Science > Physics > On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"None" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2005 06:57:21 AM |
| Object: |
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
Abstract:
We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.
Enjoy reading full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.
We will be pleased to hear your responds.
Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin
Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine
Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: ,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
23 Sep 2005 11:01:33 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1127476641.656874.132000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
Abstract:
We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.
Enjoy reading full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.
We will be pleased to hear your responds.
Equation (11) of
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sr29/sr29.html
a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2) / ( 1 + v u'(t')/c^2 )^3
is the standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in the x-direction. There is nothing new about that and it
is easily derived from the Lorentz transformation.
Then you say:
| We see from (11) that in passing from stationary RF to that
| moving, the constant acceleration becomes time-variable and
| we can provide its constancy only if
| u'(t') = const =/= 0
This obviously implies that for the object
a'(t') = const = 0
and of course
u(t) = const =/= 0
a(t) = const = 0
So your following statement is rather silly:
| With it the dotted RF becomes non-inertial and we, on one
| hand, come to inconsistency with the computations on whose
| basis we yielded (11), and on the other hand, we
| automatically exceed the limits of SR validity.
| Additionally, the dotted frame cannot be the intrinsic frame
| for the accelerated body, as at zero speed of body in this
| frame we yield quite strange relation
| a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)
This relation actually says
0 = 0
which is not quite strange.
I find your functions with non-zero curl(grad) much more
quite strange:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
and elsewhere...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
01 Oct 2005 07:27:39 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1127476641.656874.132000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
Abstract:
We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.
Enjoy reading full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.
We will be pleased to hear your responds.
Equation (11) of
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sr29/sr29.html
a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2) / ( 1 + v u'(t')/c^2 )^3
is the standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in the x-direction. There is nothing new about that and it
is easily derived from the Lorentz transformation.
Then you say:
| We see from (11) that in passing from stationary RF to that
| moving, the constant acceleration becomes time-variable and
| we can provide its constancy only if
| u'(t') = const =/= 0
This obviously implies that for the object
a'(t') = const = 0
and of course
u(t) = const =/= 0
a(t) = const = 0
So your following statement is rather silly:
| With it the dotted RF becomes non-inertial and we, on one
| hand, come to inconsistency with the computations on whose
| basis we yielded (11), and on the other hand, we
| automatically exceed the limits of SR validity.
| Additionally, the dotted frame cannot be the intrinsic frame
| for the accelerated body, as at zero speed of body in this
| frame we yield quite strange relation
| a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)
This relation actually says
0 = 0
which is not quite strange.
I find your functions with non-zero curl(grad) much more
quite strange:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
and elsewhere...
Dirk Vdm
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads. This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique. The standard
relativistic expression with its derivation we showed in page 30
(formula (24)). You ought to know what you are so hard defending.
Now about your usual method to pervert what the opponent says on the
grounds of your own silliness of which Nightbat pisses boiling water.
;-)
The main property of inertial reference frames is that they do not
change the pattern of body's motion. This means, if the body moved
with the uniform acceleration with respect to stationary RF, it has to
move the same with respect to any other inertial RF. While the formula
which you so much liked shows the opposite. Namely, that the uniformly
accelerated pattern of body's motion does not conserve in
inertial-frame-to-inertial-frame passing. And, as we showed in our
work, both our formula and relativistic (24) show it. Have you a hiccup
because of your own silliness? Nothing of surprise, it is seen in your
psychotic idle talk. ;-)
And when you recalled our non-zero curl(grad) irrelevant here, it would
be to the point to recall also, what Tim Shuba and EL told you on this
subject. It was so nice how you have shut up then. ;-) I do not mention
what I said and explained you, anyway you are unable to grasp and
analyse, as your mathematical abilities clearly do not excess the level
of school for children with mental inability. Helpless to explain. And
now, what a sense is in your writing 0 = 0? You are unable even to
distinct one symbol from another. You mixed camels and horses to one
crowd and sit on your own eggs, as a brood-hen. ;-)
Drink water, it can help. ;-)
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
02 Oct 2005 01:36:02 PM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1128169659.591561.245320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1127476641.656874.132000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
Abstract:
We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.
Enjoy reading full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.
We will be pleased to hear your responds.
Equation (11) of
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sr29/sr29.html
a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2) / ( 1 + v u'(t')/c^2 )^3
is the standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in the x-direction. There is nothing new about that and it
is easily derived from the Lorentz transformation.
Then you say:
| We see from (11) that in passing from stationary RF to that
| moving, the constant acceleration becomes time-variable and
| we can provide its constancy only if
| u'(t') = const =/= 0
This obviously implies that for the object
a'(t') = const = 0
and of course
u(t) = const =/= 0
a(t) = const = 0
So your following statement is rather silly:
| With it the dotted RF becomes non-inertial and we, on one
| hand, come to inconsistency with the computations on whose
| basis we yielded (11), and on the other hand, we
| automatically exceed the limits of SR validity.
| Additionally, the dotted frame cannot be the intrinsic frame
| for the accelerated body, as at zero speed of body in this
| frame we yield quite strange relation
| a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)
This relation actually says
0 = 0
which is not quite strange.
I find your functions with non-zero curl(grad) much more
quite strange:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
and elsewhere...
Dirk Vdm
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads.
Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.
You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:24:40 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads.
Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
Still I see, this is your speciality.
This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.
You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.
Dirk Vdm
You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said you
have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
different derivations based on relativistic conception give different
results. Only such dolt, such ignoramus as you are can miss it out.
That is the problem. Secondly, our paper was not pointed only on
acceleration, this is only one of its aspects. You have omitted all
other aspects and this speaks, you have no real counter-arguments, only
feeble-minded malice of bawler. This is why you splash so much of your
saliva. We have proven in our paper that the 4-D interval in the
complex plane is not invariant in relativistic sense, and vice versa,
the relativistic invariant is not a complex interval. Shielding a
school mistake of Poincare - Minkowski - Einstein, you in this way
confess your own ignorance at the school level. Which time now! And I
already told you, show your original studies. Your references to as if
existing writings are very doubtful. You are unable to formulate any
logic relation. So, even if you have something written, this is okay
only for homeless cats or for imbeciles to which you relate. Copy these
my words to your web-site.
Furthermore, we have proven in the item 3 of our paper, Einstein's
shortened transformations are not the group. After this, all talks that
you are trying to provoke show only that you, unfortunately, did not
learn even school initials. Your chief does not discharge you only
because relativists have no other arguments to defend their dirty
anti-scientific writings. So the dialog with you was and is senseless.
This was invented about you: "oak is a conifer!"
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:47:35 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|
| > >
| > > There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of
physics, you
| > > only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are
able
| > > to is to pour your gall on threads.
| >
| > Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
| > these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
| > from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
|
| Still I see, this is your speciality.
| >
| > > This does not add you knowledge,
| > > and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also
does
| > > not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see,
you
| > > are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
| > > standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in
the
| > > x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
| > > relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
| >
| > Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
| > course in a more general form where the object goes in some
| > arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
| > chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
| > embarassingly simple.
| >
| > You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
| > and then wrote an entire article around it.
| > You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
| > it, a very stupid one.
| >
| > Dirk Vdm
|
| You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said
you
| have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
| different derivations based on relativistic conception give different
| results. Only such dolt, such ignoramus as you are can miss it out.
| That is the problem. Secondly, our paper was not pointed only on
| acceleration, this is only one of its aspects. You have omitted all
| other aspects and this speaks, you have no real counter-arguments,
only
| feeble-minded malice of bawler. This is why you splash so much of your
| saliva. We have proven in our paper that the 4-D interval in the
| complex plane is not invariant in relativistic sense, and vice versa,
| the relativistic invariant is not a complex interval. Shielding a
| school mistake of Poincare - Minkowski - Einstein, you in this way
| confess your own ignorance at the school level. Which time now! And I
| already told you, show your original studies. Your references to as if
| existing writings are very doubtful. You are unable to formulate any
| logic relation. So, even if you have something written, this is okay
| only for homeless cats or for imbeciles to which you relate. Copy
these
| my words to your web-site.
|
| Furthermore, we have proven in the item 3 of our paper, Einstein's
| shortened transformations are not the group. After this, all talks
that
| you are trying to provoke show only that you, unfortunately, did not
| learn even school initials. Your chief does not discharge you only
| because relativists have no other arguments to defend their dirty
| anti-scientific writings. So the dialog with you was and is senseless.
| This was invented about you: "oak is a conifer!"
|
| Sergey
Key point you've made, Sergey:
"So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumble] was and is senseless".
