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.
> 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
That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz and Galilean transforms. Its not really the principle of relativity, howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is negative of b relative to a
> 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?
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity addition/subtraction. Lorentz transforms don't have that .. composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
> "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
> That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz > and Galilean transforms.
Not directly. Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 referencing to Point #1. I am referring to how Point #1 observes Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1. You really need to understand the difference. <shrug>
> Its not really the principle of relativity, > howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is > negative of b relative to a
What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict a satisfaction in the principle of relativity. No bucketfuls of word salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical description of the principle of reatlvity.
> > ** [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?
> I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean > transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity > addition/subtraction.
Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform satisfying the principle of relativity, it agree with the simple mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
> Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug> You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a college dropout. <shrug>
> composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written down, I will take you to the next level. In doing so, the next few steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
I can hear Professor Robert’s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence pretending not to have read my post. <shrug>
> On Oct 28, 6:33 pm, "Inertial" 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
>> That's fine .. it describes how relative velocity works both with Lorentz >> and Galilean transforms.
> Not directly. Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 > referencing to Point #1.
You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of observers doesn't help you
> I am referring to how Point #1 observes > Point #2 and how Point #2 observes Point #1.
Which is what LT and GT also describe
> You really need to> understand the difference. <shrug>
It is not significant, one is a subset of the other
>> Its not really the principle of relativity, >> howeverm which is more than just saying velocity of a relative to b is >> negative of b relative to a
> What I have brought up is the only requirement to definitively convict > a satisfaction in the principle of relativity.
Nope .. just measuring velocities isn't really enough .. unless you're only talking about the principle of relativity as it applies to velocities :)
> No bucketfuls of word > salad can claim so. If so, try to give me a concise mathematical > description of the principle of reatlvity.
If L is any law of physics, and L(S) is a predicate that is true iff law L applies in inertial frame S, then we have
>> > ** [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?
>> I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, other than Galilean >> transforms have velocity composition the same as velocity >> addition/subtraction.
> Has it ever occurred to you that because of the Galilean transform > satisfying the principle of relativity,
They don't, as there are laws that apply in one frame that do not apply in another with Galilean transforms.
> it agree with the simple > mathematical equation I have brought up? It proves my point.
Not really, no
>> Lorentz transforms don't have that ..
> The velocity of the Lorentz transform actually although not exactly > the same follows very similarly to what I have described. <shrug> > You just have to study the Lorentz transform and stop behaving like a > college dropout. <shrug>
I understand it already, thanks.
>> composition is not simple vector arithmetic.
> That is correct. If there are no objections to what I have written > down, I will take you to the next level.
I can hardly wait
> In doing so, the next few > steps will result in a checkmate to the absurdity of the Lorentz > transform. Intrigued? Agreed? Shall I continue?
I don't really have a choice
> I can hear Professor Robert’s heart pounding. He knows his fat castle > in the air built out of playing cards is about to crumble. In doing > so, he, just like Professor Draper, is very obsessed and intrigued on > what yours truly would bring up next while remaining silence > pretending not to have read my post. <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
> 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.
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
> > 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?
> The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
> No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity:
"All relativists tell the same stupidities, regardless the forum, and can be described as entities that use the same dingleberrism"
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- as usually understood at the present time-- when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case."
Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity:
"But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet"
What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to? It is clear that a correct Principle of relativity would say that magnet is actually moving in a frame where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there must be an electric field. So, that phenomenon should be described by the same equations, because there is symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations are a load of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load of crap!
And Juan R., your assertion
"The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities."
will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody how idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive. Some guys seem to be less idiotic once they passed away, as they stay silent, :-D . Fortunately, you are in good company. Gullibility and idiotism are not seldom features of relativists.
I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the realm of physics a century ago and still remains in it, without any kind of embarrassment of lucid minds.
> "All relativists tell the same > stupidities, regardless the forum, > and can be described as entities that > use the same dingleberrism"
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- > as usually understood at the present time-- > when applied to moving bodies, leads to > asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be > inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet > and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which > either the one or the other of these bodies is in > motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet an electric field with a certain > definite energy, producing a current at the places > where parts of the conductor are situated. But if > the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, > no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > electromotive force, to which in itself there is > no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- > assuming equality of relative motion in the two > cases discussed--to electric currents of the same > path and intensity as those produced by the electric > forces in the former case."
> Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle > of Relativity:
> "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet"
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to? > It is clear that a correct Principle of relativity > would say that magnet is actually moving in a frame > where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there > must be an electric field. So, that phenomenon should > be described by the same equations, because there is > symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations are a load > of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load > of crap!
> And Juan R., your assertion
> "The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for > 'low' velocities."
> will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody > how idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive. > Some guys seem to be less idiotic once they passed away, as > they stay silent, :-D . Fortunately, you are in good company. > Gullibility and idiotism are not seldom features of relativists.
> I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the > realm of physics a century ago and still remains in it, without > any kind of embarrassment of lucid minds.
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
> > > 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?
> > The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
> > No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
> Principle of relativity:
> "All relativists tell the same > stupidities, regardless the forum, > and can be described as entities that > use the same dingleberrism"
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- > as usually understood at the present time-- > when applied to moving bodies, leads to > asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be > inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet > and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which > either the one or the other of these bodies is in > motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet an electric field with a certain > definite energy, producing a current at the places > where parts of the conductor are situated. But if > the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, > no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > electromotive force, to which in itself there is > no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- > assuming equality of relative motion in the two > cases discussed--to electric currents of the same > path and intensity as those produced by the electric > forces in the former case."
> Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle > of Relativity:
> "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet"
Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and measure. No voltage.
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of thinking about the situation.
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact, identical. If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should suffice for both cases. That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The measured voltage is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is also true is that experiment matches prediction.
> On Oct 29, 7:34 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > > Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
> > > > 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?
> > > The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
> > > No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
> > Principle of relativity:
> > "All relativists tell the same > > stupidities, regardless the forum, > > and can be described as entities that > > use the same dingleberrism"
> > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES > > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
> > "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- > > as usually understood at the present time-- > > when applied to moving bodies, leads to > > asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be > > inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, > > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet > > and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here > > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws > > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which > > either the one or the other of these bodies is in > > motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood > > of the magnet an electric field with a certain > > definite energy, producing a current at the places > > where parts of the conductor are situated. But if > > the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, > > no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > > electromotive force, to which in itself there is > > no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- > > assuming equality of relative motion in the two > > cases discussed--to electric currents of the same > > path and intensity as those produced by the electric > > forces in the former case."
> > Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle > > of Relativity:
> > "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor > > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood > > of the magnet"
> Put up a voltmeter in the neighborhood of a stationary magnet and > measure. No voltage.
You don't know what is
voltimeter, neighborhood, stationary, magnet, measure, voltage
Try again. Study the reason why a moving magnet with respect to a stationary conductor produces an electric current in the latter. And also study the reason why a moving conductor with respect to a stationary magnet produces the very electric current in the former. Those two apparent different effects are actually one and the same, but by means of the nonsensical Maxwell equations, they are described following different laws. That's not how a serious Principle of Relativity works.
> > What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
> The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing > Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to > describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of > thinking about the situation.
> Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
> If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact, > identical. > If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should > suffice for both cases. > That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for > the rest of the paper.
> Again, none of this is controversial. Maxwell's equations work. The > measured voltage > is as they predict.
> What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity > together with the Lorentz Transform also works. The same measured > values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen > from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is > also true is that experiment matches prediction.
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
> > > 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?
> > The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
> > No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
> Principle of relativity:
> "All relativists tell the same > stupidities, regardless the forum, > and can be described as entities that > use the same dingleberrism"
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- > as usually understood at the present time-- > when applied to moving bodies, leads to > asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be > inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet > and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which > either the one or the other of these bodies is in > motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet an electric field with a certain > definite energy, producing a current at the places > where parts of the conductor are situated. But if > the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, > no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > electromotive force, to which in itself there is > no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- > assuming equality of relative motion in the two > cases discussed--to electric currents of the same > path and intensity as those produced by the electric > forces in the former case."
> Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle > of Relativity:
> "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood > of the magnet"
You have to know what "relative" means before he can say what relative means.
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to?
The non-relativistic view that Einstein was attacking. Nothing Einstein is saying above is controversial. But he's trying to describe things in a way that leads the reader toward a certain way of thinking about the situation.
============================================== Yeah, stage magicians do that. It's called "misdirection".
Two cases. Two explanations. One effect.
If the principle of relativity holds good, the two cases are, in fact, identical. If the principle of relativity holds good, one explanation should suffice for both cases. That's the conundrum that he's trying to establish. A motivation for the rest of the paper.
Again, none of this is controversial.
===================================== Rubbish, the paper is bullshit.
Maxwell's equations work. The measured voltage is as they predict.
What ought not be controversial is that the principle of relativity together with the Lorentz Transform also works. ====================================== Bullshit.
The same measured values are predicted regardless of what frame of reference is chosen from which to make the prediction. That much is provable. What is also true is that experiment matches prediction. ============================================ Go on then, prove this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
> On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
>> > 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.
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES > By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- > as usually understood at the present time-- when applied to moving > bodies, leads to asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be inherent in > the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action > of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends > only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas > the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in > which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if > the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the > neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite > energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor > are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in > motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. > In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in > itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- > assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to > electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by > the electric forces in the former case."
> Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle of > Relativity:
> "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor > in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the > magnet"
> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to? It is clear that a > correct Principle of relativity would say that magnet is actually moving > in a frame where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there must be > an electric field. So, that phenomenon should be described by the same > equations, because there is symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations > are a load of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load of > crap!
> And Juan R., your assertion
> "The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for > 'low' velocities."
> will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody how > idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive. Some guys seem > to be less idiotic once they passed away, as they stay silent, :-D . > Fortunately, you are in good company. Gullibility and idiotism are not > seldom features of relativists.
> I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the realm of > physics a century ago and still remains in it, without any kind of > embarrassment of lucid minds.
*Lucid minds* do not embarrass because understand science and the theory of relativity.
However, *unlucid minds* as your embarass a lot of :_-D
> "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
> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe > > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse > > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 > > referencing to Point #1.
> You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of > observers doesn't help you
It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
> On Oct 29, 1:03 am, "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
>> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe >> > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse >> > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 >> > referencing to Point #1.
>> You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of >> observers doesn't help you
> It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
Wrong again
> Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of relativity .. but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is your confusion.
>>>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
>>>Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe >>>how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse >>>transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 >>>referencing to Point #1.
>>You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of >>observers doesn't help you
> It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
> Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated ignorance of science.
> >>>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
> >>>Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe > >>>how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse > >>>transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 > >>>referencing to Point #1.
> >>You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of > >>observers doesn't help you
> > It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
> > Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and > > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
> We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether > we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated > ignorance of science.
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Begin to move toward a wall. Do you set the wall into motion. What space is the wall beginning to move through? What coordinate system for this walls motion is there?
>> >>>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
>> >>>Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe >> >>>how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse >> >>>transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 >> >>>referencing to Point #1.
>> >>You seem confused. And using points instead of frame of reference of >> >>observers doesn't help you
>> > It looks like you have understood nothing. <shrug>
>> > Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and >> > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
>> We will see more of your nonsensical and random ranting whether >> we want to or not. But go ahead and reinforce your demonstrated >> ignorance of science.
>> - Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Begin to move toward a wall. > Do you set the wall into motion.
No .. you have changed your frame of reference to one in which the wall was already in motion. So whereas you used to measure the wall as being at rest relative to you, you now measure it as being in motion relative to you. But it is yourself that you put in motion, not the wall, and so changed your personal frame of reference and coordinate system
Every inertial observer will agree that the wall has not changed its motion.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
> What > space is the wall beginning to move through?
