| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2005 07:04:00 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
has
A) If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa.
B) (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i.e.
acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
The zombie cult is usually engaged in worshipping and money making but
occasionally organizes fierce celebrations: so glorious is this ability
of Einstein to derive everything from two simple postulates.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 12:03:12 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127045040.850185.326100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
has
A) If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa.
B) (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i.e.
acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Then the transformation of the world line
x = c t
can be found by inserting this in the transformation, giving:
{ x' = P c t + Q t
{ t' = R c t + S t
resulting in
{ x' = (c P + Q) t
{ t' = (c R + S) t
which gives after eliminating t:
x' / t' = (c P + Q) / (c R + S)
or equivalently
x' - (c P + Q) / (c R + S) t' = 0
Demanding that this is equivalent with
x' - c t' = 0
implies that
(c P + Q) / (c R + S) = c
and thus that
(c P + Q) = c (c R + S)
and, for later use in (*):
Q - c S = - c (P - c R)
So now we take the transformation equations and find that
they satisfy
x' - c t' = P x + Q t - c (R x + S t)
= (P - c R) x + (Q - c S) t
= (P - c R) x - c (P - c R) t (*)
= (P - c R) (x - c t)
= L ( x - c t ) ,
provided we take L as
L = P - c R.
So we have proven that demanding that the world line
x - c t = 0
gets linearly transformed into
x' - c t' = 0 ,
implies that there is a number L such that the transformation satisfies
x' - c t' = L ( x - c t )
QED.
Dirk Vdm
The zombie cult is usually engaged in worshipping and money making but
occasionally organizes fierce celebrations: so glorious is this ability
of Einstein to derive everything from two simple postulates.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 12:21:19 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127045040.850185.326100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
has
A) If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa.
B) (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i.e.
acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics. You are saying this. Now tell us, why you assume,
a priori, the transformation must be linear. You problem appears at the
last step, see below.
Then the transformation of the world line
x = c t
can be found by inserting this in the transformation, giving:
{ x' = P c t + Q t
{ t' = R c t + S t
resulting in
{ x' = (c P + Q) t
{ t' = (c R + S) t
which gives after eliminating t:
x' / t' = (c P + Q) / (c R + S)
or equivalently
x' - (c P + Q) / (c R + S) t' = 0
Demanding that this is equivalent with
x' - c t' = 0
implies that
(c P + Q) / (c R + S) = c
and thus that
(c P + Q) = c (c R + S)
and, for later use in (*):
Q - c S = - c (P - c R)
So now we take the transformation equations and find that
they satisfy
x' - c t' = P x + Q t - c (R x + S t)
= (P - c R) x + (Q - c S) t
= (P - c R) x - c (P - c R) t (*)
= (P - c R) (x - c t)
= L ( x - c t ) ,
provided we take L as
L = P - c R.
Thus, constancy of c must be postulated a priori, and not as you
insisted in other posts that it can be derived bozzo. Sure it can be
derived from LT, since you have already assumes L is a constant number.
hey, imbecile, if you want to cheat, this is not the place.
Mike
So we have proven that demanding that the world line
x - c t = 0
gets linearly transformed into
x' - c t' = 0 ,
implies that there is a number L such that the transformation satisfies
x' - c t' = L ( x - c t )
QED.
Dirk Vdm
The zombie cult is usually engaged in worshipping and money making but
occasionally organizes fierce celebrations: so glorious is this ability
of Einstein to derive everything from two simple postulates.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 01:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127045040.850185.326100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
has
A) If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa.
B) (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i.e.
acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| §3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
You are saying this. Now tell us, why you assume,
a priori, the transformation must be linear. You problem appears at the
last step, see below.
