On Mar 29, 10:59*am, Shubee wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:36 am, YBM wrote:

Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

Given that you don't even understand what synchronization is about
this is doubtfull.

Believing that clocks have to synchronized with light rays

They don't. All you need is something that has the same speed to and
fro. Walking will work.

or even
believing that the Lorentz transformation has to be derived from
Poincaré's relativity postulate is extraordinarily naive.

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

On Mar 29, 11:12*am, Shubee wrote:
Einstein formalized his version of special relativity by exalting a
simple clock synchronization scheme to the status of a law of physics.

Nah, that was the gimme part. Have to find *some* way to synchronize
them without readjusting them between every measurement.

When did I ever insist on such stupidity?

Shubee

Shubee a écrit :
On Mar 29, 2:10 pm, YBM wrote:
Shubee a écrit :

My point is that specifying a particular clock synchronization before
deriving the LT is completely unnecessary.
This is utterly stupid. Without clock synchronization you cannot
even say anything about the "t" coordinate which appears in the
transformations since you haven't defined it...

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Stand side-to-side on an infinitely long ruler with other cretins like
Shubert. (There are so many of them !) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all their noses so that their nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler. Permit each cretin to
define time at his location to be whatever number his nose is pointing
to on the ruler as it moves by. Would you call those individual clock
times synchronized?

It's not an uninteresting way to define a clock, the burden of the
proof, anyway, is on you :
- precise the way numbers are written on the rule
- how does it generalize on a 3D spacial frame ?
- prove that it is coherent

If you could do so, you'd have basically defined a synchronisation
procedure, making your statement "My point is that specifying a
particular clock synchronization before deriving the LT is completely
unnecessary." wrong.

Now tell the cretin that is standing on the ruler
at position x that he will be adding a number f(x) to his clock time
thereby resetting his clock time either forward or backward by a
constant amount.

Then you can get any kind of insignificant result, such as "deriving"
LT from GT...

Do that for each cretin. I'm certain that all the
cretins will respond as you have done, saying, "It can't be done."
"It's a violation of the laws of physics." Well, as I have said
before, you are an idiot.

You still didn't get the point, did you ? I understand why you
snipped the rest of my post.

On Mar 29, 4:47*am, Shubee wrote:
Most relativists are satisfied with the traditional superficial
explanation of relativity, probably because it makes them feel
superior to those who are mystified by it and who can't understand
why it has to be explained in such a senseless manner. The truth is
that most relativists enjoy the hocus pocus mysticism of relativity
for the same reason that a cultist enjoys occult science.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

Its' been a few months - does your way of discussing relativity
address invariants, energy, momentum, or acceleration yet?

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 9:55 am, Shubee wrote:
"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

It also shouldn't be surprising that I understand special relativity
better than Einstein did.

| It wouldn't

there's that 'not' again. Never mind, kook fight.

On Mar 29, 11:02 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Shubee wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:55:04 -0700:

"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

Hi Shubee, interesting that you cite Weinberg.

Precisely he has a section on his textboook on Gravitation and Cosmology
explicitely devoted to criticism of the 'hocus pocus' mysticism by
relativists.

I often notice that book at the local university library when I go
there to look up something. Do you recall the section title?

In "The geometric analogy" Weinberg discredits general relativists by
using terms like "metric", "affine connection", and "curvature".

It seems easy to agree with Weinberg on the ridiculous mismatch in
physics and that all the fundamental forces of nature can't all be
interpreted as curvature.

I know of one experimentalist on this thread who likes to write
"manifold".

It's standard terminology with geometers.

Of course, Weinberg words were not well-received by relativist community,
as explained in "Weinberg as a relativist heretic" on

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

The anger of religious relativists makes perfect sense to me.
Mechanistic philosophy is a deeply held religious belief and Weinberg
has challenged the mechanistic philosophy of "The geometric analogy."

Main point of Weinberg, Feynman, and others physicists is that typical
relativists' explanations are not fundamental.

I couldn't agree more.

Shubee
--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

To Eric Gisse ,

You qualify to stand on the line created for YBM.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...422e20f28f7420

YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.

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

On Mar 29, 5:17*pm, Shubee wrote:
To Eric Gisse ,

You qualify to stand on the line created for YBM.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/5d422e20f28...

YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.

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

Where is the physics, shooby? You keep treating SR like it is a
mathematical exercise and ignore things that are RELEVANT TO PHYSICS
like energy and momentum.

Hell, you still haven't even shown that the usual relativistic
invariants exist.

Shubee a écrit :
To Eric Gisse ,

You qualify to stand on the line created for YBM.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...422e20f28f7420

YBM is standing at point x_0. You qualify to stand at the point x_1.
Your orientation will begin shortly. For the thought experiment, you
will be asked to reset your assigned clock time according to a special
synchronization function that will be given you. This is important:
please don't forget your assigned location coordinate, the real number
x_1. You will need that number to reset your clock.

So now you define it as a "synchronization function", which is only
half a meaningless expression... so much for :

It's easy to understand how clock time can be defined at every point
while not knowing anything about the meaning of synchronization.

Moreover you forgot one small detail :

Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your nose moves equal
distances in equal times on the moving ruler.

How could you define what "equal times" means without defining
how time is measured for this or that, say, "nose", therefore defining a
proper synchronization procedure ?

Given that you failed to address others objections, I'm not really
waiting for you to address this one. Anyway, if you happen in the
future to regain mental sanity you could then try.

On Mar 29, 7:55 am, Shubee wrote:

"Today, it's understood that any reasonably good graduate student
understands general relativity better than Einstein did." - Steven
Weinberg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5H88ISm5o

First of all, forget about Einstein. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar. He had never formulated anything. He should pass into
oblivion because he was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. So,
Professor Weinberg's statement although being very correct is actually
of no consequence. Today, most of the physicists do not understand

** The Einstein filed equations themselves

** How these equations are derived

** Calculus of variations

It is very sad indeed because of the establishment of the Orwelling
educational system where

** MYSTICISOM IS WISDOM

** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY

** LYING IS TEACHING.