On Mar 16, 6:12 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
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.

No he didn't. You are not only inept, you are also a bad liar.

I strongly expect that most children who are competent in high school
algebra can form the composition of those two functions.

So why do you keep avoiding showing your calculations. I asked you
about 8 times already : show that T*T^-1=I. Put up or shut the ****
up.




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.

So stop your desperate diversions and do it.


If you can't do that yourself, then what are you doing here at
sci.physics.relativity?

Shubee

I am telling you that you are full of ****, this is what I've been
doing. Put up, or shut the **** up.

On Mar 16, 6:12 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
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...sg/b0907efe107...
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



1.Invert the **** that you write at point 1 in this link:

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


Hint for ****head Shubert: only bijective functions have inverse.

2. Get the matrix of the inverse transformation

3. Calculate T*T^-1

On Mar 16, 5:33 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
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.

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

But you didn't answer my question, shooby. Why should anyone care?

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...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.

You were asked what v represents in your transformation equations, and
there isn't any need* to look beyond those equations for the answer.

* other than the need to be evasive when you're asked a question whose
answer you should know, but don't.


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 17, 5:40 am, jem wrote:
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.

You were asked what v represents in your transformation equations, and
there isn't any need* to look beyond those equations for the answer.

* other than the need to be evasive when you're asked a question whose
answer you should know, but don't.



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

I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity. I
also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion. If you
proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3397d03512b7b0

On Mar 17, 1:33 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:40 am, jem wrote:



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.

You were asked what v represents in your transformation equations, and
there isn't any need* to look beyond those equations for the answer.

* other than the need to be evasive when you're asked a question whose
answer you should know, but don't.

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

I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity. I
also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion. If you
proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/803397d0351...



Hey, for once you are correct, your "paper" belongs to chimpanzee
relativity.

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 17, 5:40 am, jem wrote:

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.

You were asked what v represents in your transformation equations, and
there isn't any need* to look beyond those equations for the answer.

* other than the need to be evasive when you're asked a question whose
answer you should know, but don't.




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


I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.

And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).

I
also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

If you
proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?

I have no idea what you think "adds like ordinary velocity" means. In
general, v isn't even a velocity in your equations.


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3397d03512b7b0

On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...eneralized.htm

I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.

And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).

You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used. So exercise 2 still stands.
Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
claimed?

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

If you proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?

I have no idea what you think "adds like ordinary velocity" means. In
general, v isn't even a velocity in your equations.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/803397d0351...

did someone say "variable space" fractally fractionally inclined so
the function varies with permeability and permitivity and not C
squared.

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:00 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

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

I said very clearly that v is a function of the proper velocity.

And you also said v was the "ordinary velocity", which in general, it's
not. In fact the ordinary velocity between two frames may not even be
defined (e.g. when f(x) = x/2 and v = c/2).


You have to follow my definition (eq. 40), not your definition.

How stupid is it to think you can redefine "ordinary velocity"?



I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.


Eq. 3 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

So exercise 2 still stands.
Does my nonlinear group generate an identical physics to Lorentz, as
claimed?

Of course not.


Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.



If you proved the group structure, then you know that v adds like ordinary
velocity does in chimpanzee relativity. Why isn't that good enough?

I have no idea what you think "adds like ordinary velocity" means. In
general, v isn't even a velocity in your equations.


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/803397d0351...