Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jun 2010 02:21 On Jun 2, 11:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Jun 2, 11:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 12:10 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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? > > Thanks for rereading the above and deciding that it really was what > you wanted to say. <shrug> > Be firm in your looniness! What is anything looniness about the null results of the MMX? > Stand your ground in your imbecility! What is so imbecility in interpreting the null results of the MMX as the following possibilities? ** Only the ballistic theory of light explains so that also satisfies the principle of relativity. ** Abandoning the theory of relativity, there blossom an infinite number of other transformations that also explain so. > You're a hoot. You are indeed a hoot. After challenging yours truly on Lorentz's discovery into an infinite such transforms that do not satisfy the principle of relativity, yours truly have shown you all these transforms. Any reasonable scholars would bow and put their tails between their butts and execute a graceful retreat. As for the self- proclaimed professor Draper, he becomes a symbol of hoot-ship by showing more defiance. <shrug> > > 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> Amen to that as well. <shrug>
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Jun 2010 17:33 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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> The CMBR is a relatively local effect. The earth is moving wrt its 'centre'. The doppler equatio is virtually the same at low speeds for the three theories. >> So give it up! > >In the name of science, I just can't. <shrug> Well, you know that I at least agree with you on one thing. SR is just an aether theory in disguise. At least aether theories would be credible if there was an aether. SR simply doesn't stand up on either logical or scientific grounds. For instance, source independency of light speed requires some kind of absolute spatial reference. >> >Don�t 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> Of course. Galilean relativity was never refuted. >> 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> Holes of 'absolutely nothing' start to appear in space when the WDT is surpassed. At that 'density' threshold, the inverse square starts to break down because fields are quantized. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 4 Jun 2010 19:13 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > Einstein's metric is nothing but a negative area..... one square > subtracted from a smaller square....since c^2 is always larger than v^2 > according to his silly theory Goddamn you are stupid. [...]
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jun 2010 21:10 On 6/4/10 4:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > Einstein's metric is nothing but a negative area..... one square subtracted > from a smaller square....since c^2 is always larger than v^2 according to his > silly theory > > The whole of his religion is based on imaginary properties of negative area and > volume. > > You can't help laughing.... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. Boy Henri, you don't know anything about relativity, do you? Hope you and Seto don't create a startup, rip off a few stooopid investors then declare bankruptcy... Happens all the time. Relativity theory is self consistent and has no contradictions. If fact, there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction of relativity. Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
From: eric gisse on 4 Jun 2010 21:58
Sam Wormley wrote: > On 6/4/10 4:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> Einstein's metric is nothing but a negative area..... one square >> subtracted from a smaller square....since c^2 is always larger than v^2 >> according to his silly theory >> >> The whole of his religion is based on imaginary properties of negative >> area and volume. >> >> You can't help laughing.... >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. > > Boy Henri, you don't know anything about relativity, do you? Hope you > and Seto don't create a startup, rip off a few stooopid investors > then declare bankruptcy... Happens all the time. > > Relativity theory is self consistent and has no contradictions. If > fact, there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction > of relativity. > > Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html The basic problem is that Henri doesn't understand 19th century physics or mathematics. |