Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470090 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-31 16:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-09 12:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 18 participants |
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.
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:53 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 22:17 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:58 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iufienv.vu> - 2018-09-01 18:10 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 21:07 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Jeanclaud Erald <urdu@iuoienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 12:58 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 10:28 -0400
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-03 20:38 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 10:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 23:20 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:23 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 16:54 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 13:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 19:29 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 10:34 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 17:36 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 23:12 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 16:53 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 13:10 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:05 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 20:10 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 22:42 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:30 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 15:10 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 11:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:27 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 12:06 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 19:21 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 14:40 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 15:20 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 12:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-03 20:40 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 23:21 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 15:08 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 13:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:59 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 20:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 22:41 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-05 00:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:39 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 14:07 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 22:13 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:52 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:35 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:49 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:48 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 22:42 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 23:32 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 11:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:13 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 22:05 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:35 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:39 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 15:29 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 16:47 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 13:32 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:14 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 13:45 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Lorent Regoiree <euap@ewghpq.gp> - 2018-09-08 12:17 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 14:30 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-08 16:08 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 15:24 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:18 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:53 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 11:57 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 12:40 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 11:08 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-06 20:13 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 20:19 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:02 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 18:48 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 21:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 17:20 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 14:22 -0700
Koobee's revisionist history (was: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 00:26 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 18:45 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 13:36 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:22 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:27 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:41 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:26 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 18:17 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 16:59 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 11:40 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 21:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 10:29 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 19:42 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 10:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 17:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 14:24 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 23:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 05:57 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 21:02 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 19:36 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 21:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 21:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 21:52 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 06:57 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:29 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 22:32 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 19:06 +0200
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 13:34 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 14:45 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 22:35 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 07:20 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 10:47 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 11:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 11:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 20:00 +0000
