Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400166 > unrolled thread

Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good).

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-29 14:47 +0000
    Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-29 16:28 +0100
      Re: Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good)) Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-11-29 17:34 +0000
        Re: Lorentz transformations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-29 19:07 +0100
      Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-30 05:04 +1100
        Re: Lorentz transformations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-29 10:29 -0800
          Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 21:03 +0000
            Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 03:41 +1100
              Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 11:17 -0600
                Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:44 +1100
                  Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0600
              Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 22:08 +0000
                Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 21:07 +1100
                  Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 16:00 +0000
              Re: Lorentz transformations Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-01 20:33 +0100
                Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 05:29 +1100
        Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 12:36 -0600
          Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 02:56 +1100
            Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:36 -0600
              Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:43 +1100
                Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0600
                  Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 20:54 +1100
                    Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:41 -0600
                      Re: Lorentz transformations "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:11 -0800
                  Re: Lorentz transformations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
                Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 22:18 +0000
                  Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 21:05 +1100
                    Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 15:51 +0000
                      Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-02 05:44 +1100
                        Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:21 -0600
                          Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 05:23 +1100
                            Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:27 -0600
                              Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-04 11:03 +1100
                                Re: Lorentz transformations benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-03 21:21 -0500
                                  Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-05 06:41 +1100
                                    Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-05 01:14 +0000
                        Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:23 -0600

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#400382 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 11/30/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 01/12/16 03:36, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 9:56 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
>>>>> The postulate states that light speed is independent of source speed.
>>>>> That directly assumes the existence of the absolute aether.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. That second sentence is the nonsense you added.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, there is little hope for you and your cretinist colleagues.
>>>
>>> I propose a theory based on the postulate that drinking seawater will
>>> destroy a person's kidneys.
>>> Does that mean I just removed all the salt from the ocean by making it
>>> superfluous?
>>> ...Congratulations Bodkin! ....you have invented instant desalination!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Some days it's apparent that you are posting after too much to drink.
>
> Bodkin, my statement is no sillier than Einstein's...but you are too
> indoctrinated to realize that.

Oh yes, your statement was quite a bit sillier than Einstein's.

> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.

So clear that Einstein disavowed the aether explicitly.

> In fact the only difference between SR and Poincare's upgrade was that
> Einstein replaced the aether's vital function with a postulate and
> therefore had no need to mention it at all.

Oh, he mentioned it. He said it was ruled out.

This is the depth of the silliness of your statement.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400432 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 01/12/16 08:49, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote:

>>>
>>> Some days it's apparent that you are posting after too much to drink.
>>
>> Bodkin, my statement is no sillier than Einstein's...but you are too
>> indoctrinated to realize that.
>
> Oh yes, your statement was quite a bit sillier than Einstein's.

Einstein's whole theory is one big silly joke.

>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
>
> So clear that Einstein disavowed the aether explicitly.

HAHAHAHAHH! Einstein said it was 'SUPERFLUOUS' that's all. He didn't say 
it did not exist. In fact he said later his theory would collapse if 
there was no aether.


>> In fact the only difference between SR and Poincare's upgrade was that
>> Einstein replaced the aether's vital function with a postulate and
>> therefore had no need to mention it at all.
>
> Oh, he mentioned it. He said it was ruled out.

He did not

> This is the depth of the silliness of your statement.

Don't lie Bodkin.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400484 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 12/1/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote:
> On 01/12/16 08:49, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Some days it's apparent that you are posting after too much to drink.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, my statement is no sillier than Einstein's...but you are too
>>> indoctrinated to realize that.
>>
>> Oh yes, your statement was quite a bit sillier than Einstein's.
>
> Einstein's whole theory is one big silly joke.
>
>>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
>>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
>>
>> So clear that Einstein disavowed the aether explicitly.
>
> HAHAHAHAHH! Einstein said it was 'SUPERFLUOUS' that's all. He didn't say
> it did not exist. In fact he said later his theory would collapse if
> there was no aether.
>
>
>>> In fact the only difference between SR and Poincare's upgrade was that
>>> Einstein replaced the aether's vital function with a postulate and
>>> therefore had no need to mention it at all.
>>
>> Oh, he mentioned it. He said it was ruled out.
>
> He did not

Yes, he did. The description of the aether that was everyone's 
collective understanding is precisely what he said was ruled out in the 
very same lecture you referred to above where he said an aether was 
important to his theory. Go ahead and READ it.

