Principle of Relativity - sci.math

Message from discussion Principle of Relativity

More options Nov 2 2009, 6:47 pm

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math

From: PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:47:45 -0800 (PST)

Local: Mon, Nov 2 2009 6:47 pm

Subject: Re: Principle of Relativity

  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On Oct 31, 11:22 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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_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?

> > 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.

What??

> 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>

Forward