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 13:21 -0700
Re: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 12:03 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 22:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40b1542c-137d-4262-97f2-b87bb2b608e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470788 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:01:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew about the > > > Lorentz transform and attempted a confusing and deceitful way of > > > re-deriving this formula. The Lorentz transform can only be derived > > > using the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > > > > Next, a simple modification to the Galilean transform using the > > > Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is enough to satisfy the null results > > > of the MMX. However, this type of transform was not explored in > > > history. Instead, it was Voigt who proposed a constancy in the speed > > > of light, and the result is Larmor’s transform where all observations > > > must reference back to the absolute frame of reference. <shrug> > > > > > Finally, Poincare realized Larmor’s transform can be simplified into > > > the Lorentz transform, but this simplification is wrong in general > > > where Koobee Wublee had already addressed in the past posts. <shrug> > > > > > The road to the Lorentz transform cannot be anything else but in this > > > order, and this can easily tell who plagiarizes from whom unless you > > > are fvcking idiots. <shrug> > > > Einstein's 1905 paper provides a physical basis for the collection of > > mathematical formulas and ad hoc physical assumptions known at the time > > that was new and minimal. > > That paper of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had full of errors, confusions, and plagiarisms. <shrug> You can repeat your lies as many time as you want. They won't change anything. > > That's what you SAY but you keep ignoring evidence to the contrary. > > Tell that to the religious nuts. Your religion always trumps others. You fvcking moron! <shrug> Calling facts "religion" won't do. Sorry. You have to address the facts, not mantras. > > Obviously you are doing this to boost your ego by making your opponents > > appear foolish in your eyes. > > The queer of England is not an opponent but a liar. You are giving excuses to continue lying. <shrug> I'm merely reporting facts, as evidenced by the printed record. You OTOH just post junk in order to fix some internal emotional problem. > > IOW, no arguments, just fakery. > > That is your religion of SR worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > > Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated among the Einstein dingleberries? <shrug> There is no doubt you have an emotional problem of some kind. Why you chose Einstein (of all people) to be your stress reliever is anybody's guess. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 22:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d2e7bab-0e73-4391-a892-0843febc112e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470796 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:35:06 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:01:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew about the > > Lorentz transform and attempted a confusing and deceitful way of > > re-deriving this formula. The Lorentz transform can only be derived > > using the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > > Next, a simple modification to the Galilean transform using the > > Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is enough to satisfy the null results > > of the MMX. However, this type of transform was not explored in > > history. Instead, it was Voigt who proposed a constancy in the speed > > of light, and the result is Larmor’s transform where all observations > > must reference back to the absolute frame of reference. <shrug> > > > Finally, Poincare realized Larmor’s transform can be simplified into > > the Lorentz transform, but this simplification is wrong in general > > where Koobee Wublee had already addressed in the past posts. <shrug> > > > The road to the Lorentz transform cannot be anything else but in this > > order, and this can easily tell who plagiarizes from whom unless you > > are fvcking idiots. <shrug> > There is no doubt you have an emotional problem of some kind. Why you > chose Einstein (of all people) to be your stress reliever is anybody's > guess. You can repeat your lies as many time as you want. They won't change anything. <shrug> > Calling facts "religion" won't do. Sorry. You have to address the > facts, not mantras. Koobee Wublee is merely reporting facts, as evidenced by the printed record. The queer of England OTOH just post junk in order to fix some internal emotional problem. <shrug> Is there any doubt that the Orwellian philosophy is well indoctrinated among the Einstein dingleberries? <shrug> ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NOISE IS COHERENCY ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS HISTORY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** RELIGION IS SCIENCE ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** FRUITCAKE IS GURU ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** DEIFICATION IS ADMIRATION ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** SPECULATION IS REALITY ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION ** INDOCTRINATION IS RATIONALIZATION ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION ** MISAPPLICATION IS PREDICTION ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmrh3u$1dj9$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470586 |
JanPB wrote: >> > The point remains that it was Einstein... >> >> You keep repeating lies over and over again. > > Because it's a FACT, read Einstein's 1905 paper, it's called "Zur > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" and it was published in Annalen der > Physik 322 (10): 891–921. There exists English translations, the older > one (Dover) has some mistakes in it but nothing that a competent reader > could not fix easily. > > Nobody else noticed before Einstein that all those formulas and > quantities actually had a reasonable physical basis. They did have most > of the mathematics worked out but the mysteries remained. Certainly a matter of believes, language and autocrative delimited territory of interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7a52084-c009-4e8a-93a8-660b51b7254b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470629 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:29:05 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> > The point remains that it was Einstein... > >> > >> You keep repeating lies over and over again. > > > > Because it's a FACT, read Einstein's 1905 paper, it's called "Zur > > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" and it was published in Annalen der > > Physik 322 (10): 891–921. There exists English translations, the older > > one (Dover) has some mistakes in it but nothing that a competent reader > > could not fix easily. > > > > Nobody else noticed before Einstein that all those formulas and > > quantities actually had a reasonable physical basis. They did have most > > of the mathematics worked out but the mysteries remained. > > Certainly a matter of believes, language and autocrative delimited > territory of interest. No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmua2d$30m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470638 |
JanPB wrote: >> > Because it's a FACT, read Einstein's 1905 paper, it's called "Zur >> > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" and it was published in Annalen der >> > Physik 322 (10): 891–921. There exists English translations, the >> > older one (Dover) has some mistakes in it but nothing that a >> > competent reader could not fix easily. >> > >> > Nobody else noticed before Einstein that all those formulas and >> > quantities actually had a reasonable physical basis. They did have >> > most of the mathematics worked out but the mysteries remained. >> >> Certainly a matter of believes, language and autocrative delimited >> territory of interest. > > No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. I hear people saying that the moon lander was too small for two astronauts in spacesuits to fit in and manoeuvrete.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80f367ec-a8b4-4623-a27d-7f38c70da2e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470835 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 9:47:13 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> > Because it's a FACT, read Einstein's 1905 paper, it's called "Zur > >> > Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" and it was published in Annalen der > >> > Physik 322 (10): 891–921. There exists English translations, the > >> > older one (Dover) has some mistakes in it but nothing that a > >> > competent reader could not fix easily. > >> > > >> > Nobody else noticed before Einstein that all those formulas and > >> > quantities actually had a reasonable physical basis. They did have > >> > most of the mathematics worked out but the mysteries remained. > >> > >> Certainly a matter of believes, language and autocrative delimited > >> territory of interest. > > > > No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. > > I hear people saying that the moon lander was too small for two astronauts > in spacesuits to fit in and manoeuvrete. Start a new thread in an appropriate newsgroup for this (ludicrous) claim. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0au1$15ko$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470880 |
JanPB wrote: >> > No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. >> >> I hear people saying that the moon lander was too small for two >> astronauts in spacesuits to fit in and manoeuvrete. > > Start a new thread in an appropriate newsgroup for this (ludicrous) > claim. Iow, you dare not face the facts. How about multiple light sources and the lack of rocket landing traces under the module? You don't know, huh, and you know you loose. What can you say in your defence? Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 13:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9b24a7b1-8cd5-8855-f731-1d45322c0df8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #470954 |
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Lorent Regoire" <euar@ewghwpq.gr> (with fake From header field value): > JanPB wrote: >>>> No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. >>> I hear people saying that the moon lander was too small for two >>> astronauts in spacesuits to fit in and manoeuvrete. >> Start a new thread in an appropriate newsgroup for this (ludicrous) >> claim. > > Iow, you dare not face the facts. How about multiple light sources and the > lack of rocket landing traces under the module? You don't know, huh, and > you know you loose. What can you say in your defence? Nothing. | X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org [x] done *PLONK* X-Post & F’up2 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet PointedEars -- When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoiree <euap@ewghpq.gp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 12:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0ekq$1d77$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470959 |
The unemployable imbecile wannabe "bachelor in computer science" ’nym- shifting troll trolled asThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > "Prof. Dr. Lorent Regoire" <euar@ewghwpq.gr> >> JanPB wrote: >>>>> No, it's a matter of historical record, you only have to examine it. >>>> I hear people saying that the moon lander was too small for two >>>> astronauts in spacesuits to fit in and manoeuvrete. >>> Start a new thread in an appropriate newsgroup for this (ludicrous) >>> claim. >> >> Iow, you dare not face the facts. How about multiple light sources and >> the lack of rocket landing traces under the module? You don't know, >> huh, and you know you loose. What can you say in your defence? Nothing. > > | Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) An abusive insult to people intelligent. > | X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org [x] done *PLONK* Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; posting- host="home.meteotest.ch:178.22.109.226"; logging-data="29795"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-network.org" | X-Complaints-To: abuse@open-news-network.org [x] done *P L I N K* X-Post & F’up2 alt.morons
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <38282789-2965-0d4a-ae02-f81ffca9feb6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #470960 |
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Lorent Regoiree": > The unemployable imbecile wannabe "bachelor in computer science" ’nym- > shifting troll trolled asThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > […] I imagine that after this Paolo will just *love* to block you from further posting abuse via his server. X-Post & F’up2 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet PointedEars -- When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0s5s$27f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470961 |
unemployable wannabe "bachelor in computer science" ’nym-shifting troll trolled as Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > "Prof. Dr. Lorent Regoiree": >> The unemployable imbecile wannabe "bachelor in computer science" ’nym- >> shifting troll trolled asThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> […] > > I imagine that after this Paolo will just *love* to block you from > further posting abuse via his server. This is just great. But Terry, Bryan and Roy Masters will immediately oppose, sending you vehemently to clean their toilets. Satisfactory this time, without further ado. > Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Certainly strange. You are stupid like a door in "computer science", I read somewhere. Please change that name to something more appropriate. X-Post & F’up2 alt.support. autism
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmrgqj$1dj9$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470476 |
JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: >> JanPB wrote: >> >> >> >> You are admitting then, Prof. Koobee is right. Why not giving >> >> >> credit to Poincare that he came on it first? >> >> > >> >> > Look back at the history. Poincare was close, but not first. >> >> >> >> He was before, which is enough. Poincare is the father of >> >> Relativity. >> >> A fact. >> > >> > One of the uncles, yes. Not a father. >> >> Impossible, once he came out with it first. > > But he didn't. He came very close, but the crucial insight was missing. You can't say it, as neither competent nor authorized to arbiter that. >> What you say looks illegit and immoral. > > Looks can be deceiving. We agree, that's why I am saying the stuff above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6c8f725-5f84-4316-bf69-33545bbc07dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470628 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:24:06 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >> > >> >> >> You are admitting then, Prof. Koobee is right. Why not giving > >> >> >> credit to Poincare that he came on it first? > >> >> > > >> >> > Look back at the history. Poincare was close, but not first. > >> >> > >> >> He was before, which is enough. Poincare is the father of > >> >> Relativity. > >> >> A fact. > >> > > >> > One of the uncles, yes. Not a father. > >> > >> Impossible, once he came out with it first. > > > > But he didn't. He came very close, but the crucial insight was missing. > > You can't say it, as neither competent nor authorized to arbiter that. Yes, I can. The "arbitration" simply consists of reading the extant record with understanding. There is no guesswork involved here. > >> What you say looks illegit and immoral. > > > > Looks can be deceiving. > > We agree, that's why I am saying the stuff above. In this case it's clearcut: it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already developed mathematics. It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, like the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, etc. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <491b84e7-a90a-4200-9529-740c5b0e7726@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470637 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > In this case it's clearcut: it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already > developed mathematics. It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, like the Fitzgerald > contraction hypothesis, etc. > Thanks, it's interesting the background of Fitzgerald or Lorentz-Fitzgerald and "space contraction" and how that is re-framed in Einstein with "length contraction". (Which, for an object to fill the space, is space contraction....) https://philpapers.org/rec/DIETRO : "They're not different...". I find it quite as nice to consider "motion contracts space" as "the universe is always growing and also inflating", with "motion contracts space" and "the universe is all growing". https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/288267 If space contracts, light's apparent speed remains invariant to the observers on either side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation Let's also keep in mind Jefimenko and "objects in the same space maintain proportions". Baird writes a bit of a survey (after Terrell): https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0106049.pdf . A usual argument of symmetry is finding two objects meet in the middle that they're in the same space and maintain proportions. This would be about relativistic contraction in particle colliders. The collisions are modelled as two particles colliding, not two poles/spaghettis colliding, right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec875cbe-97dd-4b58-9783-0b275f687267@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470643 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > In this case it's clearcut: it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already
> > developed mathematics. It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous
> > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, like the Fitzgerald
> > contraction hypothesis, etc.
> >
>
> Thanks, it's interesting the background of Fitzgerald or
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald and "space contraction" and how that
> is re-framed in Einstein with "length contraction".
>
> (Which, for an object to fill the space, is space contraction....)
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/DIETRO : "They're not different...".
>
> I find it quite as nice to consider "motion contracts space"
> as "the universe is always growing and also inflating", with
> "motion contracts space" and "the universe is all growing".
>
> https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/288267
>
> If space contracts, light's apparent speed remains invariant
> to the observers on either side.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation
>
> Let's also keep in mind Jefimenko and "objects in the
> same space maintain proportions".
>
> Baird writes a bit of a survey (after Terrell):
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0106049.pdf .
>
> A usual argument of symmetry is finding two
> objects meet in the middle that they're in
> the same space and maintain proportions.
> This would be about relativistic contraction
> in particle colliders.
>
> The collisions are modelled as two particles
> colliding, not two poles/spaghettis colliding,
> right.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4623 , "Relativistic length agony continued"
"Note on Dewan–Beran–Bell’s spaceship problem", (Redzic again),
eg http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008EJPh...29...11R :
"According to the testimony of John Bell (1976), a polemic over this
old problem that was started once between him and a distinguished
experimental physicist in the CERN canteen was eventually passed
on to a significantly broader forum for arbitration: the CERN theory
division. A clear consensus emerged, testifies Bell, that the thread
would not break.
