verified the Lorentz transformation. However, none
of them did verify this mutual time dilation thingy. We can certainly
ignore the verification on the mutual time dilation part despite the
symmetric mutual time dilation is the only thing unique to the Lorentz
transformation. Whatever Mr. Einstein said must be valid. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists: In addition to what Tom is saying, the twins’
paradox brought up by Mr. Langevin has been observed in experiments.

Newton: What? <nearly choking himself> You guys don’t know what you
are observing.

Michelson: Their interpretations to their experimental results are
totally screwed up. I cannot believe the experimental physicists
after my time would become such inept.

Langevin: Well, it appeared that I have spoken too soon about a
paradox in the Lorentz transformation. If we apply plenty of
mathemagics with a little bit of voodoo chants, the paradox will go
away.

Galileo: Does voodooism involve chants? <talking to himself> Gee!
I must have been born too early.

Self-styled physicists: Oh, we see it. Each unique chant in voodoo
appears to resolve the twins’ paradox.

Michelson: I thought you guys have claimed to have observed this
twins’ paradox experimentally. <folding his arms in a disbelief with
eyes looking up on the ceiling>

Maxwell: But each so-called resolution falsifies others. The paradox
is very real and unresolvable.

Self-styled physicists: Shut up, Mr. Maxwell. Your achievements have
been downgraded by several knots. Do you want us to believe in Mr.
Michell’s ballistic theory of light? Count your blessings that we
have kept Maxwell’s equations but managed to dispense the Aether by
modifying Maxwell’s equations with the Lorentz transformation.

Maxwell: <shaking his head> I am indeed horrified by what you guys
have done. Clearly the Aether does exist, and you are turning your
back on the Aether. The Cosmic Background Radiation was even
discovered to have a Doppler shift. Perhaps, that is a good place to
look for the absolute frame of reference.

Galileo: I have to side with Mr. Maxwell on this matter. What the
self-styled physicists are doing does not represent how science is
done by embracing the lesser of two evils.

Einstein: Another experimental support for the Lorentz transformation
is the relativistic Doppler shift.

Self-styled physicists: In the transverse Doppler shift, it has been
observed as red.

Michelson: The experimental results can also be interpreted as no
shift.

Einstein: Just take a look at the equation of time transformation in
the Lorentz transformation. It shows a red shift agreeing with
experimental results.

Newton: In your 1905 paper, you clearly showed the relativistic
Doppler shift with the equation in energy transformation. Using the
energy transformation instead of time transformation, you get a blue
shift in the transverse direction of relativistic Doppler shift which
has the exact opposite result of the time transformation.

Einstein: That is the beauty of the Lorentz transformation. You can
fudge almost anything out of it. So, whatever the experimental
results are, you just trim off the appropriate mathematics even if the
mathematics are totally self-contradictory.

Self-styled physicists: It is just amazing. Mr. Einstein is a genius
with no equal in the history of mankind.

Galileo: <shaking his head once again and whispering to Newton>
Expect more nonsense from this idiot and the ones who worship this
idiot.

Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and the twins’
paradox for now and talk about General Relativity. I personally
discovered the principle of equivalence by picturing myself as that
falling apple trapped in the gravitational field.

Newton: Trapped? That is very stupid. Gravity can only be
characterized by observing how an object would have behaved under the
influence of gravitation not through how you experience it.

Galileo: Not only that, I had already discovered the principle of
equivalence.

Newton: This is another example of what I mean by standing on the
shoulders of giants. My law of gravity is also based on Mr. Galileo’s
principle of equivalence.

Einstein: Well, my discovery of the equivalence principle actually
came after I have finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity.
Are you calling me that I have reverse-engineered the principle of
equivalence?

Galileo: Umm!!! <clearing his throat>

Newton: <whispering to Galileo> You are correct. This guy is truly
an idiot!

Born: “Have you ever been mellow?” <singing joyfully> Oh, I was
just singing one of my granddaughter’s hit singles. What were we
discussing? Oh, yes, the twins’ paradox. I have an idea to resolve
this.

Galileo: <whispering to Newton again> Well, is “Have you ever been
mellow?” another voodoo chant?

Newton: <whispering back> No, it was a hit song by Mr. Born’s
granddaughter, but in this case it might as well be a voodoo chant.
Let’s hear about Mr. Born has to say about his resolution to the
twins’ paradox.

