"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> On Nov 1, 1:02 am, "Inertial" wrote:
>> "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...