It is now accepted, however, that the answer is wrong. The elementary
explication, in Bell’s formulation, runs as follows: ‘if the thread is just
long enough to span the required distance initially, then as the rockets
speed up, it will become too short, because of its need to FitzGerald
contract, and _must finally break_. It must break when, at a sufficiently
high velocity, the artificial prevention of the natural contraction
imposes intolerable stress’ (Bell 1976, emphasis added).
The purpose of the present note is to point out that the accepted
solution to the riddle (the thread will break when the ships reach
a sufficiently high speed), is generally wrong. More precisely, while
the accepted solution is correct for the mild variant of the problem,
it is generally wrong for its tough variant. In our analysis, we in no way
question Einstein’s special theory of relativity or the reality of
Dewan–Beran stresses that develop in a body which is constrained
to move in such a manner that its dimensions are fixed with respect
to an inertial frame. We simply point out that according to special
relativity in some cases the thread will never break, regardless of
how close the ships’ speed approaches c. The conclusion appears
to be new.
The Dewan–Beran–Bell problem with its apparent paradoxes and
the rich physics hidden behind it may be used as a vehicle for
acquiring special relativistic mentality. So we believe that the
present note could be an intriguing reading for the student of
relativity at the upper undergraduate level. On the other hand,
it is hoped that the reader who is less innocent of relativity might
also find some food for thought in it."
Peregoudov ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EJPh...30L...3P)
objects to Redzic's explanation, because "the stretch increases
infinitely", but, if it's space contraction and the thread is moving
along, in the kinetic region that is defining the space contraction,
objects in the same flat space maintain proportions.
Then, the idea about stresses is that they'd be on the objects
outside the "kinetic region", maintaining rigidity.
Following some references of Redzic ( Redžić, Dragan V.),
"We construct the string energy-momentum tensor
by using an intuitive idea that the string is a chain
of point-like particles." -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07106.pdf
"Furthermore, our expression for T_1^μν is implicitly
Lorentz covariant, which means that the form of Eq. (12)
remains the same in any inertial reference frame with
Cartesian spatial coordinates."
"Thus, if T is a tensor in special relativity theory, i.e., if it
transforms from one inertial frame to another by applying
the Lorentz transformation to both its indices, and if its
four-divergence is zero, then total four-momentum defined
by such T in Eq. (11) is constant in time and is a Lorentz four-vector."
These authors Serafin and Glazek refer to Kijowski and Magli,
"Relativistic elastomechanics as a lagrangian field theory".
"A new approach to relativistic elasticity theory is proposed.
In this approach the theory becomes a gauge-type theory,
with the diffomorphisms of the material space playing the
role of gauge transformations. The dynamics of the elastic
material is expressed in terms of three independent, hyperbolic,
second order partial differential equations imposed on three
(independent) gauge potentials. The relationship with the
Carter-Quintana approach is discussed."
