 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Principle of Relativity... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Koobee Wublee... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a44c4ff1-ef5d-44d3-815a-c4c979fde644 at (no spam) z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[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
[/quote]
That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
and Galilean transforms. Its not really the principle of relativity,
howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
negative of b relative to a
[quote]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]
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
addition/subtraction. Lorentz transforms don't have that .. composition is
not simple vector arithmetic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 6:33 pm, "Inertial" 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
That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
and Galilean transforms.
[/quote]
Not directly. 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. I am referring to how Point #1 observes
Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1. You really need to
understand the difference. <shrug>
[quote]Its not really the principle of relativity,
howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
negative of b relative to a
[/quote]
What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict
a satisfaction in the principle of relativity. No bucketfuls of word
salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical
description of the principle of reatlvity.
[quote]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?
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
addition/subtraction.
[/quote]
Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform
satisfying the principle of relativity, it agree with the simple
mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
[quote]Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
[/quote]
The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly
the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug>
You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a
college dropout. <shrug>
[quote]composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
[/quote]
That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written
down, I will take you to the next level. In doing so, the next few
steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz
transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
I can hear Professor Robert’s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle
in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing
so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on
what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence
pretending not to have read my post. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
[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]
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Albertito... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]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
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?
The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
[/quote]
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that
use the same dingleberrism"
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.
[quote]
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| waldofj... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same
stupidities, regardless the forum,
and can be described as entities that
use the same dingleberrism"
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.
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f964d547-3853-4de5-b015-6f88e750174d at (no spam) z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 28, 6:33 pm, "Inertial" 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
That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz
and Galilean transforms.
Not directly. 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.
[/quote]
You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of
observers doesn't help you
[quote]I am referring to how Point #1 observes
Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1.
[/quote]
Which is what LT and GT also describe
[quote]You really need to> understand the difference. <shrug
[/quote]
It is not significant, one is a subset of the other
[quote]Its not really the principle of relativity,
howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is
negative of b relative to a
What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict
a satisfaction in the principle of relativity.
[/quote]
Nope .. just measuring velocities isn't really enough .. unless you're only
talking about the principle of relativity as it applies to velocities :)
[quote]No bucketfuls of word
salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical
description of the principle of reatlvity.
[/quote]
If L is any law of physics, and L(S) is a predicate that is true iff law L
applies in inertial frame S, then we have
L(S) == L(S;')
for all inertial frames S and S;'
[quote]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?
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean
transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity
addition/subtraction.
Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform
satisfying the principle of relativity,
[/quote]
They don't, as there are laws that apply in one frame that do not apply in
another with Galilean transforms.
[quote]it agree with the simple
mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
[/quote]
Not really, no
[quote]Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly
the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug
You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a
college dropout. <shrug
[/quote]
I understand it already, thanks.
[quote]composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written
down, I will take you to the next level.
[/quote]
I can hardly wait
[quote]In doing so, the next few
steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz
transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
[/quote]
I don't really have a choice
[quote]I can hear Professor Robert’s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle
in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing
so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on
what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence
pretending not to have read my post. <shrug
[/quote]
I'm not worried. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inertial wrote:
[...]
Personally, I am always amused at the obvious ego trip this guy gets at the
proverbial act of 'pissing on the skyscraper'.
I don't even know what his point is this time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jbriggs444... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
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
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?
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"
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"
[/quote]
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
[quote]
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
[/quote]
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Albertito... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 1:17 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
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
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?
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"
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"
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
[/quote]
You don't know what is
voltimeter,
neighborhood,
stationary,
magnet,
measure,
voltage
Try again. Study the reason why a moving
magnet with respect to a stationary conductor
produces an electric current in the latter.
And also study the reason why a moving
conductor with respect to a stationary magnet
produces the very electric current in the former.
Those two apparent different effects are
actually one and the same, but by means of
the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are
described following different laws. That's not
how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
[quote]
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"jbriggs444" <jbriggs444 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:682c8f6a-6e92-4e47-87b4-95e565f4d55d at (no spam) b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
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
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?
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"
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"
[/quote]
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and
measure. No voltage.
============================================
That isn't what it means at all.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
You have to know what "relative" means before he can say what relative
means.
[quote]
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
[/quote]
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing
Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to
describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of
thinking about the situation.
==============================================
Yeah, stage magicians do that. It's called "misdirection".
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact,
identical.
If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should
suffice for both cases.
That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for
the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial.
=====================================
Rubbish, the paper is bullshit.
Maxwell's equations work. The
measured voltage
is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity
together with the Lorentz Transform also works.
======================================
Bullshit.
The same measured
values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen
from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is
also true is that experiment matches prediction.
============================================
Go on then, prove this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito wrote on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:34:51 -0700:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
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
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?
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"
[/quote]
This is not the principle of relativity, you are once again wrong
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
*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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 1:03 am, "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
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
[/quote]
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3344
|
On Oct 29, 5:32 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]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 -
[/quote]
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?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:465f6323-a26c-40cc-913b-92ed7fc055e7 at (no spam) j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[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
[/quote]
Wrong again
[quote]Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and
random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
[/quote]
Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of
relativity .. but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is
your confusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:59 am
|
|