On Jun 27, 9:05 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

So we should trust that mathematicians know what physics is because
mathematicians say they know what physics is? Why do mathematicians
have a special insight into physics that physicists do not?

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

Silly question.

Note the comparison between David Hilbert and Albert Einstein inhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
Briefly stated, Einstein was a dullard compared to Hilbert.

Einstein wasn't as good with the mathematics as Hilbert and such were,
but he was a hell of a lot better at bringing it all together. How
come Einstein was the one to connect the dots, rather than Hilbert,
Poincare, Lorentz, or Minkowski?

And that's the conclusion of the physicists that wrote the paper!

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

How come you still haven't worked out energy and momentum in your
"physical" universe yet?
How come you still haven't worked out the invariants? How many times
did you post quotes from mathematicians like Klein who talked about
the importance of invariants in geometry...?
How come you still haven't shown your method is valid in 3+1
dimensions?

On Jun 27, 10:25 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:05 pm, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 27, 9:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
[...]

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

So we should trust that mathematicians know what physics is because
mathematicians say they know what physics is? Why do mathematicians
have a special insight into physics that physicists do not?

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

Silly question.

Note the comparison between David Hilbert and Albert Einstein
in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0405110v1.pdf
Briefly stated, Einstein was a dullard compared to Hilbert.

Einstein wasn't as good with the mathematics as Hilbert and such were,
but he was a hell of a lot better at bringing it all together. How
come Einstein was the one to connect the dots, rather than Hilbert,
Poincare, Lorentz, or Minkowski?

Einstein desperately wanted to know the answer and hounded many
mathematicians to help him get the answer. The list of tutors for
Einstein includes Marcel Grossmann, David Hilbert, Tullio Levi-Civita,
Hermann Weyl, Felix Klein, Emmy Noether, and a number of other
mathematicians.

And that's the conclusion of the physicists that wrote the paper!

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

How come you still haven't worked out energy and momentum in your
"physical" universe yet?

I have no great surprises about energy and momentum. The next great
addition to my paper will be in computing time dilation for a
traveling twin with my nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation,
demonstrating that nonlinearity is not a factor. Can you do that?

How come you still haven't worked out the invariants?

How come you can't do high school math and compute time dilation with
my nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations?

How many times did you post quotes from mathematicians like
Klein who talked about the importance of invariants in geometry...?

And how come you can't prove that my nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent
transformations are indistinguishable from Lorentz transformations?

How come you still haven't shown your method is valid in 3+1
dimensions?

I rather continue doing remarkable things.

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

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 27, 12:35 pm, Igor wrote:



On Jun 26, 6:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

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-Hidequotedtext-

- 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.

There was no physical model used to derive your equations. Your
entire derivation was mathematical. Name one actual PHYSICAL argument
used in your derivation.

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.
Please read section 2 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
and then sections 1.1 and 1.2 ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
and tell me what the difference is between physics and mathematics in
Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Also, take a look at the latest book by Theodore Frankel, The Geometry
of Physics, and tell me where you see any physics in the book.http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Physi...ond/dp/0521539...

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.

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

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 27, 12:35 pm, Igor wrote:



On Jun 26, 6:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

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-Hidequotedtext-

- 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.

There was no physical model used to derive your equations. Your
entire derivation was mathematical. Name one actual PHYSICAL argument
used in your derivation.

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

And so do nurses, schizophrenics, and the Oxford English
Dictionary.

But none of those "definitions" will actually affect the
only definition of physics that matters: What physicists
choose to study and to recognize as physics.

Just as a non-mathematician could declare that something
is or isn't mathematics, but that won't affect whether or
not people who actually do mathematics consider it so
or are interested in it.

- Randy

On Jun 28, 4:39 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

And so do nurses, schizophrenics, and the Oxford English
Dictionary.

But none of those "definitions" will actually affect the
only definition of physics that matters: What physicists
choose to study and to recognize as physics.