Born: Since the traveling twin must accelerate and decelerate again
to unite with the other twin, acceleration must break the symmetry.
Since gravity also manifest time dilation, acceleration must also
manifest a time dilation. Thus, the net result is that the traveling
twin will age slower.

Einstein: Yes, that must be correct. I just know so. <dancing>

Newton: Mr. Born, can you show the mathematics supporting what you
are talking about?

Self-styled physicists: Never mind the mathematics. In the spacetime
diagram, just draw couple lines, and you will see that there is no
such paradox.

Newton: In addition, the traveling twin can coast for an arbitrary
time with no acceleration. According to the Lorentz transformation,
the mutual time dilation will build up since time dilation is
accumulative, and no mathematics can account for this arbitrary
accumulated time dilation in any scenario of the twins’ paradox.

Self-styled physicist: We have to admit that we have not seen any
evidence of time dilation under acceleration other than gravity.

Newton: Of course not. I thought you have dispensed gravity as a
force. Oh, I see. Gravity is not a force under General Relativity
but is capable of acceleration. So, care free to jump out a ten-story
building to test the hypothesis?

Tom: The spacetime of jumping out a ten-story building will
eventually intercept the ground in a tragic end. <shrug>

Newton: Where did that come from?

Self-styled physicist: Going back to the Lorentz transform, the
mathematics indicates if you use the reciprocal of the same
transformation, the symmetry is broken, and thus there is no paradox.

Galileo: What? Do you guys even understand what the Galilean
transform is all about? It involves two observers and one observed.
To describe two observed, two such transformations must be applied.
The reciprocal form of the same transform is still the same transform.

Self-styled physicist: Mr. Galileo, we don’t know what you are
talking about. You have to consider that the time transformation in
the Galilean transform is exactly linear, and the Lorentz transform is
not.

Newton: What Mr. Galileo is saying is very valid. Since the scenario
of the twins’ paradox involves two observed where each twin is
observing the other, two such transforms must be applied, and the
result is no mistake that the paradox manifested by the Lorentz
transform is very real.

Self-styled physicist: With all due respect, Mr. Newton, you and Mr.
Galileo have to be wrong. The laws of physics must allow for two
observed to coexist within the same transformation.

Galileo: I have had enough of this nonsense. These guys are just
fudging the results without understanding the basics of physics.
These clowns are no better off than alchemists. I am out of here.
Ciao! <leaving the play in anger>

Self-styled physicist: After all, the Newtonian gravity has shown to
be inadequate such as explaining the orbital anomaly of Mercury.

Newton: Excuse me?

Einstein: Well, I am also the first one to suggest gravity as a
curvature in spacetime.

Riemann: I have already attempted to suggest that gravity is caused
by curved space, but since the mathematical concept of time and space
forming into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went
nowhere.

Hilbert: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes, but
as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or
gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity.

Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime, then. I personally
have derived the field equations and beat Mr. Hilbert to it by a
whopping minus five days.

Grossmann: Mr. Einstein, you know nothing about mathematics. There
is no way in hell you can come up with the field equations without a
massive amount of help. Yes, helps like what I gave you without a
single ounce of gratitude from you while we, more like I alone, were
developing the “entwurf” to explain the laws of gravity through
rigorous coordinate transformations. It also makes me look like an
idiot by sending all my friends post cards telling them “Hey, look,
guys. I am falling [flapping my arms], and I will discovery what
gravity is better than Newton did.”.

Einstein: Well, the bottom line is that you have failed me, Mr.
Grossmann, and that is all I cared. I don’t appreciate your
incompetence. <shrug>

Christoffel: Hold it, gentlemen, before a fight breaks out. Before
Mr. Einstein claims more credits, I was the one who was credited with
the Christoffel symbols of the second kind which got the ball rolling
for differential geometry. In case if Mr. Einstein has not realized
that yet, differential geometry plays a crucial role in the
development of the general theory of relativity.

Einstein: I did not know that. The mathematics is really too complex
for me.

Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Mr. Christoffel and the geodesic equations,
I was able to invent something called the covariant derivative. By
taking the double covariant derivatives of the spatial distance
between two points in space or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-
dimensional matrix now called the Riemann curvature tensor. In space,
it is a 3x3x3x3 matrix with 81 elements, and in spacetime, it is a
4x4x4x4 matrix with 256 elements.

Riemann: I just want to clarify this. Although I was the first to
mathematically describe what the curvature of space is, the Riemann
tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me.

Grossmann: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the
connection coefficients in which now are called the Christoffel
symbols of the second kind, there is another anti-symmetric
arrangement, and this other arrangement of the connection coefficients
would result in a different Riemann curvature tensor through a
different covariant derivative defined by Mr. Ricci.

Ricci: Oops. There is another possible covariant derivative
different from what I have invented. Hey, nobody is perfect. <shrug>

Levi-Civita: But who cares? As long as the metric is diagonal, they
become the same. For no definitively apparent reasons, I was able to
reduce the 4-dimensional Riemann tensor into a 2-dimensional matrix
which is now called the Ricci tensor.

Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only
discussing the diagonal metric, all these tensors should be identical
regardless how they are constructed with which covariant derivative.
So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor would fully describe
gravitation since the null Ricci tensor mirror the functionality of
the Laplace equation.

Laplace: Yes, the null Ricci tensor does degenerate into the Laplace
equation and the Laplacian operator.

d'Alembert: The d’Alembertian operator is more general than the
Laplacian operator. You can make waves out of my operator.

Maxwell: Yes, Maxwell’s equations in vacuum result in two equations
involved with the d’Alembertian operator. That is exactly how we know
light propagates as waves, and the medium it propagates through has
unique properties in the permeability and the permittivity of free
space. Only through these two properties of the Aether, the exact
propagating speed can then be identified.

Rosen: Well, the Ricci tensor actually degenerates into one with the
d’Alembertian operator. Thus, I can write down the mathematics of
gravitational waves based on this operator. Hey, after all, it is all
in the mathematics.

Hilbert: Mr. Rosen, you are wrong. The Ricci tensor does not offer
d’Alembertian operator. You must have fudged your metric to do so.
The null Ricci scalar (reduced Ricci tensor) is what you want.

Maxwell: Either way, it sounds like the Aether allows the propagation
of gravitational waves as well according to your mathematics.

Einstein: Yes, the Lorentz transformation has done away with the
Aether even in electromagnetism. Thus, it is possible for waves to
propagate without a medium. Just use your imagination.

Maxwell: You guys have no idea of what you are talking about. I have
had enough of this nonsense as well. <leaving the play trying hard to
control his anger>

Poisson: Well, forget about gravitational waves for now. The Poisson
equation is more general to the Laplace equation, and the null Ricci
tensor does not satisfy the Poisson equation. Mr. Nordstrom’s work is
not complete.

Hilbert: Well, I have a better idea. I will throw in the square root
of the negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci
scalar. Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be
stationary, the recourse is the set of field equations.

Einstein: No, the field equations are derived by me only. The fact
that Mr. Hilbert was able to present the same field equations five
days before my own presentation is immaterial.

Minkowski: Shut up, Mr. Einstein. Remember that you were my worst
student. Yeah, instead of studying physics, you were thinking with
your dick and chasing after the only skirt in that class.

Weber: Oh, in my class on electromagnetism, Mr. Einstein was drawing
women’s blouse in his class notes. I was deeply insulted by that.

Einstein: Hey, I suddenly had an idea about women’s blouse in
Professor Weber’s class. I even had a patent on that.

Minkowski: I have a question for Mr. Hilbert. Why is the stationary
condition to this action necessary? How did you pin the significance
of the square root of the determinant to the matric to your
Lagrangian?

Hilbert: Uh! I don't know that myself. I fudged it in desperation
after Mr. Einstein told me that he had already derived the perihelion
advance of Mercury. I thought he really had something.

Einstein: What I had done had nothing to do with the field
equations. I was just using the same method as Mr. Gerber did by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential except that I modified
it differently.

Gerber: Yes, I merely modified the Newtonian gravitational potential
with speed dependent terms.

Hilbert: I did not know that. I should have known better from Mr.
Einstein. <shrug>

Newton: I could not believe that was how you clowns did physics in
the early twentieth centuries.

Klein: You have to excuse us, Mr. Newton. We were completely baffled
by the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It never
occurred to us that Galilean transformation is not valid in general.

Voigt: Gee! Have you not read my publication on the Voigt
transformation?

Lorentz: Mr. Voigt, you were way ahead of your time. Your hypothesis
was too radical for the physicists to accept then. Back then, we were
still questioning Mr. Michelson’s interpretation to the experimental
results.

Michelson: Yes, I certainly can understand that. I was totally
shocked myself.

Newton: Well, with the null results, you can fix the electromagnetism
or the Galilean transformation, and you guys had decided to fix the
Galilean transformation instead.

Klein: That seems to be the easiest approach.

Michell: I’d rather to have you guys fixed electromagnetism instead
and preserving the ballistic theory of light.

Newton: Mr. Michell, we are not against you, but fixing
electromagnetism represents a monumental work.

Michell: I concede that we must do the best in the name of science.

Klein: I concur.

Hilbert: So, do I.

Einstein: Not me. <sticking his tongue all the way out>

Schwarzschild: Going back to solutions of the field equations, since
the field equations are derived whether they are valid or not, having
a metric with a determinant of -1 would result in drastically
simplified field equations and thus the Ricci tensor. In doing so, I
have transformed the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
into one that would yield -1 to the determinant of its metric. Thus,
trivially, I have discovered the very first vacuum solution to the
field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat. In doing so, it should degenerate into Newtonian
law of gravity at weak curvature in spacetime.

Klein: Yes, Mr. Schwarzschild able to come up with a solution in such
a short amount of time was because Mr. Schwarzschild himself, Mr.
Hilbert, Mr. Minkowski, and myself have been working on solving the
null Ricci tensor on and off for a long time.

Hilbert: Here is another such solution which is now named after Mr.
Schwarzschild as the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must
be total nonsense. I regret getting involved such deeply in this
fiasco. <wiping his hands in the gesture of washing them>

Einstein: Great! Now, I can claim sole proprietorship to the field
equations.

Self-styled physicists: Now, do you see why we worship Einstein as a
God? He does not understand anything about differential geometry and
was able to pull out the field equations. That takes a miracle --- a
true genius in the making.

Newton: <shaking his head in total disbelief> It appears that the
self-styled physicists are standing on the shoulders of nitwits.

Self-styled physicists: <dismissing Newton’s remarks> Wow, folks.
Do you see the Schwarzschild metric manifests black holes? We could
get a lot of attention and grant money to perpetuate our welfare by
elaborating on these heavenly objects created through mathemagical
nonsense that we do not even understand ourselves.

Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not manifest black holes,
and so are other infinite solutions to the field equations.

Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since
the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate
system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same.
<shrug>

Riemann: That is not what I have described of curved space. You guys
are just a whole bunch of clowns. The concept that the metric being
the geometry is fatally flawed. The mathematical description of the
thing called the metric alone cannot possibly be enough to describe
the invariant geometry. You need to specify the choice of coordinate
system as well. Each set of coordinate system would require another
unique metric to describe the same, invariant geometry.

Hilbert: <applause>

Grade school children: Even, we can all understand what Mr. Riemann
is talking about.

College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs.
Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled
physicists. Whatever they say must be correct despite we don't know
what they are talking about.

Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for
ourselves without any poison from Einsteinian mysticism.

Hilbert: Going back to the discussion of gravitational waves, it is
shown through mathematics that it is the metric that propagates as
waves.

Riemann: Thus, gravitational waves are too bogus. The metric is a
parameter that interprets the invariant geometry according to an
established choice of coordinate system. Claiming the metric
propagating as waves is just absurd.

Hilbert: That is correct. It should be the distance between two
adjacent points (the actual geometry) in spacetime that propagates not
the metric.

Riemann: These clowns are still confused between the metric and the
actual geometry.

Hilbert: It sounds so unless these guys only limit the choice of the
coordinate system to that linearly rectangular coordinate system also
known as the Cartesian coordinate system where the metric is always
unity in the sense of a signature in (+1, -1, -1, -1).

Riemann: Ah! It is not even worth to think about the stupidities of
the ones who equate the metric as the invariant geometry. There is
one more issue about the mathematics of the gravitational waves.
Whether time is absolute or not, space must be relative as I have
discovered that curved space alone does not manifest gravitation. Any
state in the curvature of space must be relative. One’s perception of
flat space could easily be someone else’s perception of curved space,
for one always observes his or her space as flat.

Hilbert: Thus, the concept of gravitational waves is just too
ludicrous especially the part where the observer’s perception of flat
spacetime can be separated out. After all, the self-styled physicists
have chosen to preserve the principle of relativity at all cost, and
they will believe in anything that suits their goal.

