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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').


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.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

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 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:
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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').

Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.

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...ized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) in http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Shubee


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 15, 3:44 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:



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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').

Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.

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...ized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

hahahhahaha "shubertian physics"

[...]

1x3+0x2+0x1+0=1000 when x=10 is this linear, or a complex polynomial
or both?

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:

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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').


Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.


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...ized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.


Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) in http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
another guess?


Shubee



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 16, 6:14 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:

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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').

Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.

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.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) in http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
another guess?

jem,

I don't have to guess. It's obvious that you don't understand my
interpretation of equation (1) and equation (2) for the toy universe I
call Xi_2.

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

Shubee

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 16, 5:06 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:14 am, jem wrote:



Shubee wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:

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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').

Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.

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...ized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
another guess?

jem,

I don't have to guess. It's obvious that you don't understand my
interpretation of equation (1) and equation (2) for the toy universe I
call Xi_2.

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

Shubee

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



Enough of your BS, calculate T*T^-1.
Are you Ken Seto reicarnated? You seem to have the same DNA (idiotic
theories and inability to calculate anything).

On Mar 16, 5:36 pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:06 pm, "Shubee" wrote:



On Mar 16, 6:14 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:01 am, jem wrote:

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.

The transformation does have a group structure*, but it has no more
significance than that. In particular, Shooby's claim that, for any
function f, the group is "physically indistinguishable" from the Lorentz
Group is, like most of what Shooby says, nonsense.

* It's a bit easier to verify when the last term in the equation for t'
is written as f(x').

Congratulations jem. It sounds like you convinced yourself of the
correctness of the claim in exercise 1. You gave a very good hint.

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...ized.htmmerely
exchange x' with x, t' with t and v with -v. The problem is really
much easier than it appears.

Can you handle this problem, Shooby? Tell us what the constant v
"physically" represents.

Proper velocity u is defined by eq. (3) in The Axiomatization of
Physics - Step 1 and has the clear physical interpretation presented
there. In Shubertian physics, the parameter v is only a derived
quantity, a function of the proper velocity. The ordinary velocity v
is defined by eq. (40) inhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Bzzt! Sorry, Shooby, only when the function f is constant does v
represent the "ordinary velocity" between the reference frames. Got
another guess?

jem,

I don't have to guess. It's obvious that you don't understand my
interpretation of equation (1) and equation (2) for the toy universe I
call Xi_2.

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

Shubee

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

Enough of your BS, calculate T*T^-1.
Are you Ken Seto reicarnated? You seem to have the same DNA (idiotic
theories and inability to calculate anything).

Listen up karandash. Jem already told you that my transformations have
a group structure. Why aren't you attacking him for agreeing with me?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...907efe10700852
I strongly expect that most children who are competent in high school
algebra can form the composition of those two functions. Why don't you
learn high school math and do it yourself? Even simpler, I figure that
it only takes a middle school mathematician to evaluate my function on
a random point and the inverse of the image to test my claim. If you
can't do that yourself, then what are you doing here at
sci.physics.relativity?

Shubee

On Mar 16, 5:12 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

[...]

Why should anyone care about your approach, shooby? Special relativity
is already axiomatic - you add nothing to the theory.

On Mar 16, 6:17 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:12 pm, "Shubee" wrote:

[...]

Why should anyone care about your approach, shooby? Special relativity
is already axiomatic - you add nothing to the theory.

Chimpanzee relativity fosters a few misconceptions and The
Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 fixes them all.

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