 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Principle of Relativity... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| doug... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 1:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
referencing to Point #1.
You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
observers doesn't help you
It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
[/quote]
We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether
we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated
ignorance of science.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"BURT" <macromitch at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0bb7007f-313b-4b3f-a7c8-850f8ddce913 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 29, 5:32 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
referencing to Point #1.
You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
observers doesn't help you
It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether
we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated
ignorance of science.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Begin to move toward a wall.
Do you set the wall into motion.
[/quote]
No .. you have changed your frame of reference to one in which the wall was
already in motion. So whereas you used to measure the wall as being at rest
relative to you, you now measure it as being in motion relative to you. But
it is yourself that you put in motion, not the wall, and so changed your
personal frame of reference and coordinate system
Every inertial observer will agree that the wall has not changed its motion.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing
acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
[quote]What
space is the wall beginning to move through?
[/quote]
It is not 'beginning' to do anything ... it is still moving through the same
space it always moved through, and is still stationary in the same space it
was always stationary in.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing
acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
[quote]What coordinate system
for this walls motion is there?
[/quote]
The one centered on what is now your current location in which you are now
at rest. Your old location (and the wall) are in motion in that coordinate
system.
Really.. this is just very basic classical physics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aleph... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30/10/2009 01:46, BURT <macromitch at (no spam) yahoo.com> gave it no where near
enough thought and then wrote:
[quote]snip
Begin to move toward a wall. Do you set the wall into motion. What
space is the wall beginning to move through? What coordinate system
for this walls motion is there?
[/quote]
Its funny how you use words, without really understanding what they
mean.
Well done, you!
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 2:49 pm, "Inertial" wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
referencing to Point #1.
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of
relativity ..
[/quote]
Let me ask you again. If I can show ([v_12] + [v_21] != 0), would
that falsify the principle of relativity?
[quote]but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is
your confusion.
[/quote]
If you dont have anything else to contribute, please step aside and
go back to your college-dropout crowd. Stop polluting my thread of
discussions with garbage. OK? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:38 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3344
|
On Oct 30, 9:50 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 2:49 pm, "Inertial" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe
how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse
transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2
referencing to Point #1.
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of
relativity ..
Let me ask you again. If I can show ([v_12] + [v_21] != 0), would
that falsify the principle of relativity?
but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is
your confusion.
If you dont have anything else to contribute, please step aside and
go back to your college-dropout crowd. Stop polluting my thread of
discussions with garbage. OK?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Relativity is the appearence of opposite motion in the aether. The sun
precesses across the sky in the opposite direction than the Earth
rotates.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ahmed Ouahi, Architect... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (1 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDC2yWBSkY&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (2 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJvlZpQ8Fs&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (3 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFL9l7TfOc&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (4 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF7RpyKFwtI&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (5 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NErj5A53mL0&feature=related
High Anxieties - The Mathematics of Chaos (6 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woTvANyolkY&feature=related
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:pan.2009.10.29.20.27.10 at (no spam) canonicalscience.com...
[quote]Albertito wrote on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:34:51 -0700:
On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 **
[v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Letâ?Ts look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point
#0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] â?" [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] â?" [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 ** [v_02]
= Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that use the same dingleberrism"
This is not the principle of relativity, you are once again wrong :-D
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--
as usually understood at the present time-- when applied to moving
bodies, leads to asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be inherent in
the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action
of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends
only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas
the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in
which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if
the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the
neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite
energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor
are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in
motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.
In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in
itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--
assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to
electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by
the electric forces in the former case."
Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle of
Relativity:
"But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor
in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the
magnet"
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to? It is clear that a
correct Principle of relativity would say that magnet is actually moving
in a frame where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there must be
an electric field. So, that phenomenon should be described by the same
equations, because there is symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations
are a load of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load of
crap!
And Juan R., your assertion
"The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for
'low' velocities."
will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody how
idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive. Some guys seem
to be less idiotic once they passed away, as they stay silent,  .