Then the transformation of the world line
x = c t
can be found by inserting this in the transformation, giving:
{ x' = P c t + Q t
{ t' = R c t + S t
resulting in
{ x' = (c P + Q) t
{ t' = (c R + S) t
which gives after eliminating t:
x' / t' = (c P + Q) / (c R + S)
or equivalently
x' - (c P + Q) / (c R + S) t' = 0
Demanding that this is equivalent with
x' - c t' = 0
implies that
(c P + Q) / (c R + S) = c
and thus that
(c P + Q) = c (c R + S)
and, for later use in (*):
Q - c S = - c (P - c R)
So now we take the transformation equations and find that
they satisfy
x' - c t' = P x + Q t - c (R x + S t)
= (P - c R) x + (Q - c S) t
= (P - c R) x - c (P - c R) t (*)
= (P - c R) (x - c t)
= L ( x - c t ) ,
provided we take L as
L = P - c R.
Thus, constancy of c must be postulated a priori, and not as you
insisted in other posts that it can be derived bozzo.
I don't recall ever having said that the constancy of c
"can be derived bozzo".
I do recall this though:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
|...
| In agreement with experience we further assume the
| quantity 2 A B/(t'_a-T_A) = c to be a universal
| constant -- the velocity of light in empty space.
Sure it can be
derived from LT, since you have already assumes L is a constant number.
I don't recall ever "having already assumes L is a constant number".
I do recall this tough:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.html
hey, imbecile, if you want to cheat, this is not the place.
I can imagine that to a sub-imbecile with an attitude like you,
coordinate transformations and linear algebra look like cheats,
so you'll get no argument on that one, certainly not in this
place.
Now, pig, start digging yourself in again.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 01:57:58 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127064079.760182.186680@=
f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127045040.8=
50185.326100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", =
but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development=
in
the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
has
A) If x-ct=3D0, then x'-ct'=3D0, and vice versa.
B) (x'-ct') =3D lambda(x-ct)
and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i=
..e.
acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' =3D P x + Q t
{ t' =3D R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A73. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
You know imbecile, nothing in physics is "clear" unless it is proven as
such by experiment. But of course, you have demonstrated here you are
not doing physics but plain dogma.
You are saying this. Now tell us, why you assume,
a priori, the transformation must be linear. You problem appears at the
last step, see below.
Then the transformation of the world line
x =3D c t
can be found by inserting this in the transformation, giving:
{ x' =3D P c t + Q t
{ t' =3D R c t + S t
resulting in
{ x' =3D (c P + Q) t
{ t' =3D (c R + S) t
which gives after eliminating t:
x' / t' =3D (c P + Q) / (c R + S)
or equivalently
x' - (c P + Q) / (c R + S) t' =3D 0
Demanding that this is equivalent with
x' - c t' =3D 0
implies that
(c P + Q) / (c R + S) =3D c
and thus that
(c P + Q) =3D c (c R + S)
and, for later use in (*):
Q - c S =3D - c (P - c R)
So now we take the transformation equations and find that
they satisfy
x' - c t' =3D P x + Q t - c (R x + S t)
=3D (P - c R) x + (Q - c S) t
=3D (P - c R) x - c (P - c R) t (*)
=3D (P - c R) (x - c t)
=3D L ( x - c t ) ,
provided we take L as
L =3D P - c R.
Thus, constancy of c must be postulated a priori, and not as you
insisted in other posts that it can be derived bozzo.
I don't recall ever having said that the constancy of c
"can be derived bozzo".
try again, you may recall unless your condition has become
irreversible.
I do recall this though:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A7 1. Definition of Simultaneity
|...
| In agreement with experience we further assume the
| quantity 2 A B/(t'_a-T_A) =3D c to be a universal
| constant -- the velocity of light in empty space.
Sure it can be
derived from LT, since you have already assumes L is a constant number.
I don't recall ever "having already assumes L is a constant number".
I do recall this tough:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.html
hey, imbecile, if you want to cheat, this is not the place.
I can imagine that to a sub-imbecile with an attitude like you,
coordinate transformations and linear algebra look like cheats,
so you'll get no argument on that one, certainly not in this
place.
Coordiunate transformations and liner algebra is fine but not when it
is used by lunatics like you in petito principii style of proofs.