It is not 'beginning' to do anything ... it is still moving through the same space it always moved through, and is still stationary in the same space it was always stationary in.
(ignoring the fact that both you and the wall are experiencing changing acceleration due to earth rotating, and orbiting the sun etc etc)
> What coordinate system > for this walls motion is there?
The one centered on what is now your current location in which you are now at rest. Your old location (and the wall) are in motion in that coordinate system.
Really.. this is just very basic classical physics.
> Albertito wrote on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:34:51 -0700:
>> On Oct 29, 10:27 am, "Juan R." González-à lvarez >> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: >>> Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:54 -0700:
>>> > 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
>>> > Letâ?Ts 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?
>>> The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for 'low' velocities.
>>> No part of this message has presented us the principle of relativity.
>> Principle of relativity:
>> "All relativists tell the same >> stupidities, regardless the forum, >> and can be described as entities that use the same dingleberrism"
> This is not the principle of relativity, you are once again wrong :-D
>> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING DINGLEBERRIES >> By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
>> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-- >> as usually understood at the present time-- when applied to moving >> bodies, leads to asymmetries[*1] which do not appear to be inherent in >> the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action >> of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends >> only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas >> the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in >> which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if >> the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the >> neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite >> energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor >> are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in >> motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. >> In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in >> itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise-- >> assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to >> electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by >> the electric forces in the former case."
>> Guys, let's see the dingleberrism of the Einsteinian Principle of >> Relativity:
>> "But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor >> in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the >> magnet"
>> What a load of crap is that paragraph referring to? It is clear that a >> correct Principle of relativity would say that magnet is actually moving >> in a frame where the conductor is at rest, and therefore there must be >> an electric field. So, that phenomenon should be described by the same >> equations, because there is symmetry. That mean that Maxwell equations >> are a load of crap, and SR, that is based on them, is also a load of >> crap!
>> And Juan R., your assertion
>> "The Galilean transform for velocity is only valid for >> 'low' velocities."
>> will remain archived in Usenet for years, showing to everybody how >> idiotic dingleberry you were when you were still alive. Some guys seem >> to be less idiotic once they passed away, as they stay silent, :-D . >> Fortunately, you are in good company. Gullibility and idiotism are not >> seldom features of relativists.
>> I wonder why Einstein's stupid Relativity could slipped in the realm of >> physics a century ago and still remains in it, without any kind of >> embarrassment of lucid minds.
> *Lucid minds* do not embarrass because understand science and the > theory of relativity.
> However, *unlucid minds* as your embarass a lot of :_-D
> "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
> > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe > > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse > > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 > > referencing to Point #1.
> > Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and > > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
> Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of > relativity ..
Let me ask you again. If I can show ([v_12] + [v_21] != 0), would that falsify the principle of relativity?
> but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is > your confusion.
If you don’t have anything else to contribute, please step aside and go back to your college-dropout crowd. Stop polluting my thread of discussions with garbage. OK?
> > "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
> > > Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform describe > > > how Point #1 observes Point #2 referencing Point #0, and their reverse > > > transforms describe how Point #0 observers the same Point #2 > > > referencing to Point #1.
> > > Now, are there any more objections besides these nonsensical and > > > random rantings from the college-dropout crowds?
> > Noone is objecting .. though what you've said is not the principle of > > relativity ..
> Let me ask you again. If I can show ([v_12] + [v_21] != 0), would > that falsify the principle of relativity?
> > but is a description of the maths of relative motion. That is > > your confusion.
> If you don’t have anything else to contribute, please step aside and > go back to your college-dropout crowd. Stop polluting my thread of > discussions with garbage. OK?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity is the appearence of opposite motion in the aether. The sun precesses across the sky in the opposite direction than the Earth rotates.
> 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.
> On Oct 28, 5:49 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
>> 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?
> So, there is no objections.
Noone has indicated there is any problem with that. What does it matter if they do or not .. you don't need permission ot post.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> "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>
> > 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. 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.
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>
> 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>
>> > 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. 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.
Not at all.
> 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.
> 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
> "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...
|