Fortunately, you are in good company. Gullibility and idiotism are not
seldom features of relativists.
I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the realm of
physics a century ago and still remains in it, without any kind of
embarrassment of lucid minds.
*Lucid minds* do not embarrass because understand science and the
theory of relativity.
However, *unlucid minds* as your embarass a lot of :_-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 5:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
[/quote]
So, there is no objections. Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform? Do you think I am bluffing? Does anyone want to call my
bluff? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a
relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative
to a.
[/quote]
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
[quote]Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
[/quote]
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug>
[quote]Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
found a problem with them yet.
Do you think I am bluffing?
No .. but probably wrong
[/quote]
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
[quote]Does anyone want to call my
bluff?
Fine .. show your hand
[/quote]
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity? This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8535fe15-02c6-4b7f-9a81-077ebb971c1e at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 28, 5:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
So, there is no objections.
[/quote]
Noone has indicated there is any problem with that. What does it matter if
they do or not .. you don't need permission ot post.
And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a
relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative
to a.
[quote]Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
[/quote]
If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
[quote]Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
[/quote]
Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
found a problem with them yet.
[quote]Do you think I am bluffing?
[/quote]
No .. but probably wrong
[quote]Does anyone want to call my
bluff?
[/quote]
Fine .. show your hand |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89d872dc-7038-4b19-be3c-7cc21f049c90 at (no spam) v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 31, 9:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of
a
relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b
relative
to a.
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug
Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
found a problem with them yet.
Do you think I am bluffing?
No .. but probably wrong
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
Does anyone want to call my
bluff?
Fine .. show your hand
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
[/quote]
Not at all.
[quote]Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity?
[/quote]
I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that
it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
[quote]This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug
[/quote]
Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing
games. Shame .. it might have been fun |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity?
I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that
it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
[/quote]
Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
[quote]This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug
Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing
games. Shame .. it might have been fun
[/quote]
Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper,
Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know
that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so
proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut
way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense
is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8007cf97-a3dc-4635-8a5d-69f1e969b4b8 at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity?
I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show
that
it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your
mistake.
Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
[/quote]
Come on .. this is getting boring
[quote]This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug
Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just
playing
games. Shame .. it might have been fun
Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper,
Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know
that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so
proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut
way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense
is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
[/quote]
Not really.. I know that whatever you come up with is either you
minudnerstanding of the PoR or just a mistake |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
[/quote]
OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of
relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the
principle of relativity.
[quote]
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:22 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 9:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a
relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative
to a.
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug
[/quote]
Why come down hard? It's simply not the principle of relativity.
What makes you think every foolish nonsense you utter is worth
comment?
[quote]
Now, would the following falsify the
principle of relativity?
** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics.
[/quote]
Actually, only inertial reference frames require that the laws of
physics take the same form. It's known already from classical physics
that they don't respect that rule in noninertial frames. Do catch up.
[quote] If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has
found a problem with them yet.
Do you think I am bluffing?
No .. but probably wrong
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
Does anyone want to call my
bluff?
Fine .. show your hand
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
[/quote]
You overestimate your influence.
[quote]
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
[/quote]
What??
[quote]
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think.
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity? This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want.
However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and
elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each
other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Lets look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0,
#1, and #2.
** [v_12] = [v_02] [v_01]
** [v_21] = [v_01] [v_02]
Where
** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0
** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very
first equation.
Does anyone have any objections?
If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the
principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come
down hard on yours truly. <shrug
All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or
not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no
physics but magics. <shrug
Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz
transform?
It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever
bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player
before. Ahahaha...
Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the
Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and
call my bluff.
Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew
nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw
any stones in that pond.
After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think..
How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not
satisfy the principle of relativity?
I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to
think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that
it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to
engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
This should be a sure bet for
the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform
without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever
so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug
Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing
games. Shame .. it might have been fun
Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper,
Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know
that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so
proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut
way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense
is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
[/quote]
You are insane, you know that, right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:09 am
|
|