Now, do you remember if you had your medication today? never mind, take
it again, it will help you.
Mike
=20
Now, pig, start digging yourself in again.
=20
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 02:25:36 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127069878.081362.44400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| §3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
You know imbecile, nothing in physics is "clear" unless it is proven as
such by experiment. But of course, you have demonstrated here you are
not doing physics but plain dogma.
I just proved that your statement
| Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics.
was completely wrong.
So you have deserved another nice one:
Title: "That is not what Einstein said."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
So keep digging, pig - you're almost there :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 09:13:53 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127069878.081362.44400@f=
14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' =3D P x + Q t
{ t' =3D R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A73. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear. First, learn what homogeneity is all about. It has
nothing to do with events taking place in two different reference
frames, but only with the properties of a closed system which undergoes
a translation in its own reference frame.
"Assume that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere. Then
the mechanical properties of a closed system are unchanged by any
parallel displacement of the entire system in space. This is the
assumption of the homogeneity of space.":
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm1/modules/m12/symmetry.htm
But again, I think I expect too much from a crank of your proportions.
Mike
You know imbecile, nothing in physics is "clear" unless it is proven as
such by experiment. But of course, you have demonstrated here you are
not doing physics but plain dogma.
I just proved that your statement
| Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics.
was completely wrong.
So you have deserved another nice one:
Title: "That is not what Einstein said."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.ht=
ml
So keep digging, pig - you're almost there :-)
=20
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 11:33:16 AM |
|
|
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 12:11:55 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnditt8j.5g0.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
Reminds me of Shubert's generalized transformation:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
I never got an answer to my remark and inquiry:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3876c8132d04030d?hl=en
and I *was* making him an honest compliment on that one ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perspicacious" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
21 Sep 2005 09:28:25 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnditt8j.5g0.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
Reminds me of Shubert's generalized transformation:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
I never got an answer to my remark and inquiry:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3876c8132d04030d?hl=en
and I *was* making him an honest compliment on that one ;-)
Speaking of Shubert's nonlinear Lorentz transformation, you asked
Shubert the question, "How on earth did you *find* it?" He answered
thusly:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8317eb6e27bcc7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
21 Sep 2005 10:26:45 AM |
|
|
"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127312905.013577.105430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnditt8j.5g0.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
Reminds me of Shubert's generalized transformation:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
I never got an answer to my remark and inquiry:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3876c8132d04030d?hl=en
and I *was* making him an honest compliment on that one ;-)
Speaking of Shubert's nonlinear Lorentz transformation, you asked
Shubert the question, "How on earth did you *find* it?" He answered
thusly:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8317eb6e27bcc7
Actually, speaking of your nonlinear transformation, I
asked *you* the question, but, looking at your answer,
it could just as well have been a rhetorical question.
By the way, see a doctor about your mental health...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
20 Sep 2005 02:44:37 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
Hey Bilge, do you know that reversing the burden of proof is an
informal fallacy?
The statement is: In the first place it is clear that the equations
must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
attribute to space and time.
I need proof of this statement. That is, I need a proof that shows that
out of infinite possible transformations, "the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space
and time."
By reversing the burden of proof, you will not achive anything. I did
not make the statement, Dr. Al did and his Dirty follower conceeded. If
you believe that God exists, don't ask me to prove He does not.
Anyway, I believe that the concept of linear transformation does not
even apply in the case of Dr. Al's derivation of the LT. It is just a
postulations that suits the end result.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
20 Sep 2005 03:23:28 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127245477.681426.290120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
Hey Bilge, do you know that reversing the burden of proof is an
informal fallacy?
I surely hope that Bilge will not try to explain to something
like you ;-)
The statement is: In the first place it is clear that the equations
must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
attribute to space and time.
I need proof of this statement. That is, I need a proof that shows that
out of infinite possible transformations, "the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space
and time."
Give a compelling reason for using a non-linear transformation.
And then give us your favourite.
I already gave mine: Crackpot Shubert's generalized transformation
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
with the cube root of a Sierpinski-Zygmund bijection as zeta.
