 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Principle of Relativity... |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Koobee Wublee... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, 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
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]
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
objection. <shrug>
[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
Let’s 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]
Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse
the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz
transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity. It
always depends on an independent frame of reference for any outcome.
Writing the Lorentz transform in its more general form where the
direction of travel does not have to be in parallel with one of the
spatial axes, we have the following. Notice the math involve there
afterwards is merely algebra.
** dt_0 = (dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_02] = d[s_12] + [B_01] (c dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
Where
** dt_i = Time measurement or flow rate at Point #i
** d[s_ij] = Displacement segment vector at Point #j as observed by
#i
** [B_ij] c = Velocity of Point #j as observed by #i
** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the vectors A and B
Then, as a homework assignment, show that the reverse transform
becomes the following.
** dt_1 = (dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_12] = d[s_02] - [B_01] (c dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
The velocity transformation can easily be shown to be the following.
** [B_12] = ([B_02] sqrt(1 – B_01^2) - [B_01] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_01^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
Where
** B_ij c = d[s_ij]/dt_i
The above shows how Point #2 is observed by #1 referenced to #0. The
following shows how Point #1 is observed by #2 referenced to #0.
** [B_21] = ([B_01] sqrt(1 – B_02^2) - [B_02] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_02^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
One can easily show that
** B_12^2 = B_21^2
However, the following is true in general
** [B_12] + [B_21] != 0
Thus, Point #0 must uniquely exist. The above can only equate when
** [B_01] * [B_02] = B_01 B_02, ie. moving in parallel such as the
special case in the Lorentz transform
Lorentz transform is a special case that has misled the self-styled
physicists for over 100 years. The null results of the MMX actually
support the existence of an absolute frame of reference. It is proven
100 years later by a Doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation.
The Aether must exist. The principle of relativity is absolutely
false. It is only relatively true at low speeds. The ever so humble
Koobee Wublee, yours truly, certainly has a lot of fun showing the
fallacy believed in by the self-styled physicists for over 100 years.
<shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:16 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, 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
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.
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
objection. <shrug
[/quote]
You are SO much fun, Kooky Wobbly!
You've really dipped below the horizon, you know that?
[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
Let’s 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?
Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse
the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz
transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity.
[/quote]
Hmmm... The Lorentz transform is not a physical law. Does it need to
satisfy the principle of relativity?
Since the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics retain
their mathematical form when being transformed from one inertial frame
to another, should the Lorentz transform retain its mathematical form
when being transformed from one inertial frame to another? Especially
since the transform itself is a relation between quantities in two
different inertial frames?
Kooky Wobbly, you've gone a little goofball nutty.
[quote] It
always depends on an independent frame of reference for any outcome.
Writing the Lorentz transform in its more general form where the
direction of travel does not have to be in parallel with one of the
spatial axes, we have the following. Notice the math involve there
afterwards is merely algebra.
** dt_0 = (dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_02] = d[s_12] + [B_01] (c dt_1 + [B_01] * d[s_12] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
Where
** dt_i = Time measurement or flow rate at Point #i
** d[s_ij] = Displacement segment vector at Point #j as observed by
#i
** [B_ij] c = Velocity of Point #j as observed by #i
** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the vectors A and B
Then, as a homework assignment, show that the reverse transform
becomes the following.
** dt_1 = (dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / c) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
** d[s_12] = d[s_02] - [B_01] (c dt_0 - [B_01] * d[s_02] / (1 + sqrt
(1 – B_01^2))) / sqrt(1 – B_01^2)
The velocity transformation can easily be shown to be the following.
** [B_12] = ([B_02] sqrt(1 – B_01^2) - [B_01] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_01^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
Where
** B_ij c = d[s_ij]/dt_i
The above shows how Point #2 is observed by #1 referenced to #0. The
following shows how Point #1 is observed by #2 referenced to #0.
** [B_21] = ([B_01] sqrt(1 – B_02^2) - [B_02] (1 - [B_01] * [B_02] /
(1 + sqrt(1 – B_02^2)))) / (1 – [B_01] * [B02])
One can easily show that
** B_12^2 = B_21^2
However, the following is true in general
** [B_12] + [B_21] != 0
Thus, Point #0 must uniquely exist. The above can only equate when
** [B_01] * [B_02] = B_01 B_02, ie. moving in parallel such as the
special case in the Lorentz transform
Lorentz transform is a special case that has misled the self-styled
physicists for over 100 years. The null results of the MMX actually
support the existence of an absolute frame of reference. It is proven
100 years later by a Doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation.
