Eleaticus wrote:
[snip lies]


(SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals
(c) Eleaticus/Oren C. Webster

[snip 700 lines of trolled garbage]

eleaticus, Oren Webster, is a despised and stooopid troll,
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Crimes.html
"Several crimes against logic and science" Ha ha ha!

Originally trolled across sci.physics sci.physics.relativity
alt.physics sci.math sci.answers alt.answers news.answers

Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus,

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of
multivariable calculus. He has no concept of the Chain Rule in
multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean Transformation goo and
dribble:

t' = t,
x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.

His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
variable springs from a massive emprical stupidity re space and time
are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four coordinates
instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional manifold, and that
the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates.
This is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
(electric and magnetic fields for example).

The transformation law for the differential operators under the
Galilean transformation is given by:

d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
d/dx' = d/dx,
d/dy' = d/dy,
d/dz' = d/dz.

This shows the necessity of introducing a new variable t', since
partial differentiation with respect to t' (constant x', y', z') is a
different operation to partial differentiation with respect to t
(constant x, y, z). The above transformation law is determined by the
Chain Rule:

d/dt' = dt/dt' d/dt + dx/dt' d/dx + dy/dt' d/dy + dz/dt' d/dz,
d/dx' = dt/dx' d/dt + dx/dx' d/dx + dy/dx' d/dy + dz/dx' d/dz,
d/dy' = dt/dy' d/dt + dx/dy' d/dx + dy/dy' d/dy + dz/dy' d/dz,
d/dz' = dt/dz' d/dt + dx/dz' d/dx + dy/dz' d/dy + dz/dz' d/dz.

The presence of the term involving d/dx in the expression for d/dt' is
indicative of the fact that x depends on t' (x', y', z', being held
constant), as can be seen from the fact that the coefficient of d/dx
in the expression for d/dt' is dx/dt'. Because of the now
demonstrated fact that Eleaticus has no formal education in
multivariable calculus, he has managed, somehow, to get it into his
head that the presence of the term involving d/dx in the expression
for d/dt' is indicative of t' depending on x (t, y, z, being held
constant). Because of his stupidty Eleaticus cannot get the correct
transformation law for the differential operators under the Galilean
Transformation, and he cannot determine the invariance or otherwise of
Maxwell's Equations under the Galilean Transformation. The first
advice to Eleaticus is to learn multivariable calculus.

Eleaticus should not pretend that he can understand how to determine
invariance or otherwise of Maxwell's Equations under the Galilean
Transformation, or under the Lorentz Transformation, until he
understands the multivariable calculus which underlies such
considerations. Eleaticus is a loud idiot.

The homogeneous Maxwell equations are invariant under the Galilean
Transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y - v B_z,
E_z' = E_z + v B_y,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y,
B_z' = B_z.

The derivation of these transformation laws was determined using the
transformation laws for the differential operators given above. These
transformation laws have the additional advantage that they determine
the correct transformation for the force law, thus providing further
evidence in favour of the transformation law for the differential
operators, as above.

The inhomogeneous Maxwell equations are also invariant under the
Galilean transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y,
E_z' = E_z,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y + v/c^2 E_z,
B_z' = B_z - v/c^2 E_y,
\rho' = \rho,
J_x' = J_x - v \rho,
J_y' = J_y,
J_z' = J_z.

Note the the transformation laws for the charge density and current
density are as they should be under the Galilean transformation.

Homogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean Transformation,
and inhomogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean
Transformation, but Maxwell's Equations as a whole are NOT invariant
under the Galilean Transformation, since the transformation laws
required for the EM field for the two cases are inconsistent with each
other. The transformation law for the EM field which makes the
homogeneous equations invariant will not also make the inhomogeneous
equations invariant. The transformation law for the EM field which
makes the inhomogeneous equations invariant will not also make the
homogeneous equations invariant.

On the other hand, all of Maxwell's equations are invariant under the
Lorentz Transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = \gamma (E_y - v B_z),
E_z' = \gamma (E_z + v B_y),
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = \gamma (B_y + v/c^2 E_z),
B_z' = \gamma (B_z - v/c^2 E_y),
\rho' = \gamma (\rho - v/c^2 J_x),
J_x' = \gamma (J_x - v \rho),
J_y' = J_y,
J_z' = J_z,

where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

Idiot Oren Webster sees himself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees him this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

Hey, stooopid troll Eleaticus - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24
GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three
rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections
being applied.


Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf