Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
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: 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 01:49 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>
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> |