Why do you bother with the troll? It's senseless, by your own
assessment.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
24 Oct 2005 02:54:32 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|
| > >
| > > There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of
physics, you
| > > only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are
able
| > > to is to pour your gall on threads.
| >
| > Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
| > these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
| > from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
|
| Still I see, this is your speciality.
| >
| > > This does not add you knowledge,
| > > and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also
does
| > > not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see,
you
| > > are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
| > > standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in
the
| > > x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
| > > relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
| >
| > Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
| > course in a more general form where the object goes in some
| > arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
| > chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
| > embarassingly simple.
| >
| > You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
| > and then wrote an entire article around it.
| > You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
| > it, a very stupid one.
| >
| > Dirk Vdm
|
| You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said
you
| have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
| different derivations based on relativistic conception give different
| results. Only such dolt, such ignoramus as you are can miss it out.
| That is the problem. Secondly, our paper was not pointed only on
| acceleration, this is only one of its aspects. You have omitted all
| other aspects and this speaks, you have no real counter-arguments,
only
| feeble-minded malice of bawler. This is why you splash so much of your
| saliva. We have proven in our paper that the 4-D interval in the
| complex plane is not invariant in relativistic sense, and vice versa,
| the relativistic invariant is not a complex interval. Shielding a
| school mistake of Poincare - Minkowski - Einstein, you in this way
| confess your own ignorance at the school level. Which time now! And I
| already told you, show your original studies. Your references to as if
| existing writings are very doubtful. You are unable to formulate any
| logic relation. So, even if you have something written, this is okay
| only for homeless cats or for imbeciles to which you relate. Copy
these
| my words to your web-site.
|
| Furthermore, we have proven in the item 3 of our paper, Einstein's
| shortened transformations are not the group. After this, all talks
that
| you are trying to provoke show only that you, unfortunately, did not
| learn even school initials. Your chief does not discharge you only
| because relativists have no other arguments to defend their dirty
| anti-scientific writings. So the dialog with you was and is senseless.
| This was invented about you: "oak is a conifer!"
|
| Sergey
Key point you've made, Sergey:
"So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumble] was and is senseless".
Why do you bother with the troll? It's senseless, by your own
assessment.
Androcles.
You are right, Androcles. Why take seriously this troll? And I don't.
The more when we already see, this is a girl to order and not only he
but those who order his trolling are seized with powerless malice (see
the post of Rod Ryker 16 Oct 17:27 here). As we Russians say, they
cannot hide an awl in a bag. ;-)
I am very glad that you are continuing your study; let me few days to
read your updated web site. The more that it is my interest, how much
you advanced your understanding of the issue after our discussion. But
as to the aether, I would advice you to be not so categorical. If you
remember, I showed you some time ago that we may not think the space of
universe to be empty or immaterial, because it has quite specific
physical properties: dielectric and diamagnetic factors and wave
impedance. Until these properties are inherent in space, we may not
call 'nothing' something having these properties, may we? ;-)
Also, let me disagree with you that, as you say, many colleagues are
not enough empirically aware - this means, the dialogue is senseless.
We all know not everything, don't we? And we all have some
understanding and ideas, you in that number. Are they right and how
much right - this is checked and substantiated. But just in this
stove our future knowledge is cooked, isn't it? So it seems to me
much more useful to find real arguments and thoroughly to agree our
positions than to pass to fruitless conflicting. We can of course say
many abusive words to each other, but understanding will not come of
it. Every one only will go to their corners to bite lips. ;-) And only
rigorous argumentation and building of logic with account of all
affecting factors will facilitate our advance. With it, every one of us
will make a contribution, which will form the rigour of final
knowledge. This position seems to me more constructive than yours. And
then you will not confront with Uncle Al. See, he is not malicious, he
only fears that people will see, he is defenceless as a lamb. So he
much threatens with 'toxic URL', but factually more feigns and
frowns when necessary and not. ;-) I hope, I persuaded you. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
24 Oct 2005 08:44:48 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1130140472.415333.164540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
| > news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > |
| > | > >
| > | > > There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of
| > physics, you
| > | > > only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you
are
| > able
| > | > > to is to pour your gall on threads.
