--------------
Could you trust the Ku Klux Klan to conduct an honest investigation of
the NAACP?

A Brain Dead True Believer Response
------------------------------------------------------------
I said this in a post:

Give one example to show how I am wrong when I say that every function
in x,y,z is invariant when put in difference form, such as with
(x1-x0), under the galilean transformations. x'=x-ut, y'=y-vt,
z'=z-wt.

This is the response I get from Paul B. Andersen, a physicist in
Norway. Understand, too, that not even one SR-cultist noticed that
Paul had apparently gone Brain Dead while responding:

(x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 1
Transformed:
(x' -(1-ut))^2 + (y'-(1-vt))^2 + (z'-(1-wt))^2 = 1
Clearly not invariant.
QED

Do you see any coordinate difference forms in that? Well, yes,
although not of the kind I specified, given that he insists that the
ones in (x-1), etc, are coordinates. (Otherwise, why transform them
with -vt, etc?)

Yes, no difference form so his response is somewhat Brain Dead in that
regard, but the Brain Death symptom par excellence is the fact that
the equation he provides is invariant under the Galilelan
transformations as he gives it:

(x' -(1-ut))^2 + (y'-(1-vt))^2 + (z'-(1-wt))^2 = 1

Expand the primed values and simplify and we get:

(x-ut - (1-ut))^2 + (y-vt - (1-vt))^2 + (z-wt - (1-wt))^2 = 1.
(x-ut-1+ut)^2 + (y-vt-1+vt)^2 + (z-wt-1+wt)^2 = 1
(x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 1.

Gee, the transformed equation reduces to the original equation! It is
not just invariant - which means same form, same value - it is exactly
the same. It is not just a real transformation, it is an identity
transformation in effect.

Galilean/Newtonian Invariance
--------------------------------------------------
Linear equations
-------------------------------
Inverse-square equations
--------------------------------------------
A Brain Dead True Believer Response
------------------------------------------------------------
A Brain Dead True Believer 'Response'
--------------------------------------------------------------

Preamble
--------------
Could you trust the Ku Klux Klan to conduct an honest investigation of
the NAACP? No matter how sincere the investigators might be, their
biases and learned distortions and misrepresentation of the NAACP and
blacks in general would make honesty impossible.

Just so, less than insightful opinion and later True Believer
blindness has resulted in a number of fraudulent claims by Relativity
cultists against aspects of Newtonian-Galilean physics.

True Believer cultists have proved time and again that their treatment
of the 'discredited' Newtonian-Galilean physics is based on
misrepresentation and bogus logic.

And in all cases in these newsgrouos the True Believers respond with
viciousness and irrelevancy. Except when they deign to actually try a
relevant respone and prove themselves Brain Dead. Hopefully, this
version of this post of the series will be contain at least one
example.

Whether or not any of modern physical fact fits Newton is not material
to the question of these bogus claims of the cult. We are here to do
"anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic
examination of premises and logic", of Special Relativity. No premises
are more basic than those involved in the three frauds named herein,
and discussed in this series.

Among the frauds are the twin original claims that Special Relativity
is necessary: (a) the Newtonian-Galilean coordinate transformations do
not work invariantly on Maxwell's electrodynamics equations and (b)
the famous Michelson-Morley experiment does not fit the classical
Newtonian-Galilean model and only fits Special Relativity.

Another, very serious fraud is (c) the implied claim that the
Lorentz-Einstein coordinate transformations of Special Relativity
actually are applied to Maxwell, completing the fraudulent claims
against the Newton-consistent Galilean transformations.

By the way, look up the word 'corrupt' in your dictionary if you think
it only describes policemen and politicians who take bribes.

Invariance and the Principle of Relativity
---------------------------------------------------------------
To be a universal law it must not require amending from place to place
and time to time anywhere in the universe, nor yield different values
at different places and times in the same situation.

The unfortunate stand-in for that Principle of Relativity in the case
of Special Relativity is the question: do my space and time
coordinates in a specified equation yield the same answer as the space
and time coordinate of whomever else might be witnessing the same
event as I?

In particular, the coordinates of someone moving at a uniform velocity
relative to myself.

To relate one set of coordinates to another, we 'transform' one set to
the other.

Equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation of
coordinates if they have in both coordinate systems the same form and
the same result.

As we shall see, at the minimum, all properly setup equations using
space and time coordinates in x,y,z,t not only yield the same value in
all of the coordinate systems in question, and are of the same form in
all of the coordinate systems, but far exceed that last criterion by
reducing exactly and completely to the original system equations.


Galilean/Newtonian Invariance of Maxwell
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, of (a) any equation linear in x,y,z and (b) any
inverse-square equation in x.