Self-Styled physicists: Hey, hold it, Mr. Riemann and Mr. Hilbert.
The binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 behaved exactly what the mathematics of
gravitational waves said.

Michelson: Being an unbiased experimental physicist, I would question
the interpretation to the data for better qualification of the
experimental result. The self-styled physicists, on the other hand,
had already believed in a predetermined result and thrived to
liberally interpret any experimental results to reinforce that belief.

Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no
understanding of, I have discovered the Cosmological constant. By
adding the Cosmological constant to the field equations, I can halt
the gravitational collapse of the universe.

Poisson: Yeah, I thought about the negative mass density in vacuum
too but dismissed it as stupidity to the utmost degree.

Newton: I have to agree with Mr. Poisson here.

Self-styled physicists: But mass is energy. Just call this negative
mass density in vacuum negative energy, or better yet, call it the
Dark Energy. Wow! The mysticism could really proliferate into many
generations to come. Eventually, physicists would figure out the
stupidity within the concept of a negative mass density in vacuum, and
that will be generations ahead of us. So, who cares?

Einstein: Being no good at all in mathematics, even I see the
stupidity in the Cosmological constant since (E = m c^2). My God, it
was the biggest blunder in my life.

Michelson: Mr. Einstein, the Cosmological constant is the only
blunder in your uneventful life of no discoveries. You are a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. <leaving the play fuming>

Self-styled physicists: In supporting the Cosmological constant, we
have discovered anti-gravity at very large distances in cosmological
scale.

Hilbert: You don’t have to invoke the Cosmological constant to do
that. Among the infinite numbers of solution to the field equations,
you can always find one that behaves like Newtonian law of gravity at
short distances (say in galactic scale) and anti-gravity at large
distances (say cosmological scale).

Newton: Well, Mr. Michelson, a very respectable experimental
physicist, has left us. I have to ask you guys what assumptions are
made to interpret the experimental results in favor of an accelerating
expansion of our universe.

Chandrasekhar: The first assumption is that my derivation of the
Chandrasekhar mass is valid. You see. In a binary star system, if
one star is cannibalizing on its companion, there is such a limit to
the mass of the cannibalizing star. This phenomenon is caused by the
broken balance between the electron exploding pressure and imploding
gravity as there is a maximum limit to the exploding pressure of
electron degeneracy. If gravity is any higher, there is nothing to
stop the imploding collapse of gravity, and the star will explode into
a type Ia supernova. Since all type Ia supernovae will explode at a
fixed mass, the luminosity will be the same throughout the ages and
eons.

Hilbert: But doesn’t the luminosity is also a function of what
elements are present in the star?

Planck: Well, being a scientist, I was totally shocked out of my
underwear when I had witnessed the black body radiation where the
energy of a photon has an observed energy of (E = h f, h = Plank’s
constant, f = observed frequency). In doing so, the real world is
sort of digital not analog. Thus, the issue of luminosity must be
agreed on. That means everybody has to agree on how bright something
is.

Newton: There are many ways of deciding what parameters to use to
determine this luminosity.

Hubble: <cutting in before the self-styled physicists can answer
Newton’s remarks> Another assumption is based on my law --- Hubble’s
law where the red shift increases linearly with the distance.

Newton: In your time, Mr. Hubble, you could only observe objects out
to one hundred parsecs at the most, but the later generations of
physicists were able to see at least two orders of magnitude more than
you could. Could your law behaving linearly at short distances
diverge from this linear relationship at larger distances? The
squared root function comes in mind.

Hubble: Mr. Newton, you are good. If the assumptions that
Chandrasekhar mass being valid, the definition of luminosity, and
Hubble’s law obeying a squared root function are indeed valid, the
observed accelerated expanding universe can be explained without
invoking the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Hilbert: So, these assumptions must be all true before concluding an
accelerated expanding universe. If not, the first law of
thermodynamics would remain preserved.

Self-styled physicists: No, the binary pulsar spelled out the doom
for the conservation of energy.

Newton: That is the only data point. I would question how the
results are interpreted first instead of trashing the first law of
thermodynamics.

Tom: Mr. Newton et al need to study and learn instead of losing their
cool. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists: Well, even if Mr. Einstein is a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar, we would continue to worship him. We love
these groundless speculations. We are still bedazzled by how he can
start with two equations equating zero with zero and pull out the
Lorentz transformation from these. Einsteinian mysticism must
continue, and Voodoo mathematics rules.