| > | >
| > | > Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
| > | > these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
| > | > from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
| > |
| > | Still I see, this is your speciality.
| > | >
| > | > > This does not add you knowledge,
| > | > > and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself
also
| > does
| > | > > not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can
see,
| > you
| > | > > are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
| > | > > standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in
| > the
| > | > > x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
| > | > > relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
| > | >
| > | > Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
| > | > course in a more general form where the object goes in some
| > | > arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
| > | > chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
| > | > embarassingly simple.
| > | >
| > | > You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
| > | > and then wrote an entire article around it.
| > | > You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
| > | > it, a very stupid one.
| > | >
| > | > Dirk Vdm
| > |
| > | You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you
said
| > you
| > | have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
| > | different derivations based on relativistic conception give
different
| > | results. Only such dolt, such ignoramus as you are can miss it
out.
| > | That is the problem. Secondly, our paper was not pointed only on
| > | acceleration, this is only one of its aspects. You have omitted
all
| > | other aspects and this speaks, you have no real counter-arguments,
| > only
| > | feeble-minded malice of bawler. This is why you splash so much of
your
| > | saliva. We have proven in our paper that the 4-D interval in the
| > | complex plane is not invariant in relativistic sense, and vice
versa,
| > | the relativistic invariant is not a complex interval. Shielding a
| > | school mistake of Poincare - Minkowski - Einstein, you in this way
| > | confess your own ignorance at the school level. Which time now!
And I
| > | already told you, show your original studies. Your references to
as if
| > | existing writings are very doubtful. You are unable to formulate
any
| > | logic relation. So, even if you have something written, this is
okay
| > | only for homeless cats or for imbeciles to which you relate. Copy
| > these
| > | my words to your web-site.
| > |
| > | Furthermore, we have proven in the item 3 of our paper, Einstein's
| > | shortened transformations are not the group. After this, all talks
| > that
| > | you are trying to provoke show only that you, unfortunately, did
not
| > | learn even school initials. Your chief does not discharge you only
| > | because relativists have no other arguments to defend their dirty
| > | anti-scientific writings. So the dialog with you was and is
senseless.
| > | This was invented about you: "oak is a conifer!"
| > |
| > | Sergey
| >
| >
| > Key point you've made, Sergey:
| > "So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumble] was and is
senseless".
| > Why do you bother with the troll? It's senseless, by your own
| > assessment.
| > Androcles.
|
| You are right, Androcles. Why take seriously this troll? And I don't.
| The more when we already see, this is a girl to order and not only he
| but those who order his trolling are seized with powerless malice (see
| the post of Rod Ryker 16 Oct 17:27 here). As we Russians say, they
| cannot hide an awl in a bag. ;-)
|
| I am very glad that you are continuing your study; let me few days to
| read your updated web site. The more that it is my interest, how much
| you advanced your understanding of the issue after our discussion. But
| as to the aether, I would advice you to be not so categorical. If you
| remember, I showed you some time ago that we may not think the space
of
| universe to be empty or immaterial, because it has quite specific
| physical properties: dielectric and diamagnetic factors and wave
| impedance. Until these properties are inherent in space, we may not
| call 'nothing' something having these properties, may we? ;-)
Vacuum of space has no physical properties, as your countryman
Vladimir Sekerin showed:
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months).
I was making the same sketches as Vladimir at a time when we
had no internet and were politically divided.
Politics has no place in science.
|
| Also, let me disagree with you that, as you say, many colleagues are
| not enough empirically aware - this means, the dialogue is senseless.
| We all know not everything, don't we? And we all have some
| understanding and ideas, you in that number. Are they right and how
| much right - this is checked and substantiated. But just in this
| stove our future knowledge is cooked, isn't it? So it seems to me
| much more useful to find real arguments and thoroughly to agree our
| positions than to pass to fruitless conflicting. We can of course say
| many abusive words to each other, but understanding will not come of
| it. Every one only will go to their corners to bite lips. ;-) And only
| rigorous argumentation and building of logic with account of all
| affecting factors will facilitate our advance. With it, every one of
us
| will make a contribution, which will form the rigour of final
| knowledge. This position seems to me more constructive than yours. And
| then you will not confront with Uncle Al. See, he is not malicious, he
| only fears that people will see, he is defenceless as a lamb. So he
| much threatens with 'toxic URL', but factually more feigns and
| frowns when necessary and not. ;-) I hope, I persuaded you. ;-)
|
| Kind regards,
|
| Sergey
I gave Uncle Al a taste of his own medicine for two days. He quit,
complaining of the grapes being sour. You cannot persuade me
of anything, I'll listen only to reasoned logic.