First problem: to avoid the corrupt idiocy of imposing a time
transform in a test of a theory that says time is the same throughout
the universe regardless of your motion. As Einstein says,
in theory you can setup synchronized clocks anywhere/everywhere in the
universe, so the idea of imposing some kind of time transform or a lag
calculation as if it were a coordinate transform is thus unnecessary
nonsense.


(a) Linear equations
-------------------------------
Let there be f=foo(x,y,z,a,b,c...). We say what must have been amusing
the first time someone did it, foo, to stand for a function that need
not be defined for the immediate purposes. Sometimes, as in the case
of Einstein's 1905 derivation, the idea is to use the unknown and
unspecified function as a way station in the process of discovering
what the function might be. (He used tau, not foo.)

The list of variables or other expressions inside foo's parentheses
is a list of values on which the value of foo, the algebra of foo, are
calculated.

As always, one has setup the function so that the origin is at one end
of whatever length or distance is relevant. If x, y, z don't
represent lengths/distances on the axes, you are an idiot, which is
what True Believer SRians are when they begin to discuss their basics.

Because we are in theory going to compare the original equation, with
the origin so well placed, with a transformed version of the equation
where the origin is not well placed, we use the difference form of the
function:

f=foo(x1-x0,y1-y0,z1-z0,a,b,c,...,t,v ).

Transform each x-value, y-value, z-value to transform the function to
the new coordinate system, remembering that the moving system is at
velocity u with respect to (wrt) the x-axes, v wrt the y-axes, w wrt
the z-axes:

f'=foo(x1'-x0',y1'-y0',z1'-z0',a,b,c...,t,v ),
=foo(x1-ut-x0+ut,y1-vt-y0+vt,z1-wt-z0+wt,...,t,v ),
=foo(x1-x0,y1-y0,z1-z0,a,b,c,...,t,v, ).

The ut, vt, wt terms have canceled out.

Hence, foo is the same regardless of whether it is based on
x-,y-,z-axis coordinates or their transforms, the x'-,y'-,z'-axis
coordinates.

Hence, too, df'=df.

Any linear equation in x,y,z is thus invariant under the
Newtonian-Galilean coordinate transformation when applied to equations
expressed properly, in differences form. (Not that it is not somewhat
idiotic to put equations in any coordinate form when the quantities
they represent, lengths, areas, volumes, are readily available and
don't lead to deluded analysis based on coordinate transformations.).


(b) inverse-square equations
--------------------------------------------
f=foo[ (x1-x0)^2, (y1-y0)^2,(z1-z0)^2,a,b,c,...,t,v ].

f'=foo[ (x1'-x0')^2, (y1'-y0')^2,(z1'-z0')^2,a,b,c,...,t,v ],
=foo[ (x1-ut-x0+ut)^2,(y1-vt-y0+vt)^2,(z1-wt-z0+wt)^2,a,b,c,...,t,v]
=foo[ (x1-x0)^2, (y1-y0)^2, (z1-z0)^2,a,b,c,...,t,v ]

Foo is the same regardless of reference to the x-,y-,z-axes or the
x'-,y'-,z'-axes.

Hence df'=df.

Maxwell's equations are inverse-square equations in the distances the
coordinates (so poorly) represent.

Any inverse-square equation in x,y,z is thus invariant under the
Newtonian-Galilean coordinate transformation when applied to equations
expressed properly, in differences form. (Not that it is not somewhat
idiotic to put equations in any coordinate form when the quantities
they represent, lengths, areas, volumes, are readily available and
don't lead to deluded analysis based on coordinate transformations.)
.

A Brain Dead True Believer Response
------------------------------------------------------------
I said this in a post:

Give one example to show how I am wrong when I say that every function
in x,y,z is invariant when put in difference form, such as with
(x1-x0), under the galilean transformations. x'=x-ut, y'=y-vt,
z'=z-wt.

This is the response I get from Paul B. Andersen, a physicist in
Norway. Understand, too, that not even one SR-cultist noticed that
Paul had apparently gone Brain Dead while responding:

(x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 1
Transformed:
(x' -(1-ut))^2 + (y'-(1-vt))^2 + (z'-(1-wt))^2 = 1
Clearly not invariant.
QED

Do you see any coordinate difference forms in that? Well, yes,
although not of the kind I specified, given that he insists that the
ones in (x-1), etc, are coordinates. (Otherwise, why transform them
with -vt, etc?)