-- Kijowski and Magli, "Relativistic Elastomechanics is a Gauge-Type Theory",
http://cds.cern.ch/record/273073/files/9411212.pdf
So, "relativistic elastodynamics" has quite a lot going on,
and both Lorentz-Fitzgerald and Lorentz-Einstein are
relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05da353f-65d2-4ebe-b0e8-059b0af4c893@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470648 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:57:36 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:53:25 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > In this case it's clearcut: it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already > > > developed mathematics. It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous > > > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, like the Fitzgerald > > > contraction hypothesis, etc. > > > > > > > Thanks, it's interesting the background of Fitzgerald or > > Lorentz-Fitzgerald and "space contraction" and how that > > is re-framed in Einstein with "length contraction". > > > > (Which, for an object to fill the space, is space contraction....) > > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/DIETRO : "They're not different...". > > > > I find it quite as nice to consider "motion contracts space" > > as "the universe is always growing and also inflating", with > > "motion contracts space" and "the universe is all growing". > > > > https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/288267 > > > > If space contracts, light's apparent speed remains invariant > > to the observers on either side. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation > > > > Let's also keep in mind Jefimenko and "objects in the > > same space maintain proportions". > > > > Baird writes a bit of a survey (after Terrell): > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0106049.pdf . > > > > A usual argument of symmetry is finding two > > objects meet in the middle that they're in > > the same space and maintain proportions. > > This would be about relativistic contraction > > in particle colliders. > > > > The collisions are modelled as two particles > > colliding, not two poles/spaghettis colliding, > > right. > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4623 , "Relativistic length agony continued" > > "Note on Dewan–Beran–Bell’s spaceship problem", (Redzic again), > eg http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008EJPh...29...11R : > > > "According to the testimony of John Bell (1976), a polemic over this > old problem that was started once between him and a distinguished > experimental physicist in the CERN canteen was eventually passed > on to a significantly broader forum for arbitration: the CERN theory > division. A clear consensus emerged, testifies Bell, that the thread > would not break. > > It is now accepted, however, that the answer is wrong. The elementary > explication, in Bell’s formulation, runs as follows: ‘if the thread is just > long enough to span the required distance initially, then as the rockets > speed up, it will become too short, because of its need to FitzGerald > contract, and _must finally break_. It must break when, at a sufficiently > high velocity, the artificial prevention of the natural contraction > imposes intolerable stress’ (Bell 1976, emphasis added). > > The purpose of the present note is to point out that the accepted > solution to the riddle (the thread will break when the ships reach > a sufficiently high speed), is generally wrong. More precisely, while > the accepted solution is correct for the mild variant of the problem, > it is generally wrong for its tough variant. In our analysis, we in no way > question Einstein’s special theory of relativity or the reality of > Dewan–Beran stresses that develop in a body which is constrained > to move in such a manner that its dimensions are fixed with respect > to an inertial frame. We simply point out that according to special > relativity in some cases the thread will never break, regardless of > how close the ships’ speed approaches c. The conclusion appears > to be new. > > The Dewan–Beran–Bell problem with its apparent paradoxes and > the rich physics hidden behind it may be used as a vehicle for > acquiring special relativistic mentality. So we believe that the > present note could be an intriguing reading for the student of > relativity at the upper undergraduate level. On the other hand, > it is hoped that the reader who is less innocent of relativity might > also find some food for thought in it." > > > Peregoudov ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EJPh...30L...3P) > objects to Redzic's explanation, because "the stretch increases > infinitely", but, if it's space contraction and the thread is moving > along, in the kinetic region that is defining the space contraction, > objects in the same flat space maintain proportions. > > Then, the idea about stresses is that they'd be on the objects > outside the "kinetic region", maintaining rigidity. > > Following some references of Redzic ( Redžić, Dragan V.), > "We construct the string energy-momentum tensor > by using an intuitive idea that the string is a chain > of point-like particles." -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07106.pdf > > "Furthermore, our expression for T_1^μν is implicitly > Lorentz covariant, which means that the form of Eq. (12) > remains the same in any inertial reference frame with > Cartesian spatial coordinates." > > "Thus, if T is a tensor in special relativity theory, i.e., if it > transforms from one inertial frame to another by applying > the Lorentz transformation to both its indices, and if its > four-divergence is zero, then total four-momentum defined > by such T in Eq. (11) is constant in time and is a Lorentz four-vector." > > These authors Serafin and Glazek refer to Kijowski and Magli, > "Relativistic elastomechanics as a lagrangian field theory". > > > > "A new approach to relativistic elasticity theory is proposed. > In this approach the theory becomes a gauge-type theory, > with the diffomorphisms of the material space playing the > role of gauge transformations. The dynamics of the elastic > material is expressed in terms of three independent, hyperbolic, > second order partial differential equations imposed on three > (independent) gauge potentials. The relationship with the > Carter-Quintana approach is