> > "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_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?

> > > 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...