"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Shubee
:
: wrote
: on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:08:04 -0700
: .com:
: On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
: On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
: [...]
:
: Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.
:
: Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.
:
: http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
:
: You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
: the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
: obtaining the Lorentz transformations,
:
: That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
: totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
: understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
: better than to anything related to spacetime.
:
: Shubee
: http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
:
:
: You are correct in that the Lorentz Equation is unphysical.


End of story, then.


: However,

There is no "however".


the transform leads to several physically measureable
: consequences, chief of which is the diffraction gratings
: routinely used by astronomers to measure redshift and
: thereby velocity of objects relative to Earth.

Bull****, diffraction gratings are in no way connected to
the cuckoo malformations.


:
: Galilean transform:
:
: x' = x - vt
: t' = t
:
: w/w0 = 1
: f/f0 = 1 - v/c
:
: Lorentz transform:
:
: x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)


****ing LIAR!
xi = x' / sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
tau = t' * sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
u = 0

On Jun 26, 6:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:08 am, Igor wrote:





On Jun 26, 8:10 am, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:36 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:
It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Of course not. Everything was mathematically justifiable, if poorly
written.

There simply isn't any physics, much less new physics.

And I claim that you are a ****-throwing chimpanzee who evidently
doesn't understand that the Lorentz transformation contains physics.
And of course my paper reveals a new physics. It explains the physics
of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations.

Presently, chimpanzee physicists believe that nonlinear
transformations between inertial frames of reference destroy the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time. The purpose of my paper is
to explain on a high school level why those chimpanzees are confused
about simple things.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please explain to us how a coordinate transformation can contain
physics.

Consider the physical model that was assumed to derive my equations.


There was no physical model used to derive your equations. Your
entire derivation was mathematical. Name one actual PHYSICAL argument
used in your derivation.

On Jun 27, 10:45 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Shubee

wrote
on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:08:04 -0700
.com:





On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations,

That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
better than to anything related to spacetime.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

You are correct in that the Lorentz Equation is unphysical.
However, the transform leads to several physically measureable
consequences, chief of which is the diffraction gratings
routinely used by astronomers to measure redshift and
thereby velocity of objects relative to Earth.


You're quite correct. Transformations can lead to symmetries, which
indeed can enlighten us as to physical principles. A prime example is
in gauge theory. But that still doesn't make the transformations any
more physical.

On Jun 26, 3:08 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, wrote:

On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Sliding rulers is not a physical model.


You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations,

That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
better than to anything related to spacetime.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

On Jun 27, 8:06 am, "Androcles" wrote:
[snip all]

Shut up, Androcles. Go back to whatever you were doing - you were not
missed.

On Jun 27, 12:35 pm, Igor wrote:
On Jun 26, 6:52 pm, Shubee wrote:



On Jun 26, 11:08 am, Igor wrote:

On Jun 26, 8:10 am, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:36 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:
It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Of course not. Everything was mathematically justifiable, if poorly
written.

There simply isn't any physics, much less new physics.

And I claim that you are a ****-throwing chimpanzee who evidently
doesn't understand that the Lorentz transformation contains physics.
And of course my paper reveals a new physics. It explains the physics
of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations.

Presently, chimpanzee physicists believe that nonlinear
transformations between inertial frames of reference destroy the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time. The purpose of my paper is
to explain on a high school level why those chimpanzees are confused
about simple things.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Please explain to us how a coordinate transformation can contain
physics.

Consider the physical model that was assumed to derive my equations.

There was no physical model used to derive your equations. Your
entire derivation was mathematical. Name one actual PHYSICAL argument
used in your derivation.

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.
Please read section 2 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
and then sections 1.1 and 1.2 of http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
and tell me what the difference is between physics and mathematics in
Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Also, take a look at the latest book by Theodore Frankel, The Geometry
of Physics, and tell me where you see any physics in the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Physi...3001823&sr=8-1

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On Jun 27, 7:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

So we should trust that mathematicians know what physics is because
mathematicians say they know what physics is? Why do mathematicians
have a special insight into physics that physicists do not?


Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

On Jun 27, 9:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

So we should trust that mathematicians know what physics is because
mathematicians say they know what physics is? Why do mathematicians
have a special insight into physics that physicists do not?



Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Silly question.

Note the comparison between David Hilbert and Albert Einstein in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0405110v1.pdf
Briefly stated, Einstein was a dullard compared to Hilbert.
And that's the conclusion of the physicists that wrote the paper!

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:36:04 -0000
. com:
On Jun 27, 8:06 am, "Androcles" wrote:
[snip all]

Shut up, Androcles. Go back to whatever you were doing - you were not
missed.


Androcles is, however, correct (FWIW); the Lorentz is
represented using tau and chi, whereas the Galilean uses x'
and t'.

This is not to say the concept is all that useful, of
course, and I rather prefer the forms (x_O, t_O) and
(x_A, t_A) if I'm feeling picky.

It's such a petty thing, the changing of variables. Far
more useful are the results -- the derivation, for example,
of the ability to detect velocity solely by knowing the
reference-line wavelengths (the double sodium D lines will do)
and the observed wavelength.

Galileo's transform simply can't handle that.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics.relativity, Igor

wrote
on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:38:39 -0000
.com:
On Jun 27, 10:45 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Shubee

wrote
on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:08:04 -0700
.com:





On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations,

That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
better than to anything related to spacetime.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

You are correct in that the Lorentz Equation is unphysical.
However, the transform leads to several physically measureable
consequences, chief of which is the diffraction gratings
routinely used by astronomers to measure redshift and
thereby velocity of objects relative to Earth.


You're quite correct. Transformations can lead to symmetries, which
indeed can enlighten us as to physical principles. A prime example is
in gauge theory. But that still doesn't make the transformations any
more physical.


Without verifiable results, it's all math, symbols, and
games with numbers. :-) This is one reason I'm not all
that enthralled with brane/string theory: what are the
observable results?

Not that I have the mathematical sophistication to handle
such, mind you; I can do SR without too much difficulty
but get very lost in the GTR tensors.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com