Your turn.
By reversing the burden of proof, you will not achive anything. I did
not make the statement, Dr. Al did and his Dirty follower conceeded. If
you believe that God exists, don't ask me to prove He does not.
Then stop whining and screaming that he should not and
cannot exist. Prove it.
Anyway, I believe that the concept of linear transformation does not
even apply in the case of Dr. Al's derivation of the LT. It is just a
postulations that suits the end result.
Just a postulations?
A bit nervous again?
Try digging yourself in some more.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 07:31:03 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Find a counter-example.
xxein: Why? You would not accept one, anyway. It wouldn't meet up
with your creed.
Are you going to say that a universal physics cannot exceed your
explanation, expectation or belief of it?
You are the 'celestial spheres' of (anytime) empirical evidence. If
you cannot do better than the mediocre lot, then don't assume that
anything else is 'wrong'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 10:45:18 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127139233.492067.93450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127069878.081362.44400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| §3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
In your usual ignorant and arrogant way you said:
| "Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics."
I have shown you completely wrong (in a rather polite way -
considering your own disgusting way of talking).
Normal people would then apologize and ackowledge the
fact that they just learned something.
Listen dog *****, you think you're masturbating in public. Well,
I have some ugly news for you. You are impotent, and the
only thing you do, is ***** on your shoes and on the carpet.
I'm just here to rub your nose in it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
20 Sep 2005 02:51:48 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127139233.492067.93450@o=
13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127069878.081362.44400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' =3D P x + Q t
{ t' =3D R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the wa=
y he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur p=
aper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A73. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
In your usual ignorant and arrogant way you said:
| "Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics."
I have shown you completely wrong (in a rather polite way -
considering your own disgusting way of talking).
Normal people would then apologize and ackowledge the
fact that they just learned something.
Listen dog *****, you think you're masturbating in public. Well,
I have some ugly news for you. You are impotent, and the
only thing you do, is ***** on your shoes and on the carpet.
Typical case of psychotic hysteria you are. Your situation is getting
worse. You need immediate treatment Dirt. Anyway, it is obvious you are
not doing a good job. "They" need someone else to do your dirty job. It
is obvious you are losing your temper easily.
Everytime I reply to your posts, I take a bite out of Relativity. be
sure I totally neglect your insults and attacks. On the contrary, they
are hillarious. hahahahahahahaha
Mike
I'm just here to rub your nose in it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.ht=
ml
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.html
=20
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
20 Sep 2005 03:12:13 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127245908.498620.6480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127139233.492067.93450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127069878.081362.44400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
{ x' = P x + Q t
{ t' = R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| §3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
In your usual ignorant and arrogant way you said:
| "Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics."
I have shown you completely wrong (in a rather polite way -
considering your own disgusting way of talking).
Normal people would then apologize and ackowledge the
fact that they just learned something.
Listen dog *****, you think you're masturbating in public. Well,
I have some ugly news for you. You are impotent, and the
only thing you do, is ***** on your shoes and on the carpet.
Typical case of psychotic hysteria you are. Your situation is getting
worse. You need immediate treatment Dirt. Anyway, it is obvious you are
not doing a good job. "They" need someone else to do your dirty job. It
is obvious you are losing your temper easily.
Everytime I reply to your posts, I take a bite out of Relativity. be
sure I totally neglect your insults and attacks. On the contrary, they
are hillarious. hahahahahahahaha
Evertime you post, you show what a silly pig you are :-)
Yes, pigs like the smell and the taste of their excrement:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.html
Keep digging, pig :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear alt.morons, |
21 Sep 2005 10:37:35 AM |
|
|
brian a m stuckless wrote .."centRO-SYMmetRY":..
$ La PoEsy GR gtr Principle of Equivalent SYNONYMs.!!
33. GRAViTY is "really" *TOGETHERness-like*, Dirk.!!
The GR TEST mass, quite LiTERALLY is a POiNT-like SYNONYM.!!
