Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 20:17 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > Einstein's crappy theory uses BaTh to explain the MMX and to synchronise > clocks but it relies on an absolute spatial reference to justify its P2. Yet when one actually looks at relativity, one find that neither of these things are true. Perhaps you could learn about relativity before telling us what it says? [...]
From: Androcles on 2 Jun 2010 21:22 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:iipd06h4hji5kccvplga5pg7m4enhf8r2p(a)4ax.com... | On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:11:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: | | >On 01.06.2010 00:36, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: | >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:44:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: | | >>> | >>> When you realized that your analysis was dead wrong, | >>> THEN you claimed that "nobody knows what the BaTH predicts for | >>> the Fizeau's experiment". | >>> | >>> Some theory, eh? :-) | >> | >> I don't have a theory of RI yet for the smple reason that the required data is | >> unavailable. | > | >Quite. | >Some theory, who isn't 'yet' able to predict anything for an experiment | >which was performed 159 years ago! :-) | | Well maybe assistant professor Andersen can tell me all about the phase lag | that occurs when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom. | | That's what I need to know to formulate a BaTh theory on RI. That's pretty easy to do. You could start up that old VW camper van and run the engine so hot that the exhaust manifold glows visibly red light in the dark, then see how long it takes for the last iron atom to cool to outside air temperature. Or you could put a cup of coffee in the microwave for two minutes and see how long it takes to radiate its heat back down to room temperature. That's the lag.
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 00:44 On Jun 2, 4:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 1:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > But it is. <shrug> > > > But it's not. <shrug> Explicitly so. <shrug> > > It's a remarkable statement of stupidity on your part that if two > > DISTINCT models make the same prediction in a single experiment, then > > this means that the two models are not distinct after all. > > The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the > following facts. > > ** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of > relativity. > > ** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the > MMX. > > ** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity. Ah, so let's capture the above three comments once again, since they are precious. The null results of the MMX show the principle of relativity to be false. Therefore any theory that satisfies the principle of relativity cannot be consistent with the null results of the MMX, and yet you say the ballistic theory does just that. Lovely. You are not only a loon, but you are an egomaniacal loon who can no longer put together three sentences that make consistent sense. Tell me again why you are surprised at being mocked with every post you make. > > ** Electromagnetism disproves the principle of relativity because of > the Aether. > > That does not mean the ballistic theory of light is correct. <shrug> > > > > Henri is correct. <shrug> > > > Why, no, no he's not. <shrug> > > He is correct in stating the first two points above. It is all in the > mathematics. Perhaps, you need to go back studying them after being > unemployed. <shrug> > > > > The self-proclaimed professor does not understand relativity. <shrug> > > > Ah. But then again, the self-styled retired engineer claims to be the > > only living creature that does understand relativity. <shrug> > > Your truly cannot claim to be the only one who understand relativity. > You see. Relativity has been around for more than 400 years. To > claim so would be a lie. <shrug> > > However, yours truly can rightly claim to be the only one after > Riemann to understand the curvature business well. You know. Metric > not a tensor, the field equations yield many solutions (each one > unique and independent of the others), etc. <applaud> > > > > There are actually an infinite numbers of transformations that would > > > satisfy the null results of the MMX. > > > Actually, no. As I've just said. <shrug> > > ** dt = k (dt v dx / c^2) > ** dx = k (dx v dt) > ** dy = k sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) dy > ** dz = k sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) dz > > Any value of k (except null) will satisfy the null results of the MMX > and falsify the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Dont credit me on that one. Lorentz was the first to discover all > these infinite solutions to explain the null results of the MMX other > than the Galilean transform of course. <shrug> > > > > 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> > > > So let's see, you've listed three. Is three an infinite number? No. > > <shrug> > > You must be an idiot. If k == 1, you have the Voigt transform. If k > = sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2), you end up with Larmors Lorentz transform > where either (dt, dx, dy, dz) or (dt, dx, dy, dz) frame must be > the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug> > > > > All of these transforms degenerate into the Galilean at low speeds. > > > So, what experiments are you referring to? > > > Ah, yes, you're the one that says that relativity has not been tested > > at high speeds. > > That is correct. <shrug> > > > After all, the MMX is the ONLY experiment that has > > every been put forward as a test of relativity, right? <shrug> > > No, the MMX was designed to measure the drift speed of the earth > assuming the Galilean transform holds and the ballistic theory of > light invalid. <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! > > Amen, again! > > > > Amening yourself now? Worshiping yourself as a deity now? > > It would be very silly to worship myself as a deity. However, you can > start to worship yours truly as a deity if you like instead of worship > Einstein that nitwit, the plagiarist, and that liar. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jun 2010 01:10 On Jun 2, 9:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:00 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the > > following facts. > > > ** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of > > relativity. > > > ** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the > > MMX. > > > ** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity. > > Ah, so let's capture the above three comments once again, since they > are precious. Please feel free to bookmark them. It would save me a lot of time. Thanks. > The null results of the MMX show the principle of relativity to be > false. Yes, if you have already falsified the ballistic theory of light. <shrug> > Therefore any theory that satisfies the principle of relativity > cannot be consistent with the null results of the MMX, and yet you say > the ballistic theory does just that. Well, I have also said the only theory that satisfies the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity is the ballistic theory of light. Your misunderstanding due to your senile mentality is showing. Does that really hurt your when grandkids don't come to visit anymore? > Lovely. You are not only a loon, but you are an egomaniacal loon who > can no longer put together three sentences that make consistent > sense. You are creating your own reality as you go along. You are getting whacko now. It is time to give it a rest. [the rest of psychotic nonsense snipped from "professor Draper"] Even a psycho can be all he wants to be in cyberspace. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jun 2010 01:17
On Jun 2, 4:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee > >The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the > >following facts. > > >** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of > >relativity. > > >** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the > >MMX. > > >** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity. > > >** Electromagnetism disproves the principle of relativity because of > >the Aether. > > >That does not mean the ballistic theory of light is correct. <shrug> > > >> > Henri is correct. <shrug> > > >Your truly cannot claim to be the only one who understand relativity. > >You see. Relativity has been around for more than 400 years. To > >claim so would be a lie. <shrug> > > >However, yours truly can rightly claim to be the only one after > >Riemann to understand the curvature business well. You know. Metric > >not a tensor, the field equations yield many solutions (each one > >unique and independent of the others), etc. <applaud> > > > There are actually an infinite numbers of transformations that would > > satisfy the null results of the MMX. > > >** dt = k (dt v dx / c^2) > >** dx = k (dx v dt) > >** dy = k sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) dy > >** dz = k sqrt(1 v^2 / c^2) dz > > >Any value of k (except null) will satisfy the null results of the MMX > >and falsify the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > There is no evidence of an aether or any 'contractions'. Yes, there is. Look up on the Doppler shift of CMBR. They found it. The team that found it should be rewarded with a Nobel Prize whether they deny it or not. I believe that is how the Nobel Prize works. <shrug> > So give it up! In the name of science, I just can't. <shrug> > >Dont credit me on that one. Lorentz was the first to discover all > >these infinite solutions to explain the null results of the MMX other > >than the Galilean transform of course. <shrug> > > .......Einstein's Relativity... Relativity does not belong to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Relativity was already characterized more than 300 years before Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was born. <shrug> > The religion that worships negative space. Among that, it is also a religion that worships emptiness --- absolute nothing. Good grief. It sounds like you also worship that nothingness. <shrug> |