Wow! Your brainwashing has certainly been thorough to somehow believe
that mathematicians can't do physics or that their contributions to
physics are irrelevant. And you seem quite oblivious to the history of
physics also. Physicists Ulrich Majer, Tilman Sauer agree that
Einstein spent 8 years of his life to come up with his unified field
theory of 1923, which they admit is no different than Hilbert's
original 1915 theory.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0405110

Shubee

On Jun 28, 10:02 am, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:39 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

And so do nurses, schizophrenics, and the Oxford English
Dictionary.

But none of those "definitions" will actually affect the
only definition of physics that matters: What physicists
choose to study and to recognize as physics.

Wow! Your brainwashing has certainly been thorough to somehow believe
that mathematicians can't do physics or that their contributions to
physics are irrelevant.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is certainly poor to
glean that statement from anything I said!

- Randy

On Jun 28, 7:08 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:02 am, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 28, 4:39 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

And so do nurses, schizophrenics, and the Oxford English
Dictionary.

But none of those "definitions" will actually affect the
only definition of physics that matters: What physicists
choose to study and to recognize as physics.

Wow! Your brainwashing has certainly been thorough to somehow believe
that mathematicians can't do physics or that their contributions to
physics are irrelevant.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is certainly poor to
glean that statement from anything I said!

- Randy

David Hilbert's philosophy of physics is consistent. "Physics is too
difficult for physicists" and mathematicians have to "take account not
only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in
geometry, of all logically possible theories."

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

On Jun 28, 10:19 am, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:08 am, Randy Poe wrote:



On Jun 28, 10:02 am, Shubee wrote:

On Jun 28, 4:39 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

And so do nurses, schizophrenics, and the Oxford English
Dictionary.

But none of those "definitions" will actually affect the
only definition of physics that matters: What physicists
choose to study and to recognize as physics.

Wow! Your brainwashing has certainly been thorough to somehow believe
that mathematicians can't do physics or that their contributions to
physics are irrelevant.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is certainly poor to
glean that statement from anything I said!

- Randy

David Hilbert's philosophy of physics is consistent. "Physics is too
difficult for physicists" and mathematicians have to "take account not
only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in
geometry, of all logically possible theories."

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

This is addressed to me, but appears to have nothing to
do with anything I said above.

I'll reiterate, not that I have any hope you'll understand
it better the second time:

(1) Mathematicians have a perfect right to define what
they consider physics to be, but it won't affect what
physicists consider physics to be.

(2) Mathematicians have a perfect right to do physics,
and have and do contribute to physics. Nothing in (1)
precludes that. In fact, GR didn't get published till
Einstein found the right mathematical framework to
work it out in, and the right mathematician to help
teach him (I don't think he ever got real proficiency
at differential geometry).

- Randy

On Jun 27, 11:52 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 27, 12:35 pm, Igor wrote:





On Jun 26, 6:52 pm, Shubee wrote:

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-Hidequotedtext-

- 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.

There was no physical model used to derive your equations. Your
entire derivation was mathematical. Name one actual PHYSICAL argument
used in your derivation.

Mathematicians have a right to define physics any way they like.

No they don't. Physics is a science with well-defined concepts and
terminology. If you don't like something about it, you may try to
redefine things, but don't expect people to just sit idly by and not
call you on your nonsense.

Please read section 2 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
and then sections 1.1 and 1.2 ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
and tell me what the difference is between physics and mathematics in
Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

I don't care about Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Hilbert was a
brilliant mathematician. What he thought about physics is irrelevant.

Also, take a look at the latest book by Theodore Frankel, The Geometry
of Physics, and tell me where you see any physics in the book.http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Physi...ond/dp/0521539...

What are you illiterate now as well? The book is titled "Geometry of
Physics", and not "Physics of Geometry". I understand the
difference. Do you?

Trust me. My perspective is legitimate. It comes from what I have
learned from respected mathematicians and not physicists. I learned
differential geometry from Professor Frankel when I was a math student
at UCSD.


Nobody is challenging your perspective. In math, you can run wild
with just about any idea you wish to. Just don't claim that it is
physics when it still nothing but pure mathematics.

Coordinates, functions, and transformations are all mathematical
objects. Just because they can be used in physics, doesn't make them
physical.

On Jun 28, 7:32 am, Shubee wrote:


I have no great surprises about energy and momentum.

So I take it that means you run off and hide when suddendly faced with
applications of real physics.