College dropout: Goody! Now we can have empty space that expands
itself, branes, multiverse, wormholes, black holes, budding universes,
etc. It suits the minds of college dropouts like ourselves.

Orwell: I told you so. <wink>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

Self-styled physicists: Never mind Mr. Orwell. In the meantime, the
GPS represent the most triumphant prediction of General Relativity.
In order to allow the GPS to function, the satellite time must be in
total synchronization with the ground. That means the clocks on board
the satellite must tick a tiny bit slower to allow the slower ground
clocks to keep up.

Engineers: Gee! This is a myth perpetrated by the self-styled
physicists to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. It is not
the clock that has to be synchronized. The only requirement for the
GPS is to synchronize is the calendar time among the satellites even
if the clocks on board the satellites are different, and even if the
ground clock or the ground calendar time is different. However, it is
much easier to synchronize the satellite clocks to achieve universal
synchronization of satellite calendar time.

College dropouts: Although we don’t understand all that, we have to
believe in the arm-chair designers of the GPS, namely the self-styled
physicists.

Engineers: Hey, look, punks. Any GPS receiver is receiving almanac
information from the satellites at a slow pacing rate of 50 bits per
second. The almanac information contains the position and the
calendar time (relative to all the satellites) of one satellite. It
takes several seconds to complete one record of information. With an
acquisition of four satellites, the GPS receiver can build a set of
four equations with the known positions and calendar times of the
satellites and the unknown position and the unknown calendar time
(relative to the satellites) of the receiver itself. With these four
independent equations, all you have to do is to solve for these 4
unknowns. The calendar time of the ground does not come into play in
determining a person’s position. However, we do provide an accurate
universal time using the good old technique of “at the time of the
beep, the time will be blah blah blah”, and this should not be
extorted to promote the nonsense of General Relativity.

Grade school children: So, engineers don’t take bullshit for answers.

Engineers: That is correct. We cannot afford to take in bullshit.
If so, we will find ourselves out of jobs.

Einstein: Well, I don’t really understand any engineering
applications, but anyhow now I am worshipped as a god --- not bad for
being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Creativity is to know how
to hide your sources, and it pays off. <wink>

A grade school kid: Hey, look, mom! <pointing her finger at Einstein
totally naked> The emperor has no clothes on.

Tom: Keep studying and don’t lose your cool. <shrug>

The grade school kid: Mom, what is Tom talking about?

Mom: <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

Ummm ... why are you inventing statements made by scientists which they
didn't actually say (ie lying) ?

You can live in a fictional universe where they said these things if you
like, but don't expect it to bear any resemblance to the reality inhabited
by everybody else where these scientists didn't say these things.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k3ei2p$71c$1...@news.albasani.net...

===============================================

Umm ... Did Einstein say t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v) and tB-tA  = rAB/(c+v)
and t’A-tB = tB-tA ? Umm Yes he did. Umm Do you believe the dumb

cunt? Umm Yes

you do. Umm

Are you an idiot? Umm Yes you are.

 

Umm, You can live in a fictional universe if you like, but don’t expect it to

bear any resemblance to reality.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[hanson]

Fatso, Big Dog, the <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
- "Professor R?"
"Yes, come in."
[Reset of boring play snipped]
>

Koblee Wublee wrote:
Here is a more interesting and educational play on Relativity:

<snipped by Webb who sniffs & worships Albert's sphincter>
>
Einstein Dingle berry "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ummm ... KW, why are you inventing statements made

hanson wrote:
Webb, your sentiments & worries expressed by you,
Webb, you being an Einstein Dingleberry are fully
understandable. But don't be so over-anxious.
>
So, try if you can, in your fanatical & irritational worship
of Einstein's sphincter, to see that KW simply mocked
your fellow Dingleberry poster "Pig Dog" 's own entries,
which Fatso Pig Dog, the Schweinehund, referred to as
his "Teaching Puzzles" for relativity.
Webb, why are you puzzling & weeping over that?
Webb,, you fanatic, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
>
PS:
-- Webb, you obsessive & possessed poor bastard,
shall I post for you Einstein's OWN words by which
AE describes his own fictional universe that he said
he lives in...
-- Webb, you obsessive & possessed poor bastard,
shall I post for you Einstein's OWN words for you to
see that ----- Einstein was a Relativity denier -------