>
>> This is the depth of the silliness of your statement.
>
> Don't lie Bodkin.
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400491 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:41:41 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 3:54 AM, HGW wrote:
> > On 01/12/16 08:49, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/30/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Some days it's apparent that you are posting after too much to drink.
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, my statement is no sillier than Einstein's...but you are too
> >>> indoctrinated to realize that.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, your statement was quite a bit sillier than Einstein's.
> >
> > Einstein's whole theory is one big silly joke.
> >
> >>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
> >>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
> >>
> >> So clear that Einstein disavowed the aether explicitly.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHH! Einstein said it was 'SUPERFLUOUS' that's all. He didn't say
> > it did not exist. In fact he said later his theory would collapse if
> > there was no aether.
> >
> >
> >>> In fact the only difference between SR and Poincare's upgrade was that
> >>> Einstein replaced the aether's vital function with a postulate and
> >>> therefore had no need to mention it at all.
> >>
> >> Oh, he mentioned it. He said it was ruled out.
> >
> > He did not
> 
> Yes, he did. The description of the aether that was everyone's 
> collective understanding is precisely what he said was ruled out in the 
> very same lecture you referred to above where he said an aether was 
> important to his theory. Go ahead and READ it.


Aether is what is inside the event horizon of a Black hole.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/publication/228626249/figure/fig1/AS:301891599781898@1448987974663/FIGURE-1-The-closed-double-looped-helical-trajectory-of-the-electron-model's.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400459 — Re: Lorentz transformations

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 11/30/2016 3:43 PM, HGW wrote:
>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
> 
> So clear that Einstein disavowed the aether explicitly.

That is so much exaggerated as to be wrong.  In fact, the record shows that 
Einstein never “disavowed” the aether idea as such, and that general 
relativity even rekindled his belief in the existence of an aether inasfar 
as that he thought that the curved spacetime could be it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether>

>> In fact the only difference between SR and Poincare's upgrade was that
>> Einstein replaced the aether's vital function with a postulate and
>> therefore had no need to mention it at all.
> 
> Oh, he mentioned it. He said it was ruled out.

No, he said essentially that even the best experiments could not detect it 
until then (with non-contradictory results), and that therefore he will 
proceed in his paper without assuming that it exists.  (With which he got 
the same as and better results than Lorentz.)

,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
|  
| […]
| 
| Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover 
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
IOW: the “luminiferous (a)ether” -----------'

| phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties 
| corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.  They suggest rather that, as 
| has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same 
| laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of 
| reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise
| this conjecture ([…] the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a 
       ^^^^^^^^^^
| postulate, and also introduce another postulate, […] namely, that light is 
| always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is 
| independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400386 — Re: Lorentz transformations

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's 
>postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz. 

No, Ralph, the source independence is caused by how velocities combine,
they don't combine v=v1+v2 but rather v=(v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2). Plug in
c for either v1 or v2 and you'll get v=c.  Meaning the source moving at
v1 will see a photon leave it at v2=c, but will have a velocity v=c as
measured by the destination observer upon arrival.  No aether needed,
just as Einstein said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400433 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 01/12/16 09:18, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>
>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
>
> No, Ralph, the source independence is caused by how velocities combine,
> they don't combine v=v1+v2 but rather v=(v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2). Plug in
> c for either v1 or v2 and you'll get v=c.  Meaning the source moving at
> v1 will see a photon leave it at v2=c, but will have a velocity v=c as
> measured by the destination observer upon arrival.  No aether needed,
> just as Einstein said.

Idiot! the velocity addition law is just a  variation of his second 
postulate.


Let v = light speed = c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400472 — Re: Lorentz transformations

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 01/12/16 09:18, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> A postulate is neither evidence nor a cause. The cause of Einstein's
>>> postulated source independence was quite clearly the aether of Lorentz.
>>
>> No, Ralph, the source independence is caused by how velocities combine,
>> they don't combine v=v1+v2 but rather v=(v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2). Plug in
>> c for either v1 or v2 and you'll get v=c.  Meaning the source moving at
>> v1 will see a photon leave it at v2=c, but will have a velocity v=c as
>> measured by the destination observer upon arrival.  No aether needed,
>> just as Einstein said.

>Idiot! the velocity addition law is just a  variation of his second 
>postulate.


