Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jul 2010 01:08 On Jul 4, 5:40 am, Daryl McCullough wrote: > This is what is completely weird about anti-relativity cranks Notice the word "anti-relativity". So, anyone cannot accept the politically correct version of the party line thinking is labeled as "anti-relativist". This was after losing debates after debates against the ever so but always triumphant Koobee Wublee. Now, the Einstein Dingleberry known as Mr. McCollough is avoiding any more confrontation and choose to just to take cheap shots instead. <shrug> > (and it is a characteristic that is shared by mathematical cranks, > as well): What mathematical cranks? <shrug> > If you give them a completely explicit list of rules > for deriving results in some theory such as SR, the cranks are > of course unable to derive a contradiction. This is just not true. Mr. McCullough himself has even reasoned out this contradiction but just refused to carry forward with it due to peer pressure from other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug> > But rather than taking > that as evidence that the theory is correct, they take it that > your presentation of the theory is *incorrect*. Notice there is no definitive statement to that but a sore loser takes cheap shot at his opponents after the play is over. <shrug> > Basically, there are two different theories: > > SR_crank: the version of SR that is used by cranks to derive a > contradiction > > SR_noncrank: the version of SR that is used by noncranks. That is grossly incorrect. There are an infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy electromagnetism that will also explain the null results of the MXX. > The cranks don't come right out and say it, but by their silence > they seem to agree that SR_noncrank is consistent---they don't even > attempt to derive a contradiction from it. What silence? Yours truly has been telling you that the Lorentz transform is not among the ones that can explain the null results of the MMX in general. Mr. McCullough's gross misrepresentation of the situation qualifies himself as a liar. <shrug> > Instead, they criticize > it on other grounds: (1) It's not what Einstein *REALLY* meant, Who gives a fvck about what Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar meant? After all, Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The critical issues are what the mathematics indicates. The mathematics of the Lorentz transform does indicate this paradox. Only idiots would stand by a hopelessly flawed mathematics model and calling any scholars who point out these flaws as cranks. <shrug> > or > (2) You're cheating by carefully crafting the rules to hide the paradox. On the contrary, it is the Einstein Dingleberries who have been crafting hopelessly desperate and consistently flawed mathematics out in hoping one of them would resolve it through faith. <shrug> > They are so used to dealing with nonsense, that they feel like > anything that is consistent is somehow cheating. The Einstein Dingleberries are grossly confused. The Einstein Dingleberries have been tossing out garbage after garbage hoping one of them would resolve the twins' paradox. That is called dishonest, cheating, and unprofessional. <shrug> > But I can't get > a crank to explain what could possibly be WRONG with using the > consistent SR_noncrank. It has been explained to you many times over. The stupidity in Mr. McCullough's mental reasoning should not be gauged as judgments to true scholars of physics. <shrug> > The only explanation I can come up with for why they reject a > completely consistent theory is that there are certain ways of > reasoning that the crank knows MUST be correct. Of course, the simple reasoning escapes any Einstein Dingleberries. The reason why the nonsense of SR and the Lorentz transform are not accepted by true scholars of physics is that they are wrong, inconsistent, and self-contradictory in creating paradoxes. Of course, any Einstein Dingleberry just cannot possibly comprehend this simple reasoning. <shrug> [Rest of sobbing story snipped] Your truly has had enough of this utter nonsense about bitching his lack of aptitude to other Einstein Dingleberries hoping for sympathy. <shrug> Well, it looks like Mr. McCullough is on his own. The big guns such as professors Roberts or Carlip are not coming to rescue. Only the brainwashed Einstein Dingleberries intoxicated on fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar would attempt to utter nonsense in the hopes of proliferating the nonsense that they do not understand. Among them are high school dropouts such as artful and his many aliases, the ones who know nothing such as Dono, college dropouts such as Gisse, fortune tellers such as Stockbaur and Wormley, and that sobbing self-claimed professor whose own grand kids would not come to visit that asinine personality. Ahahaha... Ahahaha... Ahahaha...
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jul 2010 01:24 On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green wrote: > > Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > > relativistic dynamics? > > In modern physics the essence of SR is summarized thus: all theories of physics > must be locally Lorentz invariant. Ahahaha... Yours truly was recently bitched at by one of these Einstein Dingleberries for using the phrase "essence of SR" or "essence of the Lorentz transform". I am confident that Professor Roberts reads my posts. That is why unconsciously he is picking up my phrases. Ahahaha... > Relativity itself has no dynamics, and it kinematic content is contained in the > above aphorism. Gee! I have learnt a new word "aphorism". > The use of any special or unique inertial frame that is > referenced in the dynamic equations of a theory is inconsistent with local > Lorentz invariance. The above aphorism is called barking up the wrong tree. The Lorentz transform only represents a more general Larmor' transform. Larmor's transform explains the null results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. An absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy Larmor's transform. The Lorentz transform , satisfying the principle of relativity, being a special case to Larmor's transform cannot possibly represent the mathematical model to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > So, for instance, LET violates the above requirement, as does the theory derived > from the preferred-frame postulates Daryl gave. LET can be confusing. It can be based on Larmor's transform which calls out for an absolute frame of reference, or it can be based on the faulty Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of relativity. So, trying to play a chess game with LET is cheating. <shrug> > This is so even though both of > those theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and both of them > have an unobservable preferred frame. Only to the ill-informed. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jul 2010 01:31 - On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that > all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > > enter the fray, KW wrote: > That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > > Eric, addressing colp wrote: > > Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. > > enter the fray, KW wrote: > Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from > Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in > physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in > engagement? <shrug> > > hanson wrote: > > ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, > don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody > is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger > look-alike. So beating like you do [1] on shortchanged, > obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the > laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson Have you bumped into me walking my dog before? Working for Broadcom or Blizzard?
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36 Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR?
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36
Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR? |