discussed." > -- Kijowski and Magli, "Relativistic Elastomechanics is a Gauge-Type Theory", > http://cds.cern.ch/record/273073/files/9411212.pdf > > So, "relativistic elastodynamics" has quite a lot going on, > and both Lorentz-Fitzgerald and Lorentz-Einstein are > relevant. With the Bell's paradox the ships are at rest to each other and the string and if the space contract the string doesn't break. This is that the rod/pole/ladder has the space contraction instead of each segment of length contraction that would break. Now, relativistically, if the scissor flies across the string it cuts it at more than one point. (The scissor's a wave-front now.) This is then like the Bohm-deBroglie pilot wave and about how the event of collapsing the waveform basically cuts the waves everywhere but where it collides at once, that it rolls up to the photon. This is the idea that the wave breaks antipodally and rolls up as much as collapses. It's very convenient that words maintain their usual meanings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6e0d288-9b21-4633-8950-db19c0cea5b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470637 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 10:42:49 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew about the > > Lorentz transform and attempted a confusing and deceitful way of > > re-deriving this formula. The Lorentz transform can only be derived > > using the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > > Next, a simple modification to the Galilean transform using the > > Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is enough to satisfy the null results > > of the MMX. However, this type of transform was not explored in > > history. Instead, it was Voigt who proposed a constancy in the speed > > of light, and the result is Larmor’s transform where all observations > > must reference back to the absolute frame of reference. <shrug> > > > Finally, Poincare realized Larmor’s transform can be simplified into > > the Lorentz transform, but this simplification is wrong in general > > where Koobee Wublee had already addressed in the past posts. <shrug> > > > The road to the Lorentz transform cannot be anything else but in this > > order, and this can easily tell who plagiarizes from whom unless you > > are fvcking idiots. <shrug> > it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already > developed mathematics. This novelty only exists in the eyes of Einstein dingleberries who worship this idiot Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. These childish idiots as the queer of England had put it. <shrug> > It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, > like the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, etc. Nonsense. The garbled words in the above sentence contains no historic and scientific facts. These are the words that would be uttered from the idiots who worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27633b73-15cb-4e11-8346-bafa7000de4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470645 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:36 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 10:42:49 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew about the > > > Lorentz transform and attempted a confusing and deceitful way of > > > re-deriving this formula. The Lorentz transform can only be derived > > > using the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > > > > Next, a simple modification to the Galilean transform using the > > > Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is enough to satisfy the null results > > > of the MMX. However, this type of transform was not explored in > > > history. Instead, it was Voigt who proposed a constancy in the speed > > > of light, and the result is Larmor’s transform where all observations > > > must reference back to the absolute frame of reference. <shrug> > > > > > Finally, Poincare realized Larmor’s transform can be simplified into > > > the Lorentz transform, but this simplification is wrong in general > > > where Koobee Wublee had already addressed in the past posts. <shrug> > > > > > The road to the Lorentz transform cannot be anything else but in this > > > order, and this can easily tell who plagiarizes from whom unless you > > > are fvcking idiots. <shrug> > > > it was Einstein who provided a _novel_ physical basis for the already > > developed mathematics. > > This novelty only exists in the eyes of Einstein dingleberries who worship this idiot Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. These childish idiots as the queer of England had put it. <shrug> This is a tantrum, not an argument. > > It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous > > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, > > like the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, etc. > > Nonsense. The garbled words in the above sentence contains no historic and scientific facts. These are the words that would be uttered from the idiots who worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> Again, this is a tantrum, not an argument -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pms1of$8qn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #470655 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: >> This novelty only exists in the eyes of Einstein dingleberries who >> worship this idiot Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >> These childish idiots as the queer of England had put it. <shrug> >This is a tantrum, not an argument. >> Nonsense. The garbled words in the above sentence contains no historic >> and scientific facts. These are the words that would be uttered from >> the idiots who worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the >> liar. <shrug> >Again, this is a tantrum, not an argument I do feel sorry for all the butthurt Koobee must have. But I still enjoy watching Koobee getting his butt kicked again and again. (damn! Out of popcorn again!!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pms24o$dob$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470655 |
JanPB wrote: >> > It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous >> > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, >> > like the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, etc. Interpretation, as added ulterior by his Roy Masters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web