On Mar 10, 11:19 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 10:30 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...l.pdfspeaksfor
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

Let's just agree that the Nobel Laureate thought that the 2005 version
ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfwas too
difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
the current edition.

The Nobel Laureate was forced to be polite and diplomatic.
On this forum we're not forced to be polite or diplomatic, imbecile.
Take your junk and try to sell it in sci.physics.foundations. See
how long it takes before they throw you out - again.

Dirk Vdm

My promo for The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 may be found at
sci.physics.foundations. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...cff497ba35ff23
Where is your informed rebuttal?

"Shubee" wrote in message s.com...
On Mar 10, 11:19 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 10:30 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:10 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 12:27 am, "Pentcho Valev" wrote:

philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of Cambridge will inform the relativity
cult that the problem with signals travelling faster than light is
difficult.

Pentcho,

There is no difficulty reconciling superluminality with modern physics
if we don't mind generalizing special relativity only slightly.

... and if we don't mind your being a mathematician with not the
slightest idea about physics, Eugene Shubert :-)

The
change only requires a simple modification to the relativity
postulate. Can relativists accept a simple tautology? All the laws of
physics may be divided into two categories. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there are
physical laws that aren't. If superluminality exists, then the law of
superluminality most certainly belongs in the second category.

Please note that the full force of the relativity postulate isn't
required to derive everything known experimentally about special
relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Everything Important,http://www.everythingimportant.org/
like
| The Everlasting Gospel
| The revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long
| ages past, is of infinite importance.
|
| High Ranking Revelation
| Revelation of inestimable value from the Old and New Testaments,
| especially the testimony of Jesus.
|
| Midrange Controversy
| This forum is for instruction on subjects of lesser importance:
| The nature of the Godhead, the human nature of Christ, spiritual
| gifts etc.

Dirk Vdm

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...l.pdfspeaksfor
itself. Quote something from there that you find difficult to
understand.

Imbecile.
That piece of junk has been debunked since half a decade.

Dirk Vdm

Idiot. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 is dated January 27,
2007. The old paper at that URL, declared by a Nobel Laureate to be
"posed in a language that is too technical and demanding" has been
updated so that what professional physicists could not understand
before can now be easily understood by high school students.

You always underestimated the average high school
students' ability to recognize utter junk for what it is.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Dirk Vdm

Let's just agree that the Nobel Laureate thought that the 2005 version
ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfwas too
difficult to understand and that you have no grasp on the meaning of
the current edition.

The Nobel Laureate was forced to be polite and diplomatic.
On this forum we're not forced to be polite or diplomatic, imbecile.
Take your junk and try to sell it in sci.physics.foundations. See
how long it takes before they throw you out - again.

Dirk Vdm

My promo for The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 may be found at
sci.physics.foundations. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...cff497ba35ff23
Where is your informed rebuttal?

That you have been proven to be a deluded idiot during the last 5 years.
Since you are highly immune to informed rebuttal, I won't bother helping
you search the archives of sci.physics and schi.physics.relativity :-)
Bye, Shoob.

Dirk Vdm

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Special relativity is now [you know, the 21st century] based in the
land of group theory. General relativity is based in the land of four
dimensional Riemannian geometry. Quantum theory is based in the land
of group theory and Hilbert space. Physics has a very solid
mathematical basis, regardless of whether or not you are ignorant of
it.

Your attempts at working with special relativity are ham-handed and a
fantastic waste of time. I can derive all of special relativity by
digging up the only four dimensional group that is unitary,
orthogonal, orthochronus, and has a finite speed limit. It is called
the Lorentz group - also called SO(1,3). Furthermore, this method gets
me the metric formulation and does it in all four dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group

Very informative.

Yes, your 'formulation' is technically right. But as I have told you
many times before, it presupposes a specific form of the
transformations between frames. It is also inelegant, uninteresting,
and most of all the author is a conceited self-important twit.

On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass. If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

General relativity is also easily axiomatized but since GR is clearly
wrong on a galactic scale [4], its primary value is historical and
satirical, demonstrating a fool's paradise.

Shubee
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
4. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...26c4bd712c18ce

On Mar 10, 6:19 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass. If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

Hilbert's 6th problem is irrelevant to the discussion and I have no
idea why you brought it up.

Your work is wholly unimportant and uninteresting. You don't derive
anything. You postulate the form of a transformation equation, and you
run with it. That isn't axiomatic. It isn't interesting, and it
certainly isn't worth you yelling about it on USENET for 5 years.

You aren't being suppressed, you are being ignored. You will always be
ignored, because you have nothing worth listening to. You have your
head too far up your ass to see the flaws in your 'derivation', much
less see why people aren't interested. You are not educated enough to
know about alternative formulations of relativity, and you are too
conceited to learn.


General relativity is also easily axiomatized but since GR is clearly
wrong on a galactic scale [4], its primary value is historical and
satirical, demonstrating a fool's paradise.

No, Eugene. You are even less familiar with cosmology than you are
special relativity. I will not discuss it with you because I will
simply end up pointing and laughing at your obvious ignorance.

Much like I am now, actually.

Isn't it sad that the only place that will even admit your work exists
outside of your self-administered web forum is this newsgroup? In 5
years, are you still going to be hawking your 'amazing revelation' on
USENET? Is that where you want to be?


Shubee
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
4.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_thread/t...

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.


Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

And don't point - put your proposed transformation right here ---


General relativity is also easily axiomatized but since GR is clearly
wrong on a galactic scale [4], its primary value is historical and
satirical, demonstrating a fool's paradise.

Shubee
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms
4. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...26c4bd712c18ce

On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

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

On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

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

Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
**** about your "work". Because it is ****.

On Mar 11, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

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

Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
**** about your "work". Because it is ****.

Thank you very much. I receive between 1,000 and 2,000 hits per month.
But there is no excuse for your blindness and willful stupidity.
Please understand that not everyone can do high school math so you,
like my other adversaries, are excused from entering a rational debate.

On Mar 11, 6:15 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 11, 6:45 pm, wrote:



On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 11, 7:07 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:50 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Shubee" wrote:
[snip junk]

What the **** are you babbling about anyway? Physics already has an
axiomatic formulation.

Then listen up and try not to be a pompous ass.

Try finding a Physics theory that's not expressed axiomatically, Bozo,

Try reading reference 3 which says, "Unfortunately, quantum field
theory suffers from ultraviolet problems: the field at a point is not
well-defined. To get around this, we introduce the idea of smearing
over a test function to tame the UV divergences which arise even in a
free field theory." Divergences on the very definition of a quantum
field indicate a mathematical failure on meaning.

If you believe that
physics has been axiomatized, then tell me who has solved Hilbert's
sixth problem. [1][2][3]. The axiomatization of special relativity is
easy. The importance ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is the childishly simple result that all the experimentally verified
facts of SR can be derived without postulating a group structure, the
reciprocity principle, the relativity principle or the constancy of
the speed of light. The paper also demonstrates nonlinear versions of
the Lorentz transformations, which proves that the linearity
assumption can not be derived from the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and time, as Einstein mistakenly believed.

then try finding a non-linear coordinate transformation involving space
and time, in which space and time measurements are isotropic and
homogeneous.

Please try to understand that the terms isotropy and homogeneity apply
to geometry, and that in Minkowski space, merely resetting clocks
doesn't change its geometry. You obviously don't know the first
principles of spacetime.

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

Don't you get it? No matter how much you advertise, no one gives a
**** about your "work". Because it is ****.

Thank you very much. I receive between 1,000 and 2,000 hits per month.

Yet you still haven't actually had your "work" published yet. What's
up with that?

But there is no excuse for your blindness and willful stupidity.
Please understand that not everyone can do high school math so you,
like my other adversaries, are excused from entering a rational debate.

Why don't you explain why your derivation is better than Einstein's
derivation, or the modern group theory derivation?