Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:36 pm, Shubee wrote:


On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:

It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations of http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

Of course not. Everything was mathematically justifiable, if poorly
written.

There simply isn't any physics, much less new physics.


And I claim that you are a ****-throwing chimpanzee who evidently
doesn't understand that the Lorentz transformation contains physics.
And of course my paper reveals a new physics. It explains the physics
of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations.

Presently, chimpanzee physicists believe that nonlinear
transformations between inertial frames of reference destroy the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time. The purpose of my paper is
to explain on a high school level why those chimpanzees are confused
about simple things.

Well, you've already been shown that your claim that Goofy
Transformations can relate Inertial reference frames is unsupportable,
care to try demonstrating that there exist two reference frames
related by a Goofy Transformation in which space and time are homogeneous?

BTW, I know the answer to that question, I just want to hear the
excuse(s) you come up with to explain your inability to provide the
demonstration.

On Jun 26, 5:41 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:

It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

In which case we'll have to add the Shooby name to the exclusive list
of SPR posters with irrefutable claims. Doesn't it make you feel
proud, Shooby, to be in the company of such profound thinkers as Seto,
Wilson and O'Barr? Congratulations on your achievement.



The strangest thing is that you can occasionally get the ones
mentioned above to show their "derivations" . You can never get Shody
to calculate anything, he just keeps pointing you to his "paper"

On Jun 26, 8:10 am, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 25, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:





On Jun 25, 7:36 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:
It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Of course not. Everything was mathematically justifiable, if poorly
written.

There simply isn't any physics, much less new physics.

And I claim that you are a ****-throwing chimpanzee who evidently
doesn't understand that the Lorentz transformation contains physics.
And of course my paper reveals a new physics. It explains the physics
of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations.

Presently, chimpanzee physicists believe that nonlinear
transformations between inertial frames of reference destroy the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time. The purpose of my paper is
to explain on a high school level why those chimpanzees are confused
about simple things.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please explain to us how a coordinate transformation can contain
physics.

On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations, the physics is in how they are
used.

On Jun 26, 6:22 am, Dono wrote:
[...]

The strangest thing is that you can occasionally get the ones
mentioned above to show their "derivations" . You can never get Shody
to calculate anything, he just keeps pointing you to his "paper"

Just like Seto.

I'm still waiting for Shooby to present his derivation that can
actually support energy and momentum.

On Jun 26, 2:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 26, 6:22 am, Dono wrote:
[...]

The strangest thing is that you can occasionally get the ones
mentioned above to show their "derivations" . You can never get Shody
to calculate anything, he just keeps pointing you to his "paper"

Just like Seto.

I'm still waiting for Shooby to present his derivation that can
actually support energy and momentum.


This is one of those things that have a probability of
exactly ...zero.

On Jun 26, 11:08 am, Igor wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:10 am, Shubee wrote:



On Jun 25, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:36 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:32 pm, Shubee wrote:
It is a principal object in physics today to promote the worship of
the most successful physicists, both living and dead. I believe that
Pentcho Valev has made a valid point.

You believe many things that are at odds with reality.

- Randy

The amount of deification and reverence required to elevate praise,
propaganda and the rewrite of history, all the way up to worship, is a
debatable question. But there is no way to refute the logic and
fundamental equations ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Of course not. Everything was mathematically justifiable, if poorly
written.

There simply isn't any physics, much less new physics.

And I claim that you are a ****-throwing chimpanzee who evidently
doesn't understand that the Lorentz transformation contains physics.
And of course my paper reveals a new physics. It explains the physics
of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations.

Presently, chimpanzee physicists believe that nonlinear
transformations between inertial frames of reference destroy the
homogeneity and isotropy of space and time. The purpose of my paper is
to explain on a high school level why those chimpanzees are confused
about simple things.

Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please explain to us how a coordinate transformation can contain
physics.

Consider the physical model that was assumed to derive my equations.

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

Shubee

On Jun 26, 2:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Please explain to us how a coordinate transformation can contain
physics.

Consider the physical model that was assumed to derive my equations.

Sliding rulers are not physical.


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

Shubee

On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.

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

You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations,

That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
better than to anything related to spacetime.

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Shubee

wrote
on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:08:04 -0700
.com:
On Jun 26, 1:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:10 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Your paper contains ZERO PHYSICS.

Consider the physical model that was assumed in my derivation.

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

You do what I can do in ten minutes in a much cleaner fashion: obtain
the Lorentz transformations. There is not any physics in simply
obtaining the Lorentz transformations,

That's right. The Lorentz transformations as traditionally derived are
totally unphysical and therefore might be applied just as easily to
understanding the dynamics and engineering of making toilets flush
better than to anything related to spacetime.

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


You are correct in that the Lorentz Equation is unphysical.
However, the transform leads to several physically measureable
consequences, chief of which is the diffraction gratings
routinely used by astronomers to measure redshift and
thereby velocity of objects relative to Earth.

Galilean transform:

x' = x - vt
t' = t

w/w0 = 1
f/f0 = 1 - v/c

Lorentz transform:

x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

w/w0 = sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)

The method of deriving these is fairly simple; pulses are
thrown from (0,0), (w0,0), and (0, 1/f0), then calculate:

[1] what x' has to use in order for t' to be 0 on the
observed (w0,0) pulse
[2] what t' has to use in order for x' to be 0 on the
observed (0, 1/f0) pulse

bearing in mind that the light velocity is (c - v) for the Galilean
case, and (c) for the Lorentz case (both are easily provable by
substituting x = ct in the transforms).

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(; ;

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com