>Let v = light speed = c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)

Yes, you ran it backwards so it only shows how the speed of light is c in
all frames given the second postulate, it's not actually proof of the second
postulate.  But note that you were able to write that (and Einstein write
the forward version) with no mention of any aether, which was my point.
Einstein was correct when he stated the aether was unnecessary.  So your
claim of "The cause of Einstein's postulated source independence was quite
clearly the aether of Lorentz" is quite clearly false.  The cause is just
math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400502 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 02/12/16 02:51, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:

>
>> Idiot! the velocity addition law is just a  variation of his second
>> postulate.
>
>
>> Let v = light speed = c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)
>
> Yes, you ran it backwards so it only shows how the speed of light is c in
> all frames given the second postulate, it's not actually proof of the second
> postulate.  But note that you were able to write that (and Einstein write
> the forward version) with no mention of any aether, which was my point.
> Einstein was correct when he stated the aether was unnecessary.  So your
> claim of "The cause of Einstein's postulated source independence was quite
> clearly the aether of Lorentz" is quite clearly false.  The cause is just
> math.

Michael Moron-y, one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that 
Einstein's fairies were solely responsible for unifying all light speeds 
in the whole universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400505 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 12/1/2016 12:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>
> Michael Moron-y, one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that
> Einstein's fairies were solely responsible for unifying all light speeds
> in the whole universe.
>

Einstein's fairies (what you call them) are otherwise known as the 
structure of spacetime, and there is no real unification involved.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400605 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 02/12/16 06:21, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 12:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Michael Moron-y, one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that
>> Einstein's fairies were solely responsible for unifying all light speeds
>> in the whole universe.
>>
>
> Einstein's fairies (what you call them) are otherwise known as the
> structure of spacetime, and there is no real unification involved.

Bodkin, were your parents incredibly stupid, too?

Einstein's 'spacetime' was built on the assumption that all light speeds 
were already unified (by the fairies, apparently).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400607 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 12/2/2016 12:23 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 02/12/16 06:21, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/1/2016 12:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Michael Moron-y, one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that
>>> Einstein's fairies were solely responsible for unifying all light speeds
>>> in the whole universe.
>>>
>>
>> Einstein's fairies (what you call them) are otherwise known as the
>> structure of spacetime, and there is no real unification involved.
>
> Bodkin, were your parents incredibly stupid, too?
>
> Einstein's 'spacetime' was built on the assumption that all light speeds
> were already unified (by the fairies, apparently).
>

If something is already done at the outset, there is no need for the 
action to take place, is there?
But while you're fretting about spacetime, why don't you dither and 
writhe about who took the trouble to order the integers? Was it some 
mathematician's fairies?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400730 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 03/12/16 05:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/2/2016 12:23 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
hem) are otherwise known as the
>>> structure of spacetime, and there is no real unification involved.
>>
>> Bodkin, were your parents incredibly stupid, too?
>>
>> Einstein's 'spacetime' was built on the assumption that all light speeds
>> were already unified (by the fairies, apparently).
>>
>
> If something is already done at the outset, there is no need for the
> action to take place, is there?
> But while you're fretting about spacetime, why don't you dither and
> writhe about who took the trouble to order the integers? Was it some
> mathematician's fairies?

HAHaHHA! You say the funniest things....
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400735 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 12/3/2016 7:03 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 03/12/16 05:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/2/2016 12:23 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> hem) are otherwise known as the
>>>> structure of spacetime, and there is no real unification involved.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, were your parents incredibly stupid, too?
>>>
>>> Einstein's 'spacetime' was built on the assumption that all light speeds
>>> were already unified (by the fairies, apparently).
>>>
>>
>> If something is already done at the outset, there is no need for the
>> action to take place, is there?
>> But while you're fretting about spacetime, why don't you dither and
>> writhe about who took the trouble to order the integers? Was it some
>> mathematician's fairies?
>
> HAHaHHA! You say the funniest things....
>>
>
>
Answer is worse than fairies. It's mathematician's fantasies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400778 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 04/12/16 13:21, benj wrote:

>>>> Bodkin, were your parents incredibly stupid, too?
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's 'spacetime' was built on the assumption that all light
>>>> speeds
>>>> were already unified (by the fairies, apparently).
>>>>
>>>
>>> If something is already done at the outset, there is no need for the
>>> action to take place, is there?
>>> But while you're fretting about spacetime, why don't you dither and
>>> writhe about who took the trouble to order the integers? Was it some
>>> mathematician's fairies?
>>
>> HAHaHHA! You say the funniest things....
>>>
>>
>>
> Answer is worse than fairies. It's mathematician's fantasies.

'Number' has a natural order.


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400804 — Re: Lorentz transformations

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>'Number' has a natural order.

And light has a natural speed, Ralph.  C in all frames.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400506 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 12/1/2016 12:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Michael Moron-y, one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that
> Einstein's fairies were solely responsible for unifying all light speeds
> in the whole universe.

And of course, it's not about whether you believe or not. I don't think 
anyone cares whether you are convinced or not. Do you not agree?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web