Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: whoever on 1 Jun 2010 20:13 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:430b06dligfj1pvbu3dea18tgadtfgc5h3(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >>> >>> >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. <shrug> >>> >>> >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a >>> >prediction of relativity? >>> >>> >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. >>> >>> >> Yes, it is. Just go back to the null results of the MMX. <shrug> >>> >>> >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. >>> >>> Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null >>> result. >> >>No, it doesn't. You do, or so you claim. But relativity doesn't. > > SR says light moves at c throughout the source frame. ...straight BaTh. No .. it comes from observation. I think it more likely your refuted BaTH 'theory' stole it from SR > The whole apparatus is at rest in that frame. Yes it is .. and so balistic and SR and LET predict the same results. That doesn't mak them the same theory, nor dos it mean SR has ballistic light. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 00:21 On Jun 1, 4:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? > > >> >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. <shrug> > > >> >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a > >> >prediction of relativity? > > >> >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. > > >> >> Yes, it is. Just go back to the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > >> >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. > > >> Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. > > >No, it doesn't. You do, or so you claim. But relativity doesn't. > > SR says light moves at c throughout the source frame. ...straight BaTh. The difference of course, is what each of the two says about the speed of light in a frame other than the source frame. But then again, Henri would look at a dog and a cow and say, "See, dog has four legs and a tail. Same as a cow. So the dog's a cow." > > The whole apparatus is at rest in that frame. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jun 2010 01:30 On Jun 1, 8:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. > > No, it doesn't. If light is considered as classical particles that obey the principle of relativity, then it is true that the null results of the MMX can be explained away as so. We have been through this many times over. <shrug> > You do, or so you claim. I am very surprised that a professor or an ex-professor of physics cannot comprehend this issue. <shrug> > But relativity doesn't. Of course, the ballistic theory of light cannot satisfy electromagnetism. To satisfy electromagnetism, there are an infinite numbers of transforms, modified from the Galilean one, that would also predict the null results of the MMX. The first one to do so was the Voigt transform. Despite its simpler form, it is almost completely forgotten among the self-styled physicists today. The next one was Larmor's Lorentz transform in which it is identical to the Lorentz transform as we know of today except one of the two observers must be the stationary background of the Aether. To relate to two observers not necessarily the stationary background of the Aether, two such Larmor's transforms must be correlated. After working with the special case where both observers are moving in parallel against the stationary background of the Aether, Poincare found the math to allow the condition where one of the two observers must be the stationary background. Of course, he did not test that to a more general condition where both observers can move not necessarily in parallel to the stationary background of the Aether. If so, anyone with mere high school algebra background will find Poincare's Lorentz transform or the Lorentz transform as we know of not valid in such a more general case. Thus, none of the transforms that do not satisfy the ballistic theory of light can also satisfy the principle of relativity AS ELECTROMAGNETISM DEMANDS. <shrug> > > .......Einstein's Relativity Einstein was nobody. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> > > ...The religion that worships negative space. GR is a religion that worship a negative mass density in vacuum. The task to do so is utterly silly beyond any level of reasoning, and yet almost all self-styled physicists today are members of this religious belief. <time to throw up> Oh, they can deny so by swapping their wooden idol (negative mass density) with a iron one (negative energy density). The result follows the same stupidity. <shrug> I am certain sometime in the future. Scholars will equate STUPIDITY with the self-styled physicists in the 20th and early 21th centuries. <shrug>
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 07:26 On Jun 2, 12:30 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 8:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. > > > No, it doesn't. > > If light is considered as classical particles that obey the principle > of relativity, then it is true that the null results of the MMX can be > explained away as so. We have been through this many times over. > <shrug> Yes, that is so. However, this does not mean that this explanation is IDENTICAL to the explanation put forward by relativity. Henri's claim was that relativity itself uses the ballistic nature of light in its explanation, and that is a flatly incorrect statement. > > > You do, or so you claim. > > I am very surprised that a professor or an ex-professor of physics > cannot comprehend this issue. <shrug> > > > But relativity doesn't. > > Of course, the ballistic theory of light cannot satisfy > electromagnetism. To satisfy electromagnetism, there are an infinite > numbers of transforms, modified from the Galilean one, that would also > predict the null results of the MMX. Actually, not an infinite number of transforms. The allowed transforms have been characterized, and the list is quite finite. However, which transform is the one that applies in nature is not borne on the backs of the MMX. Multiple experiments