Yes, no difference form so his response is somewhat Brain Dead in that
regard, but the Brain Death symptom par excellence is the fact that
the equation he provides is invariant under the Galilelan
transformations as he gives it:

(x' -(1-ut))^2 + (y'-(1-vt))^2 + (z'-(1-wt))^2 = 1

Expand the primed values and simplify and we get:

(x-ut - (1-ut))^2 + (y-vt - (1-vt))^2 + (z-wt - (1-wt))^2 = 1.
(x-ut-1+ut)^2 + (y-vt-1+vt)^2 + (z-wt-1+wt)^2 = 1
(x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 1.

Gee, the transformed equation reduces to the original equation! It is
not just invariant - which means same form, same value - it is exactly
the same. It is not just a real transformation, it is an identity
transformation in effect.

Now Paul - being such a fine exemplar of the True Believer SR-cult
cretin - now has a revealing rejoinder to the demonstration that his
non-invariant equation is invariant:
----------------------------------------
See what I can do:

(x-1)^2
(x + 5 - z - 5 + z + e^37 - dirt + eleaticus - e^37 + dirt - eleaticus
- 1)^2
(x -1)^2

(x-1)^2 is indeed invariant irrespective of what you add and subtract
from x !!!!
Amazing!
-------------------------------------

Actually, he makes as much sense as any other True Believer SRian.



A Corrupt True Believer 'Response'
-------------------------------------------------------
In response to rantings about the original version of this piece
(essentially the same but without material I've added) I wrote
further:

Here's a start: (x1-x0).

Just surround it with whatever and prefix with *= where * is

whatever

function name, then show how it isn't invariant with respect to the

galilean

transformation.

True Believer "Eric Gisse" came up with this:
---------------------------------------
A^u = e^u\exp(-i p_u x^u)

Where A^u is the electromagnetic four potential satisfying maxwell's
equations, box A^u = 0. (e^u is the four-polarization, p_u x^u is
the phase, from which one may also derive the doppler shift by
taking it to be invariant). It's not invariant with respect to
galilean transforms (unless the speed of light is infinite)
because (1) p_u x^u is invariant and (2) p_u A^u = 0 independent
of your choice of coordinates unless charge isn't conserved, in
which case maxwell's equations are incorrect.
------------------------------------------

You will note several things about his response, I am sure.

One, there are no coordinate difference forms involved, although I
said "Here's a start: (x1-x0)."

Two, the subexpression p_u A^u = 0 cannot be a source of
non-invariance by his own assertion.

Three, if p_u x^u is invariant then the whole function is invariant
under the galillean transformations because when put in the specified
form, the distance x-vector (x,y,z,t) is invariant under the Galilean
transformations, as shown in the material to which he supposedly is
responding:

(x1-x0,y1-y0,z1-z0,t) when transformed becomes:
(x1-ut-x0+ut,y1-vt-y0+vt,z1-wt-z0+wt,t) = (x1-x0,y1-y0,z1-z0,t).

Invariance.

Gisse's Brain Dead example is also an example of a typical SR-cult
corrupt practice, similar in concept to crooked bookkeeping: when you
make a phoney (by amount) entry you must make another in order that
the balance add up. That is, when SR screws up x = (x,y,z.t) to become
x'=(x',y',z',t') it has to compensate by screwing up the p_u values.


The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before
you know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in
this series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how
Relativity is proved correct a million times each day, or some other
'we are proved right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the
debunking done here? It is typically General Relativity or items about
the energy and mass of moving objects that are being waved at you, and
such items are completely irrelevant to coordinate transformations and
invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made
of the shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special
Relativity says always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the
material posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

Galilean/Newtonian Invariance

True Believer "Eric Gisse" came up with this:

---------------------------------------
A^u = e^u\exp(-i p_u x^u)

Where A^u is the electromagnetic four potential satisfying maxwell's
equations, box A^u = 0. (e^u is the four-polarization, p_u x^u is
the phase, from which one may also derive the doppler shift by
taking it to be invariant). It's not invariant with respect to
galilean transforms (unless the speed of light is infinite)
because (1) p_u x^u is invariant and (2) p_u A^u = 0 independent
of your choice of coordinates unless charge isn't conserved, in
which case maxwell's equations are incorrect.
------------------------------------------

You will note several things about his response, I am sure.

Gisse's Brain Dead example is also an example of a typical SR-cult
corrupt practice, similar in concept to crooked bookkeeping: when you
make a phoney (by amount) entry you must make another in order that
the balance add up. That is, when SR screws up x = (x,y,z.t) to become
x'=(x',y',z',t') it has to compensate by screwing up the p_u values.

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made
of the shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special
Relativity says always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the
material posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

Galilean/Newtonian Invariance
--------------------------------------------------
Linear equations
-------------------------------
Inverse-square equations
--------------------------------------------
A Brain Dead True Believer Response
------------------------------------------------------------
A Brain Dead True Believer 'Response'
--------------------------------------------------------------