> Which one do you suggest that says the Lorentz transform is a law of
> physics that respects the principle of relativity?

> What so-called symmetry are you referring to?

>> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
>> > 0), you did not raise any objections

>> Why should I?

> Because you are grossly ignorant.

>> > 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? [...]

>>> > When I brought up the Galilean transform satisfying ([v_12] + [v_21] =
>>> > 0), you did not raise any objections

>>> Why should I?

>> Because you are grossly ignorant.

> Not at all.  I'm not the one here who is confused about the PoR.  That
> would be you

>> As I said, go back to your college
>> dropout crowd.  Get the fvck lost, would you?

> Fuck off, you idiot.  You're a waste of valuable time

> > 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,

> I have a fair number of them. You have ONE you can cite?

> You have one you can cite?

> You understand the difference between necessary and sufficient? You
> understand what semantic equivalence would require?

> > 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>

> > 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_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > > > > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]

> > > > > Where

> > > > > **  [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.

> > On Oct 29, 1:17 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 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_12] = [v_02] – [v_01]
> > > > > > ** [v_21] = [v_01] – [v_02]

> > > > > > Where

> > > > > > **  [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.

> Hey, Albertito:http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/atlas2009-collision-...
> First collisions at LHC.

> Are you going to shut up as promised yet?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -