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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ca0f893-a98a-4f38-90e0-37d2b316c646@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470661 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:19:40 PM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > 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. It's not an interpretation, just read Einstein's 1905 paper. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <318122ae-d292-44aa-88d7-924c42e5cdde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470667 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:50:34 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> > It's not an interpretation, just read Einstein's 1905 paper. That paper of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had full of errors, confusions, and plagiarisms. <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 | 2018-09-07 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmuh5p$g11$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470667 |
JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:19:40 PM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: >> 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. > > It's not an interpretation, just read Einstein's 1905 paper. Pure Poincare. But in German.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebf09565-bd16-439f-a558-7ac32f7ce6e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470655 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:01:42 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:36 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > the queer of England 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> > This is a tantrum, not an argument. Idiot! <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. > > > 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 Again, idiot! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmuc1c$9hd$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #470782 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:01:42 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:36 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > 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> >> This is a tantrum, not an argument. >Idiot! <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. >> >> > 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 >Again, idiot! <shrug> Again, this is a tantrum, not an argument (damn, I am out of both popcorn and beer!) (But thanks for the entertainment!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98893384-915f-49fe-a726-4cd5d0f6032d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470844 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:20:46 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > Koobee Wublee writes: > > 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> > damn, I am out of both popcorn and beer! But thanks for the entertainment! Go back to make your wooden sex toys, PD. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 00:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Koobee's revisionist history (was: The Einstein Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz |
| Message-ID | <pmv4vt$a67$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #470888 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:20:46 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Koobee Wublee writes: >> > 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> >> damn, I am out of both popcorn and beer! But thanks for the entertainment! >Go back to make your wooden sex toys, PD. <shrug> Hahahahahaha!!!! Koobee has been messing with the quotes again and posting a revisionist quote string! As written Koobee makes it appear as if my 'popcorn' response was to Koobee's revised history. It was not; it was in response to Koobee's tantrum, to which Jan replied "This is a tantrum, not an argument." upon which Koobee had another micro-tantrum. This was repeated a second time as well. See: <pmuc1c$9hd$2@pcls7.std.com>: Michael Moroney writes in <pmuc1c$9hd$2@pcls7.std.com>: >Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> writes: >>On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:01:42 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:36 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> > The road to the Lorentz transform cannot be anything else but in this >>> > order, and this can easily tell who plagiarizes from whom unless you >>> > are fvcking idiots. <shrug> >>> This is a tantrum, not an argument. >>Idiot! <shrug> >This is a tantrum, not an argument. >>> > > It was not only _novel_ but also surprisingly _minimal_, previous >>> > > approaches at providing such physical basis had largely been ad hoc, >>> > > like the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, etc. >>> >>> > The garbled words in the above sentence contains no historic and >>> > scientific facts. These are the words that would be uttered from the >>> > idiots who worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >>> > <shrug> >>> >>> Again, this is a tantrum, not an argument >>Again, idiot! <shrug> >Again, this is a tantrum, not an argument >(damn, I am out of both popcorn and beer!) >(But thanks for the entertainment!) I'll ignore the "wooden sex toys" comment other than to say that apparently Koobee must think I am a combination of PD and Odd Bodkin. Poor Koobee, repeatedly on the business end of a Size 12 Army boot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmuh09$g11$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470637 |
JanPB wrote: >> >> 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. You don't like Poincare because he was French. And for the record, Einstein didn't realized his paper was the big deal. Why, since he was incapable to understand it, written in German.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9df1b627-a8d7-4c3a-bfb0-1542a35f1025@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470856 |
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:45:32 AM UTC-7, Haných Ltskáš wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> >> 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. > > You don't like Poincare because he was French. I like Poincaré and I like the French (my mother was raised in France). > And for the record, > Einstein didn't realized his paper was the big deal. Why, since he was > incapable to understand it, written in German. For a science joke it's not too horrible. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 11:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0be3$15ko$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470882 |
