Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Sam Wormley on 29 May 2010 10:52 On 5/29/10 12:28 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Hey, the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years (including a lot > of PhD's and professors) fail to understand the basics. Instead, they > have embraced mysticism and mathemagics.<shrug> > > Examples are ample. > > How the null results of the MMX are misinterpreted by the self- > styled physicists. Hidden is the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object is in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the observer. Affirmed in Newton's laws of motion. Certainly in agreement with the null results of Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent experiments. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: eric gisse on 29 May 2010 15:01 PD wrote: > On May 29, 12:22 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> No, this should be the time for you as a grumpy old man to sit down >> and ask yourself why your grand kids don't come to visit anymore. >> <shrug> > > Gotta love this about you. You are happy to tell me I'm an old man > whether I know it or not, that I have grandkids whether I know it or > not, and that I am mystified whether I know it or not. Huh, forgot I killfiled him. Not that he's saying anything new or interesting, though. I miss the KW who would at least pretend to slug the math (and boy did he pretend hard!), instead we have Androcles 2.0: just as old, just as bitter, but not quite as senile yet.
From: Koobee Wublee on 30 May 2010 01:32 On May 29, 6:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > It is not a need to but what experiment shows. <shrug> > > Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a > prediction of relativity? The MMX. It is what I have been talking about in the past few days in particular. > > Yes, it is. Just go back to the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. It does so if the ballistic theory of light holds. <shrug> Otherwise, both the Voigt and Larmor's Lorentz transform that must reference all observation back to the stationary background of the Aether also explain the null results. <shrug> > > Let's not confuse with completely disproving a theory versus a > > necessary modification to that theory. <shrug> > > > In particular, > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en The Lorentz transform that satisfies the principle of relativity was first derived from Poincare based on Larmor's Lorentz transform. The Lorentz transform as you know of is merely a special case to Larmor's Lorentz transform which does not satisfy the principle of relativity in general. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 30 May 2010 01:36 On May 29, 6:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 12:22 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > No, this should be the time for you as a grumpy old man to sit down > > and ask yourself why your grand kids don't come to visit anymore. > > <shrug> > > Gotta love this about you. Of course, you would love that because I learnt that from you. <shrug> > You are happy to tell me I'm an old man > whether I know it or not, Yes, I am happen to tell you that. You just have to accept it instead of denying reality. <shrug> > that I have grandkids whether I know it or > not, Sounds like you are way too confused to know if you have grand kids or not. Oh, well. I guess it is easy to forget about grand kids when they don't come to visit any more. <shrug> > and that I am mystified whether I know it or not. You are indeed mystified whether you know it or not. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 30 May 2010 01:49
On May 29, 7:52 am, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/29/10 12:28 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Hey, the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years (including a lot > > of PhD's and professors) fail to understand the basics. Instead, they > > have embraced mysticism and mathemagics.<shrug> > > > Examples are ample. > > > How the null results of the MMX are misinterpreted by the self- > > styled physicists. > > Hidden is the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object > is in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of > the observer. Is Sam retarded or just autistic? The MMX has nothing to do with any inertia. <shrug> > Affirmed in Newton's laws of motion. One of the many conclusions into the null results of the MMX is that the Galilean transform actually holds in which the ballistic theory of light must be observed. In that case, electromagnetism must be falsified. Get a grip on your life, Sam. <shrug> > Certainly in agreement with the null results of Michelson-Morley > experiment and subsequent experiments. So, you are now in bed with Androcles, that senile Kibutz rambling Stalinist, and many more who are still living in the times of Michell, Lord Cavendish, and Von Soldner. That would be the advent of electromagnetism. <shrug> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html More nonsense written by self-styled physicists who do not understand the basics. <shrug> |