On Jun 28, 10:51 am, Igor wrote:
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-Hidequotedt...

- 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.

So what makes special and general relativity physical, and the
Euclidean spaces that I use in my derivation unphysical?

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

On Jun 28, 3:32 am, Shubee wrote:
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?

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?

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 how come Einstein was the one to piece it together?


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?

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?

In other words, you were bull****ting me when you said you figured out
energy and momentum.


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 come you still haven't worked out the invariants?

You were the one saying how damn important they are. How come, shooby?
How come?


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?

Answer the question, shooby. Tell me why you aren't practicing what
you are preaching.


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

I rather continue doing remarkable things.

Poorly reinventing the wheel is not remarkable.


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

On Jun 28, 10:54 am, Shubee wrote:
[...]


So what makes special and general relativity physical, and the
Euclidean spaces that I use in my derivation unphysical?

....because Euclidean space is a poor model of reality.

This is why you are incapable of providing energy-momentum relations
or producing the invariants. You are still working in Euclidean space,
and simply cannot find them.


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

On Jun 28, 8:17 am, Randy Poe wrote:
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.

That's only because physicists aren't as bright as mathematicians.
Physicists spend too much time exalting Einstein, creating myths and
rewriting history, and that makes them less capable of axiomatizing
physics.

(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

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.

(I don't think he ever got real proficiency
at differential geometry).

That's very true. In fact, Einstein never understood that his
characterization of gravity wasn't invariant. He kept arguing
that ..."what characterizes the existence of a gravitational field
from the empirical standpoint is the non-vanishing of the [components
of the affine connection], not the non-vanishing of the [components of
the Riemann tensor]."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...9fd9765dea7b39

Shubee

On Jun 28, 1:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:54 am, Shubee wrote:

So what makes special and general relativity physical, and the
Euclidean spaces that I use in my derivation unphysical?

...because Euclidean space is a poor model of reality.

Every inertial frame of reference in special relativity is a Euclidean
space with clocks attached at each point.

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

On Jun 28, 4:04 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:17 am, Randy Poe wrote:



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.

That's only because physicists aren't as bright as mathematicians.

Another bizarre misreading. But I predicted that, didn't I?

No, that's not "only because, etc." Let me rephrase:

(1a) Acrobats have a perfect right to define what
they consider "a real bicycle" to be, but it won't affect
what bicyclists consider bicycles to be.

[This has nothing to do with the relative intelligence of
acrobats and bicyclists].

(1b) Brain surgeons have a perfect right to define what
they consider "journalism" to be, but it won't affect
what journalists consider journalism to be.

[This has nothing to do with the relative intelligence of brain
surgeons and journalists].

- Randy

Mathematicians are the highest order of human beings on the planet.
They are trained to think and prove theorems. Physicists are
chimpanzees that are trained to revere dominant alpha male
chimpanzees. Like most humans, chimpanzees have clan wars and throw
**** on other chimpanzees. You make the list of the dirtiest and the
smelliest of the ****-throwing chimpanzees:

Eric Gisse
Androcles
Bilge
Bill Hobba
Dirk Van de moortel
YBM
Dono a.k.a.
Sam Wormley
Igor
Randy Poe

On Jun 28, 12:09 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 28, 1:00 pm, wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:54 am, Shubee wrote:

So what makes special and general relativity physical, and the
Euclidean spaces that I use in my derivation unphysical?

...because Euclidean space is a poor model of reality.

Every inertial frame of reference in special relativity is a Euclidean
space with clocks attached at each point.

Not even wrong.

Euclid: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Minkowski: ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

Take a hint from your own goddamn playbook and look at the invariants.


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

On Jun 28, 12:51 pm, Shubee wrote:
Mathematicians are the highest order of human beings on the planet.
They are trained to think and prove theorems. Physicists are
chimpanzees that are trained to revere dominant alpha male
chimpanzees. Like most humans, chimpanzees have clan wars and throw
**** on other chimpanzees. You make the list of the dirtiest and the
smelliest of the ****-throwing chimpanzees:

Ooooh, /SOMEONE/ is bitter he got kicked out of physics grad school.


EricGisse
Androcles
Bilge
Bill Hobba
Dirk Van de moortel
YBM
Dono a.k.a.
Sam Wormley
Igor
Randy Poe

"Shubee" wrote in message
oups.com...
: Mathematicians are the highest order of human beings on the planet.
: They are trained to think and prove theorems. Physicists are
: chimpanzees that are trained to revere dominant alpha male
: chimpanzees. Like most humans, chimpanzees have clan wars and throw
: **** on other chimpanzees. You make the list of the dirtiest and the
: smelliest of the ****-throwing chimpanzees:
:
: Eric Gisse
: Androcles
: Bilge
: Bill Hobba
: Dirk Van de moortel
: YBM
: Dono a.k.a.
: Sam Wormley
: Igor
: Randy Poe

Take a bath, Shubert. You stink and in case you can't see it, you
are engaged in throwing ****, chump.