"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: 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


Echolalia is contagious :-)
By now you should have realised that Shubert is in fact slightly
more deranged than you, although I have not heard him claim
buses take longer to stop than cars. His statement concerning
the "rights" of mathematicians is worthy of a thread by itself.

On Jun 28, 2:54 pm, Shubee wrote:
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?


The truth is that many elements of relativity are not physical, but
that can be said of any physical theory. But just because they are
not physical, they can still point to physical effects, such as the
bending of light near massive bodies and the precession of perihelion
of planetary orbits.

As far as your derivation goes, name one physical principle upon which
it is based. I have yet to see one. You're also contradicting
yourself when you say you were using Euclidean spaces, when previously
you said you were not using a metric. You can't have it both ways.
So, not only does there appear to be no physical principles involved,
but you've been inconsistent from day one.

On Jun 28, 4:51 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.

Physicists are actually scientists. Maybe you need to go back and
look up that concept. The concept of formal proof, although used on
the level of the math necessary to construct theories, is in the end,
alien to science. Science is instead based on falsification by
observation. All the proof in the universe won't matter if nature
doesn't support your hypotheses. But, for some rather peculiar
reason, you seem to think it can be ALL be reduced to mathematics.
Meanwhile, nature doesn't care what you believe and is laughing in
your face.

On Jun 30, 10:10 am, Igor wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:54 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:51 am, Igor wrote:

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?

The truth is that many elements of relativity are not physical, but
that can be said of any physical theory. But just because they are
not physical, they can still point to physical effects, such as the
bending of light near massive bodies and the precession of perihelion
of planetary orbits.

What does that have to do with my derivation of the Lorentz
transformation? Eric Gisse follows me around like a love-starved
chimpanzee, always begging me with his incessant wining that I need to
derive this and that. That disturbed chimp is obviously ill and
mentally deficient. What's your reason for wanting me to expand my
paper in the direction that you think it ought to go? My derivation is
what it is. Do you really need a lesson on interpreting the Lorentz
equations?

As far as your derivation goes, name one physical principle upon which
it is based. I have yet to see one.

As knowledgeable as you are in physics and not being able to find any
physical assumptions in my paper only proves how good it is.

You're also contradicting yourself when you say you were using
Euclidean spaces, when previously you said you were not using a metric.

I'm sure that I was referring to not presupposing a pseudo-Riemannian
metric in my derivation.

You can't have it both ways.
So, not only does there appear to be no physical principles involved,
but you've been inconsistent from day one.

You sure are eager to find an inconsistency. So eager in fact that
you've successfully manufactured it out of your own imagination.

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

whining not wining.

jem wrote:
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.

So Shooby, are you just going to run scared and not even /try/ to save
face with an excuse?

On Jul 3, 5:12 am, jem wrote:
[...]

So Shooby, are you just going to run scared and not even /try/ to save
face with an excuse?

Shooby will come back in a few days having forgotten everything he was
told.

Ever see "Memento" ?

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:12 am, jem wrote:
[...]


So Shooby, are you just going to run scared and not even /try/ to save
face with an excuse?


Shooby will come back in a few days having forgotten everything he was
told.


Yeah, Shooby's pretty predictable, but let's not forget that it's
quality entertainment like The Shooby Show that makes this channel worth
tuning in to.

Ever see "Memento" ?

Can't say I've heard of it. A movie? With a Shoobyesque character?

On Jul 4, 5:09 am, Jem wrote:
EricGissewrote:
On Jul 3, 5:12 am, jem wrote:
[...]

So Shooby, are you just going to run scared and not even /try/ to save
face with an excuse?

Shooby will come back in a few days having forgotten everything he was
told.

Yeah, Shooby's pretty predictable, but let's not forget that it's
quality entertainment like The Shooby Show that makes this channel worth
tuning in to.

Ever see "Memento" ?

Can't say I've heard of it. A movie? With a Shoobyesque character?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/