The Aether must exist. The principle of relativity is absolutely
false. It is only relatively true at low speeds. The ever so humble
Koobee Wublee, yours truly, certainly has a lot of fun showing the
fallacy believed in by the self-styled physicists for over 100 years.
shrug[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:17 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
Where
** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1
** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
Let’s 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]
Methinks you've gotten a little attention starved and are looking for
solace in your usual form -- the picking of a fight, usually
instigated by you stating something completely stupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It looks like PD the ranting old man who calls himself a professor had
a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee
to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of
incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics
aside and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the
picture below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
It is no wonder that his grandkids do not come to visit this ranting
and terribly bitter old man anymore. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 3:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It looks like PD the ranting old man who calls himself a professor had
a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee
to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of
incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics
aside
[/quote]
:>) And what "logics" would those be?
[quote]and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the
picture below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
It is no wonder that his grandkids do not come to visit this ranting
and terribly bitter old man anymore. <shrug
[/quote]
Oh, PLEASE tell me how old I am, Kooky Wobbly, and then <shrug> if I
appear to be unaware of my true age.
How are things at the "institute"? http://www.griquas.com/2007/ten/7.jpg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91025f1-250c-4c04-8edb-de9307d94518 at (no spam) a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, 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
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.
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
objection. <shrug
[/quote]
We've all been telling you it is not a definition of the PoR
And noone is worried |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The ranting old man is just bitter that I got PD all figured out. I
have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of
distress in anticipating what I have to come up with to show in
general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the
principle of relativity. The special case where the two frames of
references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving.
Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric
ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more. This
reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They
don't understand physics but only pretend to. They all worship
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy
tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the
principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz
transform from that. Well, now the symmetry is pointed out to be
broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics,
Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history
books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so
mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to
the bone. <shrug>
Being bitter about it is not doing science any good but defending a
failing religion. <shrug> Gee! What a bunch of fvcking morons!
<shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inertial wrote:
[quote]"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91025f1-250c-4c04-8edb-de9307d94518 at (no spam) a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, 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
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.
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is
why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is
falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this
objection. <shrug
We've all been telling you it is not a definition of the PoR
And noone is worried
[/quote]
His mother should be.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:26 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The ranting old man is just bitter that I got PD all figured out. I
have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of
distress in anticipating what I have to come up
[/quote]
I love it when you claim to have things all figured out. It's SO
FUNNY.
[quote]with to show in
general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the
principle of relativity.
[/quote]
What?
[quote] The special case where the two frames of
references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving.
Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric
ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more.
[/quote]
Hmmmm? Whatever gave you the idea that the Lorentz transform is a
physical law or ever was?
[quote]This
reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They
don't understand physics but only pretend to.
[/quote]
Ah, but YOU do, singular that you are. :>)
[quote]They all worship
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy
tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the
principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz
transform from that.
[/quote]
Who said he did it single-handedly? I believe it's called the Lorentz
transform for a reason, not the Einstein transform.
[quote]Well, now the symmetry
[/quote]
WHAT symmetry?
[quote]is pointed out to be
broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics,
[/quote]
Ah, yes, Kooky Wobbly, the True Scholar of Physics.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xEw_wnCvE_0/RjTAC4V1fmI/AAAAAAAABTI/M9ZLwrEI0yI/s400/jerry_lewis_the_nutty_professor_1963.jpg
[quote]Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history
books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so
mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to
the bone. <shrug
[/quote]
Someday, someday, Kooky Wobbly will be vindicated. You'll see. And
you'll all BE SORRY!
[quote]
Being bitter about it is not doing science any good but defending a
failing religion. <shrug> Gee! What a bunch of fvcking morons!
shrug[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hmmm...
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well. I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Hmmm...
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
[/quote]
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
[quote]Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well.
[/quote]
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
[quote] I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug
[/quote]
I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93253d09-13c6-4599-9a32-26372f0c897b at (no spam) d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Hmmm...
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well. I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug
[/quote]
Phuckwit Duck is already psychotic, has been for years.
He wrote:
"I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD " |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"PD" <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a54ffd5-b27a-469a-8657-d7d03ff4eed3 at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Hmmm...
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well.
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
[/quote]
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz
transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A
relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the
velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get
that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say
the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
[/quote]
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
0), you did not raise any objections and ever so stupidly offered that
the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result. You have no
credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are
wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You
are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout
crowds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics
is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
"Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
[/quote]
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity.
<shrug>
[quote]Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the
Lorentz transform as well.
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry
have to do with the principle of relativity?
[/quote]
So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the
symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your
problem. <shrgu>
[quote]I think you need to seek help before
turning psychotic. <shrug
I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission.
[/quote]
Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:11 am
|
|