GRAViTATiONAL CENTRO-SYMMETRY is SiMPLY, purely EUCLiDEAN.!!
GR TEST masses falling together DO NOT ATTRACT each other.!!
GR TEST masses ..with NO field, DO NOT ATTRACT each other.!!
The PLANCK mass HAS a field, so, ALL PLANCK mass ATTRACTs.!!
GR TEST masses falling, in PAiR, will intersect at CENTER.!!
PLANCK masses falling, in PAiR, shall do so ..BEFORE that.!!
All PLANCK SPOTs on COLLAPSiNG BUBBLEs get closer TOGETHER.!!
Sincerely c,
```Brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Mike wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1127139233.492067.9=
3450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127069878.081362.44400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com.=
=2E.
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
Linearity of the transformation means that there are nu=
mbers
P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written =
as
{ x' =3D P x + Q t
{ t' =3D R x + S t .
Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and =
the way he
grounded his physics.
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little ama=
teur paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A73. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and=
Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform =
Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must=
be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity whi=
ch we
| attribute to space and time.
But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
sources.
No idiot, just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformati=
ons
other than linear.
In your usual ignorant and arrogant way you said:
| "Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and
| the way he grounded his physics."
I have shown you completely wrong (in a rather polite way -
considering your own disgusting way of talking).
Normal people would then apologize and ackowledge the
fact that they just learned something.
Listen dog *****, you think you're masturbating in public. Well,
I have some ugly news for you. You are impotent, and the
only thing you do, is ***** on your shoes and on the carpet.
I think you are exhibiting a serious terminal case of psychotic
behavior Dirt. Your situation is getting worse and you need immediate=
treatment.
Everytime I reply to your posts I take a bite out of Relativity. You =
do
not like that because it seems some will think you are not doing a go=
od
job. Hahahahahaha, you are not, hahahahahahah.
Mike
I'm just here to rub your nose in it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBo=
zzo.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.h=
tml
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.=
html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.ht=
ml
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground=
=2Ehtml
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.h=
tml
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsyhco.h=
tml
Dirk Vdm
Typo-CORRECT ..CENTRO-SYMMETRY ..centRO-SYMmetRY.!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perspicacious" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
21 Sep 2005 10:05:52 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur pap=
er:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| =A73. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
| from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
| of Translation Relatively to the Former
|...
| In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
| linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
| attribute to space and time.
Mike,
Your intuition is correct. It's simply not true that the equations
must be linear. Einstein was wrong. Seeing this requires
understanding the Shubertian clock.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3D4305#4305
... just prove to me why homogeneity precludes transformations
other than linear.
Homogeneity, as you have defined it, doesn't preclude nonlinear
coordinate transformations in the derivation of SR.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8317eb6e27bcc7
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=3D221
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
First, learn what homogeneity is all about. It has nothing to
do with events taking place in two different reference frames,
but only with the properties of a closed system which undergoes
a translation in its own reference frame.
"Assume that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere.
Then the mechanical properties of a closed system are unchanged
by any parallel displacement of the entire system in space.
This is the assumption of the homogeneity of space.":
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm1/modules/m12/symmetry.htm
Mike,
I agree. That's a good definition of homogeneity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perspicacious" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
18 Sep 2005 08:13:35 AM |
|
|
Forget about Einstein's tortured derivation. There's no reason
to base relativity on Einstein's version of the work of Poincar=E9
and Lorentz. There's no need to fixate on the clumsiness of
anyone's baby steps. The best derivation of special relativity
available anywhere to date in terms of sheer elegance, physical
intuitiveness and mathematical simplicity is given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=3D1100
Only the mathematically inept believe that Einstein discovered
an admirable derivation of special relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
19 Sep 2005 08:04:33 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
the zombie cult.
Yawn.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, his logic and the zombie cult |
20 Sep 2005 05:22:04 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127178273.909118.327310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that",
but
| > then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
| > consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development
in
| > the zombie cult.
|
| Yawn.
|
| --
| Jan Bielawski
Phuckwit.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
