Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
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!
From: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 14:34 Michelson and Morely did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" taht Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: PD on 2 Jun 2010 16:24 On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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> 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. > > > 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> Why, no, no he's not. <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> > Ah. But then again, the self-styled retired engineer claims to be the only living creature that does 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. Actually, no. As I've just said. <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> > > > 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? > Ah, yes, you're the one that says that relativity has not been tested at high speeds. After all, the MMX is the ONLY experiment that has every been put forward as a test of relativity, right? <shrug> > > > > > 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! Amening yourself now? Worshiping yourself as a deity now?
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jun 2010 17:00 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. ** 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: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 18:45
there are no "null results of M&M," nor are there any photons, if that is interpreted as "massless rocks o'light;" get rid of Minkowski's God-am phase-spactial say-so, and see this. how can a massless particle have polarization & momentum? |