 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2004The Magic of Special Relativity Exposed
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message news:fd0fc2fa.0411280404.3bb83278@posting.google.com... > "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in > message news:<41a96b4c@sys13.hou.wt.net>... >> >> Eugene Shubert wrote: >> "Here is a magic derivation of the Lorentz transformation that >> is so baffling that many physicists have dogmatically declared >> that it is impossible." > > The recurrances of the term "magic" suggests you understand > less than you would like to admit. Initially, yes. >> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf > > Your paper still needs work. I will continue improving the paper and exposing the magic of relativity until relativists crap their pants. > 1) You STILL refuse to number the equations, making discussion > of it within newsgroups harder than it should. Is your inexperience with high school mathematics an issue for you or is it something else? > 2) Your language within the paper STILL needs work! I will give as > many obvious examples as I can for the abstract + first page. > > The inane amount of references to magic. It suggets that you are > ignorant in some way regarding mathematics. Rage Bilge calls the math of my paper 'symbol manipulation.' http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c45b45b3.0408092138.1d26efce@posting.google.com > The rambling abstract. The first two paragraphs are not inclusive to > the working definition of an abstract. It's perfectly fine to suggest that relativity is magic and that it's my job to expose the trick. I say in a footnote that if you understand the magic then you understand relativity. > The use of a quote from the American Journal of Physics' editor > tells the reader to "move on, nothing to see here". It says very authoritatively that there's nothing remarkable about deriving the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation. > The third paragraph of your abstract has a gaping hole in it. > Specifically that in a strictly Galilean universe, the Lorentz > transformations do not exist. If the Lorentz transformations do > exist, the universe is NOT Galilean. Starting in a Galilean universe, I can reset clocks thereby modifying the usual Galilean transformation into a Lorentzian transformation. I can also pick any k=1/c^2 that I want. It's magic. > f.ck it. Im stopping at the end of the abstract. That's a logical place to stop. If you don't understand an abstract, why continue? >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote >> http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=npIpd.32646$Qv5.9901@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com >> > Bottom line: your claim that "many physicists have dogmatically >> > declared that it is impossible" is based on your own limitations >> > and inexperience, not any fault of "physicists". >> >> Is it possible or impossible to derive the Lorentz transformation >> from the Galilean transformation? It seems that Tom Roberts is >> beginning to understand my thesis and, therefore, refuses to >> answer my question decisively. >> >> Eugene Shubert > > No. > > This is because what you are doing is slapping on a scaling factor > to the Galilean transformations and calling it a derivation. Euclidean distances are untouched. All that I'm doing is resetting clocks. > Furthermore, your method of doing the "derivation" will not work > with all 3 spatial dimensions - the answers will be wrong. Does it work in one spatial dimension? http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf Eugene Shubert > > "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in > > message news:<41a96b4c@sys13.hou.wt.net>... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Rage Bilge calls the math of my paper 'symbol manipulation.' http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c45b45b3.0408092138.1d26efce@postin g.google.com > > The rambling abstract. The first two paragraphs are not inclusive to > > the working definition of an abstract. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=npIpd.32646$Qv5.9901@newssvr33.new s.prodigy.com > >> > Bottom line: your claim that "many physicists have dogmatically > >> > declared that it is impossible" is based on your own limitations [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Eugene Shubert Your business with one ruler sliding against another might make some sense if you adapt it to one charge moving relative to another. That was the part that Lorentz got right. Kind regards, Sue... http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf >> Eugene Shubert > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Kind regards, > Sue... You are thinking like a physicist. The nature of the material composition of the ruler is not the issue. I am presenting a mathematical derivation. http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3358#3358 Eugene Shubert > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are thinking like a physicist. Dennis McCartht thinks like an engineer. Most of these guys never got a proper relativity course. That makes him your perfect victim ;-) Dirk Vdm >> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Dennis McCarthy thinks like an engineer. Most of these guys never > got a proper relativity course. That makes him your perfect victim ;-) Ya'mean they weren't properly 'indoctrinated'... Engineers are taught to be practical, not esoteric. As for accusing Jahn of being Dennis, where's your proof. Here's their posting headers and they're not even close. ------------------------------------------------------------- Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com! newsswing.news.prodigy.com! prodigy.net! newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com! prodigy.com! news.glorb.com! postnews.google.com! not-for-mail From: djmenck@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: evidence for the existence of the ether Date: 19 Nov 2004 17:23:38 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: <68aae149.0411191723.3967c47c@posting.google.com> References: <20041117090050.21648.00000692@mb-m11.aol.com> <cnfotn$dho@netnews.proxy.lucent.