On Mar 29, 11:08*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

Says the guy who can't even use the sphere's metric to show that the
area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2.


** *The Einstein filed equations themselves

Says the guy who doesn't understand what tensors, much less tensor
equations, are.


** *How these equations are derived

Says the guy who can't follow the proof of Birkhoff's theorem.


** *Calculus of variations

Says the guy who can't do the simple variation to get the field
equations.


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

** *MYSTICISOM IS WISDOM

** *PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY

** *LYING IS TEACHING.

On Mar 29, 3:28*pm, Shubee wrote:
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
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your 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? 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. 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.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD

On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, PD wrote:
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.

oahaha oahaha

you just postulated in other thread that
two distinct objects in exactly same place
is not synchronizing

maybe you should be able now to explain
to my people which of the walker you
synchronize first

oahahaa, thanks


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

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:
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
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your 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? 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. 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.

Shubee

That doesn't

The infamous Phuckwit Duck says "That does NOT..." What a surprise.

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:



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
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your 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? 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. 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.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD,

You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
the paper, http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:



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
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your 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? 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. 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.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

| PD,

| You didn't grasp my meaning.

PD couldn't grasp a paper bag with candy in it.

On Mar 30, 9:28*am, Shubee wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:24 am, PD wrote:



On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, Shubee wrote:

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
yourself. (There are so many of you!) Let another infinitely long
ruler slide under all your noses so that your 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? 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. 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.

Shubee

That doesn't work so well. Suppose the clock readings at successive
locations on the ruler read 12:18, 12:20, 12:19, 12:23, 12:26, 12:27.
Are those clocks synchronized?

Suppose the clock readings on the ruler are 12:18, 12:21, 12:24,
12:27, 12:30, 12:33, but your own wris****ch reads 12:18, 12:20,
12:22, 12:24, 12:26. Are the clocks on the ruler synchronized?

PD,

You didn't grasp my meaning. It's explained with greater clarity in
the paper,http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee

I've read the paper.
You didn't answer the question.

Shubee wrote on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:47:54 -0700:

On Mar 29, 11:02 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
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?

Shubee, already in the introduction Weinberg explains why he feels
disatisfied with the geometrical approach on GR and decided to take a non-
geometrical approach when writting his own book.

But the specific section was stated just below: "The geometric analogy".
Pag 147 in my book. There Weinberg explains why the geometric
interpretation is a mere analogy which is "not very useful" and warn
readers that experimental results by astronomers are matter, and those
results may be derived without using geometric formulation.

Weinberg also warns to his readers about relativists.

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.

Precisely the failure to geometrize all of physics physics promoted by
Einstein decades before is one of the main arguments by Weinberg.

In a recent work i have also proven that gravity cannot be understood in
geometric terms, except as /analogy/ on certain /approximated/
description of the physics of gravity.

Of course, general relativists cannot even heard about that without panic.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:00:26 +0200:

interpretation is a mere analogy which is "not very useful" and warn
readers that experimental results by astronomers are matter, and those
results may be derived without using geometric formulation.

I mean that experimental results by astronomers are matter in a
experimental based science as physics, and those experimental results may
be derived without using geometric formulation as proven in many places.

The geometric view of gravity as spacetime curvature is not just one of
many myths promoted by relativists but one without experimental basis.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:03:54 +0200:

I mean that experimental results by astronomers are matter in a
experimental based science as physics, and those experimental results
may be derived without using geometric formulation as proven in many
places.

Uff, i mean that experimental results by astronomers are what matters...

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt