>> I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
>> *should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.

> Spacetime field?

> The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
> principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
> becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds.

> In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
> the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
> weak curvature.

>> >If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
>> > spactime model.

> No, it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
> relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
> wrong.

>> Doppler is a relativity effect,

> Not necessarily.  In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
> model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
> mind.  <shrug>

> > On Oct 27, 12:25 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
> > I suppose I should have written that the spacetime field
> > *should* be formulated to negate 'absolute motion'.

> Spacetime field?

> The mathematics of spacetime itself does not have to satisfy the
> principle of relativity as long as it degenerates into something that
> becomes the Galilean transform at low speeds.  Under the curvature of
> spacetime, as long as it degenerates into Newtonian gravity at weak
> curvature in spacetime, everything would still be cool.  <shrug>

> In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
> the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
> weak curvature.

> > >If that were true the CMBR doppler would falsify the
> > > spactime model.

> No, it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
> relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
> wrong.

> > Doppler is a relativity effect,

> Not necessarily.  In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
> model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
> mind.  <shrug>

> > In saying that, there are an infinite such spacetime that will satisfy
> > the principle of relativity at low speeds and Newtonian gravity at
> > weak curvature.

> > […] it just proves any spacetime model that satisfies the principle of
> > relativity in general, such as the Lorentz transform, is totally
> > wrong.

> Doppler is a relativity effect,

> > Not necessarily.  In the 19th century, the mathematics of Doppler
> > model actually had the absolute stationary background of the medium in
> > mind.  <shrug>

> Organize your thoughts, then specifications.
> Then detail them herein.

> Spacetime field?

><snip>

> My thoughts are already organized.  It helps if an air-head tries to
> overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
> understand the subjects mattered.  Staring at a textbook for 40 years
> in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
> bode well for his aptitude.  <sigh>

> Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
> destined to go to their graves unfulfilled.  The saddest thing is that
> they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still.  <shrug>

> > Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
> > destined to go to their graves unfulfilled.  The saddest thing is that
> > they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still.  <shrug>

> Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
> mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
> aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.

> > On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > My thoughts are already organized.  It helps if an air-head tries to
> > > overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
> > > understand the subjects mattered.  Staring at a textbook for 40 years
> > > in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
> > > bode well for his aptitude.  <sigh>

> > > Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
> > > destined to go to their graves unfulfilled.  The saddest thing is that
> > > they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still.  <shrug>

> > Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
> > mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
> > aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.

> LOL, Ken.  The problem is not in my attitude but in your aptitude.
> Ahahaha...

> You have stared at Weinberg's book for over four decades and have
> understood nothing.  Would it be time to move on and find another
> source of knowledge enrichment?  Just a friendly advice.  That's all.
> There is no need to get all bend out of shape because of your lack of
> aptitude.  <shrug>

> > On Oct 29, 10:45 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

> > > On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > My thoughts are already organized.  It helps if an air-head tries to
> > > > overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
> > > > understand the subjects mattered.  Staring at a textbook for 40 years
> > > > in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
> > > > bode well for his aptitude.  <sigh>

> > > > Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
> > > > destined to go to their graves unfulfilled.  The saddest thing is that
> > > > they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still.  <shrug>

> > > Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
> > > mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
> > > aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.

> > LOL, Ken.  The problem is not in my attitude but in your aptitude.
> > Ahahaha...

> > You have stared at Weinberg's book for over four decades and have
> > understood nothing.  Would it be time to move on and find another
> > source of knowledge enrichment?  Just a friendly advice.  That's all.
> > There is no need to get all bend out of shape because of your lack of
> > aptitude.  <shrug>

> Bobby Benson: [to Klaatu] I like you Mr. Carpenter, you're a real
> screwball!
> Ken

> > On Oct 29, 10:45 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

> > > On Oct 29, 1:02 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > My thoughts are already organized.  It helps if an air-head tries to
> > > > overcome his biological deficiency and make his best efforts to
> > > > understand the subjects mattered.  Staring at a textbook for 40 years
> > > > in which he still has no fvcking clue as what a Lagrangian is does not
> > > > bode well for his aptitude.  <sigh>

> > > > Some people trying to understand the nature of science are just
> > > > destined to go to their graves unfulfilled.  The saddest thing is that
> > > > they don’t even know that they don’t know anything still.  <shrug>

> > > Well KW your emotional problems aren't what I had in
> > > mind, rather a organized specification for spacetime,
> > > aka spacetime field, in light of relativity.

> > LOL, Ken.  The problem is not in my attitude but in your aptitude.
> > Ahahaha...

> > You have stared at Weinberg's book for over four decades and have
> > understood nothing.  Would it be time to move on and find another
> > source of knowledge enrichment?  Just a friendly advice.  That's all.
> > There is no need to get all bend out of shape because of your lack of
> > aptitude.  <shrug>

> Bobby Benson: [to Klaatu] I like you Mr. Carpenter, you're a real
> screwball!
> Ken

>         Results 1 - 10 for screwball! Ken. (0.18 seconds)
>      Ken Ludwig - Playwright: For the love of screwball and
> Shakespeare ...
>       For the love of screwball and Shakespeare, Philadelphia
> Inquirer. Ken Ludwig's new play, opening at the Wilma, mixes a few of
> his favorite things. ...
>       Picturing Justice. Caddyshack: Screwball Comedy or Social ...
>       Sep 1, 2004 ... Caddyshack: Screwball Comedy or Social
> Commentary? by Ken Swift. Caddyshack was not a great cinematic
> achievement or a movie of social ...
>       Ken Ludwig - Playwright: "TWENTIETH CENTURY a timely
> screwball ...
>       If a screwball comedy is the perfect escape when the economy
> goes south, what could be more fitting than a revival of a smash hit
> farce that greet ... For a screwball at the tail end of the 1930s, Day-
> Time Wife has ... When he does get out of bed, Ken occupies himself
> with preparing for ...
>       ladolcescrewball.blogspot.com/
>    5.
>       Amazon.com: Screwball Academy [VHS]: Colleen Camp, Kenneth
> Welsh ...
>       Amazon.com: Screwball Academy [VHS]: Colleen Camp, Kenneth
> Welsh, Charles Dennis, Damian Lee, Peter Spence, Wendy Bushell,
> Christine Cattell, Angus MacInnes ...
>      www.amazon.com/Screwball-Academy-VHS-Colleen.../dp/6302272505
>    6.
>       Ken Ludwig's hilarious screwball comedy Lend Me A Tenor opens a
>         homage to the screwball comedies of the 1930's, guaranteed to
> leave audiences ... Lend Me A Tenor by Ken Ludwig. Directed by Dave
> Ebersole. March 13-28 ...
>       La Dolce Screwball: Day-Time Wife (1939)
>       For a screwball at the tail end of the 1930s, Day-Time Wife has
> less in common with the ... Ken laughs. He promises to get her a
> present the next day, ...
>       A screwball comedy that's misguided | Philadelphia Inquirer |
> 09 ...
>       Sep 4, 2009 ... A misguided screwball character study, All About
> Steve clearly isn't ... and their producer, Angus (Ken Jeong, the
> crazed Vegas mobster who ...
>       The story of "Screwball Express" and it's crew was written by
> the ...
>       The story of "Screwball Express" and it's crew was written by
> the original bombardier, Mr. Kenneth H. Cassens. The book "Screwball
> Express" was published by ...
>       A screwball comedy that's misguided | Philadelphia Inquirer |
> 09 ...
>       Thomas Haden Church; Katy Mixon; Kerri Kenney; Jonathan Chase;
> Ken Jeong; ... A misguided screwball character study, All About Steve
> clearly isn't about ...

> > I was tickling KW's clit with a quote from,
> >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/
> > (the day the earth stood still)

> Ahahahaha...

> Mr. Tucker, you don't have too tickle me with a quote from some sci-
> fi.  The fact that you have stared at Weinberg's book for over 40
> years and still are clueless as what a Lagrangian is is enough
> tickling me pink.  Ahahahaha...  Ahahahahaha...

> Can a Lagrangian define "absolute motion" ?

> > On Nov 1, 12:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Mr. Tucker, you don't have too tickle me with a quote from some sci-
> > > fi.  The fact that you have stared at Weinberg's book for over 40
> > > years and still are clueless as what a Lagrangian is is enough
> > > tickling me pink.  Ahahahaha...  Ahahahahaha...

> > Can a Lagrangian define "absolute motion" ?

> A Lagrangian is nothing but a density to an action.  If an action
> describes absolute motion, then its Lagrangian is capable of
> describing absolute motion as well.  <shrug>

> Good, then you should provide an example to prove
> the physical possiblity of measuring 'absolute motion',
> using the Lagrange you know so much about.

>> > A Lagrangian is nothing but a density to an action.  If an action
>> > describes absolute motion, then its Lagrangian is capable of
>> > describing absolute motion as well.  <shrug>

>> Good, then you should provide an example to prove
>> the physical possiblity of measuring 'absolute motion',
>> using the Lagrange you know so much about.

> Coming up with that stupid request reflects your lack of understanding
> of what a Lagrangian is.  Oh, well.  As yours truly had said before,
> some ignorant folks are better to go to their graves without
> understanding anything even if they really don't know anything.  Some
> ungifted are meant to be left behind, and life moves on.  <shrug>

> Ken, you are still tickling me with your clownish achievement in
> life.  After 40 years of staring at a book by a Nobel Laureate, you
> still have no idea what a Lagrangian is.  I wish you will stop
> tickling me, but it is only a wish.  The fact is that you will tickle
> me until the very end.  It is better for all of us that way.  Remember
> some ungifted are meant to be left behind.  <shrug>

> > On Nov 2, 11:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > A Lagrangian is nothing but a density to an action.  If an action
> > > describes absolute motion, then its Lagrangian is capable of
> > > describing absolute motion as well.  <shrug>

> > Good, then you should provide an example to prove
> > the physical possiblity of measuring 'absolute motion',
> > using the Lagrange you know so much about.

> Coming up with that stupid request reflects your lack of understanding
> of what a Lagrangian is.  Oh, well.  As yours truly had said before,
> some ignorant folks are better to go to their graves without
> understanding anything even if they really don't know anything.  Some
> ungifted are meant to be left behind, and life moves on.  <shrug>

> Ken, you are still tickling me with your clownish achievement in
> life.  After 40 years of staring at a book by a Nobel Laureate, you
> still have no idea what a Lagrangian is.  I wish you will stop
> tickling me, but it is only a wish.  The fact is that you will tickle
> me until the very end.  It is better for all of us that way.  Remember
> some ungifted are meant to be left behind.  <shrug>

> > Ken, you are still tickling me with your clownish achievement in
> > life.  After 40 years of staring at a book by a Nobel Laureate, you
> > still have no idea what a Lagrangian is.  I wish you will stop
> > tickling me, but it is only a wish.  The fact is that you will tickle
> > me until the very end.  It is better for all of us that way.  Remember
> > some ungifted are meant to be left behind.  <shrug>

> Is that a sissy rant saying the problem frustrates you?

>> > Coming up with that stupid request reflects your lack of understanding
>> > of what a Lagrangian is.  Oh, well.  As yours truly had said before,
>> > some ignorant folks are better to go to their graves without
>> > understanding anything even if they really don't know anything.  Some
>> > ungifted are meant to be left behind, and life moves on.  <shrug>

>> > Ken, you are still tickling me with your clownish achievement in
>> > life.  After 40 years of staring at a book by a Nobel Laureate, you
>> > still have no idea what a Lagrangian is.  I wish you will stop
>> > tickling me, but it is only a wish.  The fact is that you will tickle
>> > me until the very end.  It is better for all of us that way.  Remember
>> > some ungifted are meant to be left behind.  <shrug>

>> Is that a sissy rant saying the problem frustrates you?

> Not at all, I am amazed at your gross ignorance.  How can anyone with
> an IQ of at least 60 not able to understand anything from a book that
> he had been staring at for over 40 years?  Gee!  Correct me if I am
> wrong that 40 years represent a long time.  <shrug>

>> (Hint: learn a covariant derivative).

> You should understand how the covariant derivative was defined, what
> application it covers, and when to properly apply that man-made
> mathematical operator.  I don't expect you have any clues as what I am
> talking about.  So, please get lost and go back to stare at your
> Weinberg book.  <shrug>

> > On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Coming up with that stupid request reflects your lack of understanding
> > > of what a Lagrangian is.  Oh, well.  As yours truly had said before,
> > > some ignorant folks are better to go to their graves without
> > > understanding anything even if they really don't know anything.  Some
> > > ungifted are meant to be left behind, and life moves on.  <shrug>

> > > Ken, you are still tickling me with your clownish achievement in
> > > life.  After 40 years of staring at a book by a Nobel Laureate, you
> > > still have no idea what a Lagrangian is.  I wish you will stop
> > > tickling me, but it is only a wish.  The fact is that you will tickle
> > > me until the very end.  It is better for all of us that way.  Remember
> > > some ungifted are meant to be left behind.  <shrug>

> > Is that a sissy rant saying the problem frustrates you?

> Not at all, I am amazed at your gross ignorance.  How can anyone with
> an IQ of at least 60 not able to understand anything from a book that
> he had been staring at for over 40 years?  Gee!  Correct me if I am
> wrong that 40 years represent a long time.  <shrug>

> > (Hint: learn a covariant derivative).

> You should understand how the covariant derivative was defined, what
> application it covers, and when to properly apply that man-made
> mathematical operator.  I don't expect you have any clues as what I am
> talking about.  So, please get lost and go back to stare at your
> Weinberg book.  <shrug>

> > You should understand how the covariant derivative was defined, what
> > application it covers, and when to properly apply that man-made
> > mathematical operator.  I don't expect you have any clues as what I am
> > talking about.  So, please get lost and go back to stare at your
> > Weinberg book.  <shrug>

> Excuse me KW girl,

> > On Nov 4, 11:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Not at all, I am amazed at your gross ignorance.  How can anyone with
> > > an IQ of at least 60 not able to understand anything from a book that
> > > he had been staring at for over 40 years?  Gee!  Correct me if I am
> > > wrong that 40 years represent a long time.  <shrug>

> > > You should understand how the covariant derivative was defined, what
> > > application it covers, and when to properly apply that man-made
> > > mathematical operator.  I don't expect you have any clues as what I am
> > > talking about.  So, please get lost and go back to stare at your
> > > Weinberg book.  <shrug>

> > Excuse me KW girl,

> You can call me whatever you want.  <shrug>

> You want discussions, right?

> Well you mentioned you're female, your handle is fem,
> and your post are quite fem.

> Yes, but please don't take your bedroom problems out
> on me, find a boyfriend.