> On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. >> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and >> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each >> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>> > Where
>> > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 >> > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
>> > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0, >> > #1, and #2.
>> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 >> > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
>> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very >> > first equation.
>> > Does anyone have any objections?
>> > If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the >> > principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come >> > down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
>> > All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or >> > not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no >> > physics but magics. <shrug>
>> > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz >> > transform?
>> > It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever >> > bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player >> > before. Ahahaha...
>> > Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the >> > Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
>> > Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and >> > call my bluff.
>> > Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew >> > nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw >> > any stones in that pond.
>> > After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think. >> > How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not >> > satisfy the principle of relativity?
>> I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to >> think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show >> that >> it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to >> engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your >> mistake.
> Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
Come on .. this is getting boring
>> > This should be a sure bet for >> > the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform >> > without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever >> > so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
>> Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just >> playing >> games. Shame .. it might have been fun
> Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper, > Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know > that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so > proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut > way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense > is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
Not really.. I know that whatever you come up with is either you minudnerstanding of the PoR or just a mistake
On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the principle of relativity.
> On Oct 31, 9:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
> > > Where
> > > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 > > > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
> > > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0, > > > #1, and #2.
> > > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 > > > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
> > > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very > > > first equation.
> > > Does anyone have any objections?
> > And it is no the principle of relativity.. it just shows that velocity of a > > relative to b is the same as (but opposite direction) velocity of b relative > > to a.
> If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the > principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come > down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
Why come down hard? It's simply not the principle of relativity. What makes you think every foolish nonsense you utter is worth comment?
> > > Now, would the following falsify the > > > principle of relativity?
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] != 0
> > If it meant some law of physics wasn't the same in all inertial frames of > > reference.
> All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or > not) must obey the same laws of physics.
Actually, only inertial reference frames require that the laws of physics take the same form. It's known already from classical physics that they don't respect that rule in noninertial frames. Do catch up.
> If not so, there is no > physics but magics. <shrug>
> > > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz > > > transform?
> > Very confident. They've been around for a century or so, and no-one has > > found a problem with them yet.
> > > Do you think I am bluffing?
> > No .. but probably wrong
> It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever > bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player > before. Ahahaha...
> > > Does anyone want to call my > > > bluff?
> > Fine .. show your hand
> Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the > Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
You overestimate your influence.
> Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and > call my bluff.
> Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew > nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw > any stones in that pond.
> After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think. > How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not > satisfy the principle of relativity? This should be a sure bet for > the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform > without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever > so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
> > "Koobee Wublee" wrote: > > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
> > > Where
> > > ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 > > > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
> > > Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0, > > > #1, and #2.
> > > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 > > > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
> > > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very > > > first equation.
> > > Does anyone have any objections?
> > > If ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is not the necessary condition in the > > > principle of relativity, the ever so vocal Professor Draper would come > > > down hard on yours truly. <shrug>
> > > All frames of references (let it be the so-called inertial ones or > > > not) must obey the same laws of physics. If not so, there is no > > > physics but magics. <shrug>
> > > Come on, physicists. Aren't you all very confident with the Lorentz > > > transform?
> > > It sounds like you are not sure if I am bluffing or not? Have I ever > > > bluffed? I am repeated to admit that I am a very lousy poke player > > > before. Ahahaha...
> > > Ahahahah... Ahahahaha... This round of poker is devastating the > > > Einstein Dingleberry crowds.
> > > Come on, Professor Andersen. Stop chasing chickens for a change and > > > call my bluff.
> > > Come on, Professor Draper. Stop bitching about a 12-year-old who knew > > > nothing about math but had all sorts of wild ideas. You cannot throw > > > any stones in that pond.
> > > After all, Professor Roberts had already endorsed that. Just think. > > > How can Koobee Wublee claim the Lorentz transform in actually does not > > > satisfy the principle of relativity? > > I doubt you can .. you don't even seem to grasp what it is. You seem to > > think all it is is a statements about velocities. Perhaps you'll show that > > it doesn't satisfy your distorted idea of the PoR, and then expect us to > > engage you for days in fruitless attempt to educate you about your mistake.
> Ahahaha... So, you are calling my bluff. Ahahaha...
> > > This should be a sure bet for > > > the self-styled physicists who have worshiped the Lorentz transform > > > without question for over 100 years. It is time to embarrass the ever > > > so humble Koobee Wublee for a change. <shrug>
> > Obviously you have nothing valid or meaningful to say, and are just playing > > games. Shame .. it might have been fun
> Oh, no. I have never played games. Just ask professors Draper, > Andersen, and Roberts. They know that I never bluffed. They know > that I have always carried through with my words. Notice the ever so > proliferate poster PD aka Professor Draper has his output of posts cut > way down anticipating me to show my hands. Ahahahaha... The suspense > is killing the Einstein Dingleberries. Ahahahahaha...
On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
> OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of > relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the > principle of relativity.
So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this objection. <shrug>
> > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 > > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
> > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very > > first equation.
> > Does anyone have any objections?
Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity. It always depends on an independent frame of reference for any outcome.
Writing the Lorentz transform in its more general form where the direction of travel does not have to be in parallel with one of the spatial axes, we have the following. Notice the math involve there afterwards is merely algebra.
Thus, Point #0 must uniquely exist. The above can only equate when
** [B_01] * [B_02] = B_01 B_02, ie. moving in parallel such as the special case in the Lorentz transform
Lorentz transform is a special case that has misled the self-styled physicists for over 100 years. The null results of the MMX actually support the existence of an absolute frame of reference. It is proven 100 years later by a Doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation.
The Aether must exist. The principle of relativity is absolutely false. It is only relatively true at low speeds. The ever so humble Koobee Wublee, yours truly, certainly has a lot of fun showing the fallacy believed in by the self-styled physicists for over 100 years.
> On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > > > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > > > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > > > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> > > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
> > OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of > > relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the > > principle of relativity.
> So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is > why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is > falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this > objection. <shrug>
You are SO much fun, Kooky Wobbly! You've really dipped below the horizon, you know that?
> > > ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 > > > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
> > > Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very > > > first equation.
> > > Does anyone have any objections?
> Since other than PD there are no more objections(not even from Gisse > the college dropout), the following will show that the Lorentz > transform actually does not satisfy the principle of relativity.
Hmmm... The Lorentz transform is not a physical law. Does it need to satisfy the principle of relativity?
Since the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics retain their mathematical form when being transformed from one inertial frame to another, should the Lorentz transform retain its mathematical form when being transformed from one inertial frame to another? Especially since the transform itself is a relation between quantities in two different inertial frames?
Kooky Wobbly, you've gone a little goofball nutty.
> It > always depends on an independent frame of reference for any outcome.
> Writing the Lorentz transform in its more general form where the > direction of travel does not have to be in parallel with one of the > spatial axes, we have the following. Notice the math involve there > afterwards is merely algebra.
> Thus, Point #0 must uniquely exist. The above can only equate when
> ** [B_01] * [B_02] = B_01 B_02, ie. moving in parallel such as the > special case in the Lorentz transform
> Lorentz transform is a special case that has misled the self-styled > physicists for over 100 years. The null results of the MMX actually > support the existence of an absolute frame of reference. It is proven > 100 years later by a Doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation.
> The Aether must exist. The principle of relativity is absolutely > false. It is only relatively true at low speeds. The ever so humble > Koobee Wublee, yours truly, certainly has a lot of fun showing the > fallacy believed in by the self-styled physicists for over 100 years.
> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
> Where
> ** [v_12] = Velocity vector of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 > ** [v_21] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #2
> Let’s look at the Galilean transform for velocity involving Point #0, > #1, and #2.
> ** [v_01] = Velocity of Point #1 as observed by Point #0 > ** [v_02] = Velocity of Point #2 as observed by Point #0
> Thus, Point #0 can be any point to satisfy the result of the very > first equation.
> Does anyone have any objections?
Methinks you've gotten a little attention starved and are looking for solace in your usual form -- the picking of a fight, usually instigated by you stating something completely stupid.
It looks like PD the ranting old man who calls himself a professor had a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics aside and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the picture below.
On Nov 2, 3:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like PD the ranting old man who calls himself a professor had > a few days of distress anticipating the ever so humble Koobee Wublee > to turn his religion of SR upside down. After several days of > incoherent babbling, the ranting old man just tossed all the logics > aside
:>) And what "logics" would those be?
> and reinstated his religion which by more ... as shown by the > picture below.
> On Nov 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 28, 6:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you want. >> > However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very simple and >> > elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, observing each >> > other. It does not involve another point (say Point #0).
>> > ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>> OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of >> relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the >> principle of relativity.
> So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is > why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is > falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this > objection. <shrug>
We've all been telling you it is not a definition of the PoR
The ranting old man is just bitter that I got PD all figured out. I have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of distress in anticipating what I have to come up with to show in general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the principle of relativity. The special case where the two frames of references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving. Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more. This reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They don't understand physics but only pretend to. They all worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz transform from that. Well, now the symmetry is pointed out to be broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics, Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to the bone. <shrug>
Being bitter about it is not doing science any good but defending a failing religion. <shrug> Gee! What a bunch of fvcking morons! <shrug>
>>>> You can state the principle of relativity in any word salad you >>>> want. However, the definitive mathematical requirement is very >>>> simple and elegant. Consider two points, Point #1 and Point #2, >>>> observing each other. It does not involve another point (say >>>> Point #0).
>>>> ** [v_12] + [v_21] = 0
>>> OK, but that doesn't have anything to do with the principle of >>> relativity, nor does it serve as an alternative definition of the >>> principle of relativity.
