Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 20:29 On Jun 9, 5:36 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So, you don't understand SR after all. You dont understand relative simultaneity. You dont understand SR. There is no point to go on discussing.
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 20:31 On Jun 9, 9:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 2:46 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Maxwell's equations can easily be transformed using any of the > > infinite numbers of transforms that explain the null results of the > > MMX but do not satisfy the principle of relativity. One example is > > Larmor's original Lorentz transform that does not satisfy the > > principle of relativity. <shrug> > > However, those transforms do not respect the OTHER experimental > measurements that have been made beyond the MMX. What transformer does not respect what experimental results again?
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 20:36 On Jun 9, 6:14 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Maxwell's equations can easily be transformed using any of the > > infinite numbers of transforms that explain the null results of the > > MMX but do not satisfy the principle of relativity. One example is > > Larmor's original Lorentz transform that does not satisfy the > > principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Lots of transforms don't satisfy the principle of relativity. In fact, only the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity. <shrug> > So what? So, you dont know. > Have I answered your question concerning why the Lorentz transform uniquely > satisfies the principle of relativity, assuming Maxwell? No. I have asked why the principle of relativity is valid. Maxwells equations work just equally well with all the other infinite numbers of transforms that dont satisfy the principle of relativity. I dont want a bullshit answer. Is that too much to ask? > And did you have some point to make by this question? Absolutely.
From: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 20:56 On Jun 9, 9:14 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:965623e5-d8fd-452c-9c4d-6657543a2d1d(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 8, 7:08 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > > >>> Is the Lorentz transform is unique among them > >>> because it satisfies the principle of relativity? > > >> If you accept Maxwell's equations to be correct, then the answer is yes, > >> because Maxwell's equations transform using Lorentz and so by equivalence > >> everything else you can measure must transform in the same way. > > > Maxwell's equations can easily be transformed using any of the > > infinite numbers of transforms that explain the null results of the > > MMX but do not satisfy the principle of relativity. One example is > > Larmor's original Lorentz transform that does not satisfy the > > principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Lots of transforms don't satisfy the principle of relativity. > > So what? > > Have I answered your question concerning why the Lorentz transform uniquely > satisfies the principle of relativity, assuming Maxwell? No... Hint 1 http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > And did you have some point to make by this question? No... Hint 2 http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html Sue...
From: Peter Webb on 9 Jun 2010 23:00
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a931b166-59a2-453a-8c4d-500e424dc61f(a)31g2000prc.googlegroups.com... On Jun 9, 5:36 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So, you don't understand SR after all. You don�t understand relative simultaneity. You don�t understand SR. There is no point to go on discussing. _________________________ Funny, you are responding only to yourself. It was you who said "So, you don't understand SR after all". There is in fact nothing I wrote at all left in the above; having no response you simply snipped every single thing I said. I am of course still waiting for your list of experiments published in peer reviewed journals showing that SR does not accurately model the physics of inertial reference frames. Something like the giant list of experiments I gave you which clearly shows it does. Also, I am waiting your explanation of why particle accelerators all over the world acclerate particles to near light speed and directly measure the relativistic effects predicted by SR if SR is false. And some words on the observed lifetimes of particles created in cosmic ray collisions. And the alternative explanation for why clocks on airplanes age less than clocks not on airplanes. Amongst other things. Seems you have a bit of explaining to do. |