On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "EricGisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Why is it you call your paper "The Axiomatization of Physics" when you
don't actually write down what your axioms are?


Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...eneralized.htm merely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears. I don't expect that any of my pompous
critics could prove the group structure by doing the actual
calculation directly but if Tom Roberts or any other capable physicist
denies my group structure, then I would be happy to prove that these
transformations form a group when I get some time.

Note: If anyone wants to prove that my inverse doesn't work, then
select any set of constants at random with any arbitrary function and
compute the value of the function on those constants and the inverse
function of the result. Prove you don't get back to where you
started.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...eneralized.htm

Shubee

On Mar 14, 5:22 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:



On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.

On Mar 14, 6:01 pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:22 pm, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:

On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.

All those recursions produce instantaneous cancellations. If you want
to challenge my mathematical competence, why not ask me to explain
whatever mathematical step that you don't understand in
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf ?

Shubee

On Mar 14, 6:31 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:01 pm, wrote:



On Mar 14, 5:22 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:

On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.

All those recursions produce instantaneous cancellations. If you want
to challenge my mathematical competence, why not ask me to explain
whatever mathematical step that you don't understand inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf?

Shubee



BS, show your calculations or go away. Perform T*T^-1.

On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:31 pm, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 14, 6:01 pm, wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:22 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:

On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.

All those recursions produce instantaneous cancellations. If you want
to challenge my mathematical competence, why not ask me to explain
whatever mathematical step that you don't understand inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf?

Shubee

BS, show your calculations or go away. Perform T*T^-1.

He can't. Matrix algebra is merely another way of manipulating
_linear_ equations.

I wonder if he can even list all his axioms...

On Mar 14, 6:53 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, wrote:



On Mar 14, 6:31 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 14, 6:01 pm, wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:22 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 14, 7:45 am, wrote:

On Mar 14, 4:07 am, "Shubee" wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:17 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
Nonlinear transformations means that the
homogenity of space and time is gone.

That is only true in chimpanzee relativity. I certainly don't expect
alpha male chimps to understand that. And it's obvious that you would
have a harder time to learn that. You couldn't even figure out how
Hilbert's sixth problem relates to the axiomatization of physics [0][1]
[2][3].

If you ever evolve to the point of understanding my high school level
formulation titled, The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1: A
Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation [4], you will then discover
your mistake.

Shubee
0.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fd7ad4b9e1b...
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://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

So, , prove that T(T^-1)=I where T is your "nonlinear transform
function and I is the identy matrix.
Put up or shut up.

You make a very reasonable request. Let me give you a hint: To get the
inverse of the nonlinear transformation in exercise 1 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

I don't think that this is correct, this is the caliber of answer that
we get all the time from the likes of Ken Seto. Your "transformation"
contains recursion ("tseta" is a function of "tseta") So please do the
calculations in this thread. Try compositing T with T^-1 , would be
very interesting to see what you get.

All those recursions produce instantaneous cancellations. If you want
to challenge my mathematical competence, why not ask me to explain
whatever mathematical step that you don't understand inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf?

Shubee

BS, show your calculations or go away. Perform T*T^-1.

He can't. Matrix algebra is merely another way of manipulating
_linear_ equations.

I wonder if he can even list all his axioms...



He,he,he. But I am still waiting to see him pull a "2.7 shubee". :-)

integrate or differentiate that is the question!
Tis noble and devine oh the pain its hurts so much!
take a curve any curve and differentiate the two closest points, on a
circle we will call it a tangent no?

On Mar 11, 7:57 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
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?

Listen, fart, i published a work once.

jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:15 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:



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.


What are you jabbering about now? Einstein specified how clocks were to
be set - that's a given.



Your understanding of nonlinear Lorentz transformations is senseless.
Ask Tom Roberts to explain why.


Don't appoint others to defend the things you say, Shooby. Come on out
from behind your Mommy's skirt, little boy - let's hear *you* try to
explain why.


Don't want to come out, Shooby? OK, I'll talk to you through the skirt.

By homogeneity/isotropy of space and time, Einstein meant
homogeneity/isotropy of the measurements of space and time by Inertial
observers - IOW, that the experimental results of an Inertial observers
don't depend on when/where/orientation considerations. However, that
independence *can't* be realized by both of two observers whose
space/time measurements are related non-linearly. If you think
otherwise, then provide what you've already been asked to provide -

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

And what's the latest re. that other wild-goose chase you were sent on -
how's your search for a non-axiomatic Physics theory going?


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