>> So, you have finally figured out what I am about to present. That is >> why you were so busy in the past few days. You know your world is >> falling apart. That is why you are the only one voicing this >> objection. <shrug>
> We've all been telling you it is not a definition of the PoR
On Nov 3, 2:26 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ranting old man is just bitter that I got PD all figured out. I > have called PD's lack of activity in the past few days as a sign of > distress in anticipating what I have to come up
I love it when you claim to have things all figured out. It's SO FUNNY.
> with to show in > general the Lorentz transform does not offer that symmetric or the > principle of relativity.
What?
> The special case where the two frames of > references are moving in parallel to each other is rather deceiving. > Realizing a lost cause, the ranting buffoon continued his barbaric > ways by calling the Lorenz transform being not a law any more.
Hmmmm? Whatever gave you the idea that the Lorentz transform is a physical law or ever was?
> This > reflects what the clowns at sci.physics.research are doing. They > don't understand physics but only pretend to.
Ah, but YOU do, singular that you are. :>)
> They all worship > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar by creating fairy > tale about how the same Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > liar first established a constancy in the speed of light and the > principle of relativity and then single handedly derived the Lorentz > transform from that.
Who said he did it single-handedly? I believe it's called the Lorentz transform for a reason, not the Einstein transform.
> Well, now the symmetry
WHAT symmetry?
> is pointed out to be > broken by the ever so humble yours truly, the true scholar of physics,
> Koobee Wublee, the legend of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and > the liar become fraudulent to the very core. Some day the history > books will tell tales of how these self-styled physicists aka Einstein > Dingleberries from the 20th to the early 21th centuries became ever so > mystified and idiotic in their pursue of mysticism --- all bull$hit to > the bone. <shrug>
Someday, someday, Kooky Wobbly will be vindicated. You'll see. And you'll all BE SORRY!
PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics. Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the Lorentz transform as well. I think you need to seek help before turning psychotic. <shrug>
> PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics. > Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the > Lorentz transform as well. I think you need to seek help before > turning psychotic. <shrug>
Phuckwit Duck is already psychotic, has been for years.
He wrote:
"I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD "
> On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hmmm...
>> PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics >> is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
> "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
>> Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the >> Lorentz transform as well.
> What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry > have to do with the principle of relativity?
Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry > > have to do with the principle of relativity?
> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz > transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A > relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the > velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only get > that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis (say > the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0), you did not raise any objections and ever so stupidly offered that the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result. You have no credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout crowds.
On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics > > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
> "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity. <shrug>
> > Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the > > Lorentz transform as well.
> What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry > have to do with the principle of relativity?
So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your problem. <shrgu>
> > I think you need to seek help before > > turning psychotic. <shrug>
> I'll be sure to do that, learning from your errors of omission.
Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > PD the bitter old man who used to call himself a professor of physics > > > is now in denial of the Lorentz transform being a law of physics.
> > "Now"? When was it ever a law of physics, Kooky Wobbly?
> Try to pick up one of your textbooks and read up on relativity. > <shrug>
Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of physics that respects the principle of relativity?
> > > Needless to say, he does not know about this so-called symmetry in the > > > Lorentz transform as well.
> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry > > have to do with the principle of relativity?
> So, all of a sudden, the self-claimed professor does not know the > symmetry in the Lorentz transform is all about any more. It is your > problem. <shrgu>
What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry have to do with the principle of relativity?
> On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry >> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
>> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz >> transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A >> relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the >> velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only >> get >> that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis >> (say >> the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
> When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] = > 0), you did not raise any objections
Why should I?
> and ever so stupidly offered that > the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
They do
> You have no > credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are > wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You > are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
> Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout > crowds.
Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your stupidity.
> > On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would symmetry > >> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
> >> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz > >> transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A > >> relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of the > >> velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you only > >> get > >> that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis > >> (say > >> the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] = > > 0), you did not raise any objections
> Why should I?
> > and ever so stupidly offered that > > the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
> They do
> > You have no > > credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are > > wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You > > are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
> > Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout > > crowds. > Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your > stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
>> > On Nov 3, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > What so-called symmetry are you referring to? And what would >> >> > symmetry >> >> > have to do with the principle of relativity?
>> >> Apparently KW thinks he has proved that, in general, with a Lorentz >> >> transform with two observers/frames, A and B, that the velocity of A >> >> relative to B (ie A's velocity in B's frame) is NOT the negative of >> >> the >> >> velocity of B relative to A (ie B's velocity in A's frame). The you >> >> only >> >> get >> >> that "symmetry" in the case when you set up your axes so that one axis >> >> (say >> >> the x-axis) is parallel to the direction of relative motion.
>> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] = >> > 0), you did not raise any objections
>> Why should I?
>> > and ever so stupidly offered that >> > the Lorentz transform would achieve the same result.
>> They do
>> > You have no >> > credential. You are there for the ride. You are a zombie. You are >> > wishy-washy. You cannot think logically to save your own life. You >> > are an Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>
>> > Now, get lost. Go back to your ilk brethrens --- the college dropout >> > crowds.
>> Yeah yea .. Shut the fuck up your moron .. noone cares about you and your >> stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
|
