On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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?
Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
> > 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?
Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
> And what would symmetry > have to do with the principle of relativity?
Ditto.
> > Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 + v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity, but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug>
On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > 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?
> Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
> > > 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?
> Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
You have one you can cite?
> > And what would symmetry > > have to do with the principle of relativity?
> Ditto.
You have one you can cite?
I love this Kooky. You make an irrational statement, then state that any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check on it. It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
> > > Does you psychiatrist/warden know you have internet access?
> Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the > principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 + > v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You understand what semantic equivalence would require?
On Nov 6, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Which one do you have? That is the one. <shrug>
> I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?
So, without a book, a self-claimed professor like yourself cannot discuss any subject with any confidence, is that right?
> > Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
> You have one you can cite?
There are just too numerous to site. Which book controls your mind now? Would that go with moon phase?
> I love this Kooky.
I am still not sure what you love. <shrug>
> You make an irrational statement, then state that > any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one > that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check > on it.
What irrational statement? So, this is how you deal with your sanity in keeping a religion alive by labeling all things that would destroy your religion outright as irrational. <shrug>
> It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
What is that again? It does not compute.
> > Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the > > principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 + > > v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
> You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You > understand what semantic equivalence would require?
Do you understand the implication of the equation [v_12 + v_21 != 0] to the principle of relativity? I don't think you do. I think your institution should re-evaluate your tenure because one day the truth is going to triumph. Your institution should not jeopardize its future reputation by employing someone who does not even understand the principle of relativity to teach the new generation of self-styled physicists. <shrug>
> > but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste > > a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug>
The cycle of Einstein Dingleberries proliferating another generation of Einstein Dingleberries will come to an end someday. Just mark your ever so humble Kooblee Wublee's words on this. Please do so. <shrug>
> > > Try to read up in the textbooks you have. <shrug>
> > You have one you can cite?
> There are just too numerous to site. Which book controls your mind > now? Would that go with moon phase?
> > I love this Kooky.
> I am still not sure what you love. <shrug>
> > You make an irrational statement, then state that > > any textbook backs up what you say, when you can't cite a single one > > that does so, possibly because you don't have any to look in to check > > on it.
> What irrational statement? So, this is how you deal with your sanity > in keeping a religion alive by labeling all things that would destroy > your religion outright as irrational. <shrug>
> > It's all in the foam and bluster, isn't it?
> What is that again? It does not compute.
> > > Name a textbook saying [v_12 + v_21 != 0] does not violate the > > > principle of relativity. Even Professor Roberts had claimed [v_12 + > > > v_21 = 0] is a necessary condition for the principle of relativity,
> > You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You > > understand what semantic equivalence would require?
> Do you understand the implication of the equation [v_12 + v_21 != 0] > to the principle of relativity? I don't think you do. I think your > institution should re-evaluate your tenure because one day the truth > is going to triumph. Your institution should not jeopardize its > future reputation by employing someone who does not even understand > the principle of relativity to teach the new generation of self-styled > physicists. <shrug>
> > > but I seem not able to find the post because I am not willing to waste > > > a bunch of time helping your ignorance. Get over with that. <shrug>
> The cycle of Einstein Dingleberries proliferating another generation > of Einstein Dingleberries will come to an end someday. Just mark your > ever so humble Kooblee Wublee's words on this. Please do so. <shrug>
|