JanPB wrote: >> And for the record, Einstein didn't realized his paper was the big >> deal. Why, since he was incapable to understand it, written in German. > > For a science joke it's not too horrible. Irrelevant. It proves that Einstein was not the first to understand his theory. Poincare did, since he cam first to say it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-08 11:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn0bnc$15ko$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470955 |
Lorent Regoire wrote: > JanPB wrote: > >>> And for the record, Einstein didn't realized his paper was the big >>> deal. Why, since he was incapable to understand it, written in German. >> >> For a science joke it's not too horrible. > > Irrelevant. It proves that Einstein was not the first to understand his > theory. Poincare did, since he cam first to say it. Infact, Dr. Poincare said it clearly, applicable generally, through his set of equations. Einstein however, what he wrote was only about wires ans magnets. A totally misunderstanding of the domain of applicability. And there are his papers to prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90e29ebf-8443-4aaf-8177-bb8799cb65d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470421 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 11:21:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 1:34:14 PM UTC-4, 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> > One of the uncles, yes. Not a father. Poincare created the Lorentz transform. Poincare is the father of SR. Larmor was a “pre-religion” prophet to SR, and Lorentz was a “post-religion” prophet. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was just a fvcking nitwit, a fvcking plagiarist, and a fvcking liar, but the Einstein dingleberries have casted Poincare aside and worship this Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as their god. What a bunch of fvcking morons! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee396db5-5a34-4cd8-87a1-86646fe4fa47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470455 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:31:41 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 11:21:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 1:34:14 PM UTC-4, 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> > > > One of the uncles, yes. Not a father. > > Poincare created the Lorentz transform. Poincare is the father of SR. Larmor was a “pre-religion” prophet to SR, and Lorentz was a “post-religion” prophet. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was just a fvcking nitwit, a fvcking plagiarist, and a fvcking liar, but the Einstein dingleberries have casted Poincare aside and worship this Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as their god. What a bunch of fvcking morons! <shrug> Light speed is an invariant so mathematically it has a model as a constant. Working out the regimes of symmetry-breaking, is much about symmetries then phase transitions and their infinite limits (re: the recent reading of Shech's "Assume a spherical cow..."). It's also neat that classically at our usual energies, light speed is constant. Something like sum-of-histories (or sum-over-histories) and working out conservation totally is not so neat classically. KW _believes_ in SR. KW, if you disagree with Einstein then it must be that you have some theory that disagrees with GR. Otherwise, KW, there's interest in your derivations and the practicalities, and otherwise KW can make clear: "SR is OK". Humans are small and frail and make mistakes, but through tenacity and talent can achieve great things, so, Einstein's a hero because it's a popularization so that the masses can name at least one premier physicist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33112b5f-4318-4cba-bd84-99c17d49976a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470456 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:41:23 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:31:41 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> > Light speed is an invariant so mathematically it has a model as > a constant. In 1887, it was Voigt who first proposed the invariance to the speed of light in vacuum to explain the null results of the MMX. That means the speed of light at a point in space is observed to be constant in any direction (isotropic). <shrug> > Working out the regimes of symmetry-breaking, is much about > symmetries then phase transitions and their infinite limits > (re: the recent reading of Shech's "Assume a spherical cow..."). The symmetry of the Lorentz transform can never be broken despite the self-styled physicists have been taunting. Their claims can never be supported by any sound math. The Lorentz transform written in (dt, dx, dy, dz) instead of (t, x, y, z) satisfies both the inertial and the non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug> > KW _believes_ in SR. SR is fatally self-contradictory. <shrug> > KW, if you disagree with Einstein Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit did not come up with anything that Koobee Wublee can blame the liar on except plagiarism. <shrug> > then it must be that you have some theory that disagrees with GR. SR has mathematical inconsistency. GR is at least an order of magnitude worse. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7007f928-ea73-498c-9780-0a9ccc8ac31e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470462 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:41:23 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:31:41 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> > > > Light speed is an invariant so mathematically it has a model as > > a constant. > > In 1887, it was Voigt who first proposed the invariance to the speed of light in vacuum to explain the null results of the MMX. That means the speed of light at a point in space is observed to be constant in any direction (isotropic). <shrug> > > > Working out the regimes of symmetry-breaking, is much about > > symmetries then phase transitions and their infinite limits > > (re: the recent reading of Shech's "Assume a spherical cow..."). > > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform can never be broken despite the self-styled physicists have been taunting. Their claims can never be supported by any sound math. The Lorentz transform written in (dt, dx, dy, dz) instead of (t, x, y, z) satisfies both the inertial and the non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug> > > > KW _believes_ in SR. > > SR is fatally self-contradictory. <shrug> > > > KW, if you disagree with Einstein > > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit did not come up with anything that Koobee Wublee can blame the liar on except plagiarism. <shrug> > > > then it must be that you have some theory that disagrees with GR. > > SR has mathematical inconsistency. GR is at least an order of magnitude worse. <shrug> Ah, then: what's inconsistent about "invariance to the speed of light in vacuum" (in deep space...)? With what we know about gravitation and its effects on all massy bodies and also massless emissions, ..., if I say: "invariance of the speed of light in vacuum in deep space", isn't that the same as "SR, and SR is local"? Anyways please say what is wrong with SR (or what's wrong with the logical conclusion). Now, about "renormalization effects" as not just about the error terms or space configuration (i.e. small- angle approximation that really are large and other linearizations) but about that "at infinity: it's attenuated" like a Lobachevsky or Riemann sphere (i.e. parallel postulate holds except at infinity where lines still don't cross but they touch, elliptical, or they spread, hyperbolic), then there is some mathematics these days being figured out about Ramsey theory and the infinitary with basically differences between the pair-wise combinatorics and eventually uniform, and continuous. This is about that space-time is flat and Euclidean, "eventually" and "originally".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmmi7c$1c2b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470462 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: >> then it must be that you have some theory that disagrees with GR. > > SR has mathematical inconsistency. GR is at least an order of magnitude > worse. <shrug> Yet, under the radar for so many years. Mostly because, proper Dynamics, tensors and partial differential equation were as unknown those days. What a coincidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmmdkl$13s8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470455 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > 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> > >> One of the uncles, yes. Not a father. > > Poincare created the Lorentz transform. Poincare is the father of SR. > Larmor was a “pre-religion” prophet to SR, and Lorentz was a > “post-religion” prophet. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > liar was just a fvcking nitwit, a fvcking plagiarist, and a fvcking > liar, but the Einstein dingleberries have casted Poincare aside and > worship this Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as their > god. What a bunch of fvcking morons! <shrug> Probably yes, but there is no motive. Why should they do that all together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2131617a-7a01-45ab-8a6e-317d6f59bde0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470165 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 10:58:53 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:17:45 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The Lorentz transform that Poincare wrote down is the same exact > > shit as what your silly god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, > > and the liar plagiarized. > one of the GOALS of the paper was to show how the already known > Lorentz transform could be derived from certain general principles > rather then known merely as a certain abstract property of Maxwell's > equations. So, 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 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> > Remember that note I wrote some time ago showing how to derive the > electromagnetic E-M tensor from Noether's theorem? Does it mean I > plagiarised the E-M tensor formula? Are you nuts? Koobee Wublee does not care about your work. Deal with that. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a7b96fe-6e1e-4cf5-af52-622ed5050762@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470169 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:40:39 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 10:58:53 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:17:45 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > The Lorentz transform that Poincare wrote down is the same exact > > > shit as what your silly god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, > > > and the liar plagiarized. > > > one of the GOALS of the paper was to show how the already known > > Lorentz transform could be derived from certain general principles > > rather then known merely as a certain abstract property of Maxwell's > > equations. > > So, 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. Oh stop making nonsense up. Einstein knew the Lorentz transform and knew about the fact that it transformed the E and B fields. The problem was nobody really considered those transformed quantities (E, B, and the new time) to be real, even Poincare. Since Einstein most likely had already noticed previously that assuming the transformed E and B were real would resolve the magnet-and-coil paradox, he set out to find out if the Lorentz Transform _could_ be given a physical basis in some way. > The Lorentz transform can only derived using the null results of the MMX. <shrug> No, it's derived in Einstein's 1905 paper and it uses certain assumptions stated rather clearly in the text. Einstein was unaware of the MMX at the time or he'd certainly have mentioned it in the paper as it would have lent ammunition to his claim stated in the summary: "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium'". > Next, a simple modification to the Galilean transform using the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is enough to satisfy the null results of the MMX. Yes but Einstein was interested in something else: showing that Lorentz-transformed fields E and B of electrodynamics were as real as the original untransformed ones. Also, he was unaware 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, No, it can be derived exactly as Einstein did in his 1905 paper. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75409a94-6175-4c98-ae56-5e2c845896aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470198 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:19:52 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:40:39 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> > Oh stop making nonsense up... This is not nonsense. <shrug> > [rest of lies snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web