are needed to winnow the list down to the appropriate one. > The first one to do so was the > Voigt transform. Despite its simpler form, it is almost completely > forgotten among the self-styled physicists today. The next one was > Larmor's Lorentz transform in which it is identical to the Lorentz > transform as we know of today except one of the two observers must be > the stationary background of the Aether. To relate to two observers > not necessarily the stationary background of the Aether, two such > Larmor's transforms must be correlated. After working with the > special case where both observers are moving in parallel against the > stationary background of the Aether, Poincare found the math to allow > the condition where one of the two observers must be the stationary > background. Of course, he did not test that to a more general > condition where both observers can move not necessarily in parallel to > the stationary background of the Aether. If so, anyone with mere high > school algebra background will find Poincare's Lorentz transform or > the Lorentz transform as we know of not valid in such a more general > case. This is another one of your flatly incorrect claims, which leads to the error in the next sentence. > Thus, none of the transforms that do not satisfy the ballistic > theory of light can also satisfy the principle of relativity AS > ELECTROMAGNETISM DEMANDS. <shrug> > > > > .......Einstein's Relativity > > Einstein was nobody. He was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. > <shrug> > > > > ...The religion that worships negative space. > > GR is a religion that worship a negative mass density in vacuum. The > task to do so is utterly silly beyond any level of reasoning, and yet > almost all self-styled physicists today are members of this religious > belief. <time to throw up> > > Oh, they can deny so by swapping their wooden idol (negative mass > density) with a iron one (negative energy density). The result > follows the same stupidity. <shrug> > > I am certain sometime in the future. Scholars will equate STUPIDITY > with the self-styled physicists in the 20th and early 21th centuries. > <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jun 2010 14:15
On Jun 2, 4:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 12:30 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > If light is considered as classical particles that obey the principle > > of relativity, then it is true that the null results of the MMX can be > > explained away as so. We have been through this many times over. > > <shrug> > > Yes, that is so. However, this does not mean that this explanation is > IDENTICAL to the explanation put forward by relativity. But it is. <shrug> > Henri's claim > was that relativity itself uses the ballistic nature of light in its > explanation, and that is a flatly incorrect statement. Henri is correct. <shrug> > > I am very surprised that a professor or an ex-professor of physics > > cannot comprehend this issue. <shrug> The self-proclaimed professor does not understand relativity. <shrug> > > Of course, the ballistic theory of light cannot satisfy > > electromagnetism. To satisfy electromagnetism, there are an infinite > > numbers of transforms, modified from the Galilean one, that would also > > predict the null results of the MMX. > > Actually, not an infinite number of transforms. The allowed transforms > have been characterized, and the list is quite finite. There are actually an infinite numbers of transformations that would satisfy the null results of the MMX. The Galilean transform with the ballistic theory of light is the only one that also satisfies the principle of relativity. All others including the Voigt, Larmors original Lorentz, and others transforms first pointed out by Lorentz do not. <shrug> > However, which transform is the one that applies in nature is not > borne on the backs of the MMX. Multiple experiments are needed to > winnow the list down to the appropriate one. All of these transforms degenerate into the Galilean at low speeds. So, what experiments are you referring to? > > The first one to do so was the > > Voigt transform. Despite its simpler form, it is almost completely > > forgotten among the self-styled physicists today. The next one was > > Larmor's Lorentz transform in which it is identical to the Lorentz > > transform as we know of today except one of the two observers must be > > the stationary background of the Aether. To relate to two observers > > not necessarily the stationary background of the Aether, two such > > Larmor's transforms must be correlated. After working with the > > special case where both observers are moving in parallel against the > > stationary background of the Aether, Poincare found the math to allow > > the condition where one of the two observers must be the stationary > > background. Of course, he did not test that to a more general > > condition where both observers can move not necessarily in parallel to > > the stationary background of the Aether. If so, anyone with mere high > > school algebra background will find Poincare's Lorentz transform or > > the Lorentz transform as we know of not valid in such a more general > > case. > > This is another one of your flatly incorrect claims, which leads to > the error in the next sentence. The fault is in your inability to comprehend. <shrug> > > Thus, none of the transforms that do not satisfy the ballistic > > theory of light can also satisfy the principle of relativity AS > > ELECTROMAGNETISM DEMANDS. <shrug> > > > GR is a religion that worship a negative mass density in vacuum. The > > task to do so is utterly silly beyond any level of reasoning, and yet > > almost all self-styled physicists today are members of this religious > > belief. <time to throw up> > > > Oh, they can deny so by swapping their wooden idol (negative mass > > density) with a iron one (negative energy density). The result > > follows the same stupidity. <shrug> > > > I am certain sometime in the future. Scholars will equate STUPIDITY > > with the self-styled physicists in the 20th and early 21th centuries. > > <shrug> Amen! |