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.132 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100913818 26231 127.0.0.1 (20 Nov 2004 01:23:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com sci.physics.relativity:476632 Verses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com! newssvr13.news.prodigy.com! newsswing.news.prodigy.com! prodigy.net! newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com! prodigy.com! news.glorb.com! newsgate.cistron.nl! feeder.enertel.nl! nntpfeed-01.ops.asmr-01.energis-idc.net! 216.196.110.149.MISMATCH! border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com! nntp.giganews.com! fu-berlin.de! uni-berlin.de! not-for-mail From: "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Lorentz Force alternative (kst) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:01:23 -0500 Lines: 99 Message-ID: <309ponF2sbcrdU1@uni-berlin.de> References: <2202379a.0411200538.5658619a@posting.google.com> X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de RyHv6jCn2Pumea9HsYGpFgGJn+IEx67o1Hf8EAWyM+AbxBHJ9p X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com sci.physics.relativity:476750 Show us the proof! If you cannot, then apolgize. I'm NOT going to hold my breath howver for either. Typical sleazy Dinky... Paul Stowe > >> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ya'mean they weren't properly 'indoctrinated'... Engineers are taught > to be practical, not esoteric. I know, my two sons are studying to become engineers. > As for accusing Jahn of being Dennis, where's your proof. Don't you remember? I asked Dennis to guess how I found out, and as soon as he has guessed that, he can start guessing how I can prove it. There's nothing here for you. Dennis doesn't need your help. > Here's their > posting headers and they're not even close. Of course, they aren't close anymore, you silly old man. As soon as I exposed him, "Suzysewshow" switched to uni-berlin.de. Even an engineer can verify that. Wait, let me guess, you are one of those as well, aren't you? Dirk Vdm > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Eugene Shubert Indeed... If you derivation can't add to the understanding of of the relative motion of charges, the gist of Einstein's 1905 paper, then it is neither special, relativity nor physics. I take some consolation that the branch of physicis is now being regarded as a mathematical game. Kind regards, Sue... >> "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in >> message news:<41a96b4c@sys13.hou.wt.net>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Is your inexperience with high school mathematics an issue for you or > is it something else? That's your trouble. Mathematics is NOT taught in high school. Only symbol manipulation is taught, as a prerequisite to real math. Theorems, lemmas and proof you have never learned. >> 2) Your language within the paper STILL needs work! I will give as >> many obvious examples as I can for the abstract + first page. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rage Bilge calls the math of my paper 'symbol manipulation.' Bilge, for once, is right, it is symbol manipulation and you've admitted pulling sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) from thin air. Bilge does the same, however. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c45b45b3.0408092138.1d26efce@posting.google.com > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's perfectly fine to suggest that relativity is magic and that it's > my job to expose the trick. Already done, old son. You are a day late and dollar shy. The trick was to hide a missing prime in the equation ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) which should have been (at least) ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) but even the preceding ½ was plucked out of thin air. It should have been (t1-t)/(t2/-t). The ray leaves (0,0,0), travels to x' then returns to (0,0,0) in BOTH frames. Hence c = infinity or v = 0. That is how the huckster Einstein perpetrated his fraud. > I say in a footnote that if you understand the magic then you > understand relativity. I say when you understand human nature then you'll understand criminality, fraud and relativity. >> The use of a quote from the American Journal of Physics' editor >> tells the reader to "move on, nothing to see here". > > It says very authoritatively that there's nothing remarkable about > deriving the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation. Mere symbol manipulation, but you pulled sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) out of thin air. That is cause for the Am. J. Phys. editor to reject your paper immediately, to say nothing of the childish approach with reference to magic. He knows his readership will laugh at it. You are not taken seriously. >> The third paragraph of your abstract has a gaping hole in it. >> Specifically that in a strictly Galilean universe, the Lorentz [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the usual Galilean transformation into a Lorentzian transformation. I > can also pick any k=1/c^2 that I want. It's magic. It certainly isn't physics, I'll grant you that. Nor is relativity. >> f.ck it. Im stopping at the end of the abstract. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> > declared that it is impossible" is based on your own limitations >>> > and inexperience, not any fault of "physicists". Roberts is not a scientist. He is a bogus physicist masquerading as a physicist. I've called him out when he said Einstein's statements were "irrelevant verbiage". He knows it, too. Here is the "irrelevant verbiage". "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." and "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c." Androcles. > >> "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in > >> message news:<41a96b4c@sys13.hou.wt.net>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > symbol manipulation is taught, as a prerequisite to real math. > Theorems, lemmas and proof you have never learned. But you have: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html Three proofs biting your ugly a.s off, and you still don't get it :-) Dirk Vdm Androcles: >That's your trouble. Mathematics is NOT taught in high school. Only Well it obviously wasn't taught in your high school. Eugene Shubert: >Rage Bilge calls the math of my paper 'symbol manipulation.' I was tring not to be too negative and was apparently overly generous. The term, ``symbol malfeasance'' would have been more on the mark. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.