Ciao,
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
04 Nov 2005 08:05:57 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
I gave Uncle Al a taste of his own medicine for two days. He quit,
complaining of the grapes being sour. You cannot persuade me
of anything, I'll listen only to reasoned logic.
Ciao,
Androcles.
Dear Androcles, I copied Sekerin's paper, but have to distress you.
This is a mere geometrical problem that adds nothing to the issues we
both mean now. In the spring 2003 I had a long discussion on similar
solution advertised by Henri Wilson. I was so much tired then
explaining him his mistakes, let me avoid this procedure again. If you
still are interesting, you can find in sci.physics, sci.astro that
discussion: Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&threadm=3ECCD805.432D70FC%40nbnet.nb.ca&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd
And as to the matter of our current discussion. I already showed you,
should the space in which EM waves propagate have not three properties
basic for wave physics, there would be no fields, no EM waves. I can
only repeat, the wave impedance of space has been multiply proven in
experiments. No one antenna can be designed in disregard of this
impedance. People write much, write different, write irrelevant. We
have to rely not on what someone wrote but on, how much he
substantiated. In particular, if speaking of possibility to add the
speed of wave propagation with the source speed, we would see double
and triple images in those double stars to which Sekerin refers. Still
it is not observed, so you can put his theory to the very far corner of
the very long box.
Regards,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
04 Nov 2005 08:52:37 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1131113157.768279.59490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
I gave Uncle Al a taste of his own medicine for two days. He quit,
complaining of the grapes being sour. You cannot persuade me
of anything, I'll listen only to reasoned logic.
Ciao,
Androcles.
Dear Androcles, I copied Sekerin's paper, but have to distress you.
This is a mere geometrical problem that adds nothing to the issues we
both mean now. In the spring 2003 I had a long discussion on similar
solution advertised by Henri Wilson. I was so much tired then
explaining him his mistakes, let me avoid this procedure again. If you
still are interesting, you can find in sci.physics, sci.astro that
discussion: Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&threadm=3ECCD805.432D70FC%40nbnet.nb.ca&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd
I'm not all that interested, and I'm not in the least distressed.
You can go on believing stars blow up twice in 3 months all you want to, I
don't.
And as to the matter of our current discussion. I already showed you,
should the space in which EM waves propagate have not three properties
basic for wave physics, there would be no fields, no EM waves.
You didn't show me anything. All you've done is a made a wild claim.
I can
only repeat, the wave impedance of space has been multiply proven in
experiments.
Repeat all you want to, my TV has a vacuum tube in which there is an
electric field to accelerate electrons from cathode to anode and a magnetic
field to deflect the beam. It works, multiply proven by millions of TVs
and computer monitors around the world, whatever your "experiments" say.
No one antenna can be designed in disregard of this
impedance.
The impedance to the electron beam of my TV is ZERO, the beam current
is limited by resistance, so I'll disregard your impedance, I have to
distress you.
People write much, write different, write irrelevant. We
have to rely not on what someone wrote but on, how much he
substantiated. In particular, if speaking of possibility to add the
speed of wave propagation with the source speed, we would see double
and triple images in those double stars to which Sekerin refers.
Yes. One behind the other, and we do see it.
Still
it is not observed,
Yes it is.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
You can tell by counting the pixels just how difficult it is, but stars,
especially red giants, are spherical. Gravity says so. What you are
seeing is distortion caused by a variable speed of light.
BTW, straight sticks in water appear bent. You can believe they
bend if you want to, but I don't.
so you can put his theory to the very far corner of
the very long box.
I'm not that foolish, I have to distress you.
Androcles.
Regards,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 02:03:45 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 05:01:22 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A411.EF6569DD@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Auntie Alice <=> Wanker
Schwartz is *****.
The Chinese told him "*****, you DUMB *****"
They were right.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
24 Oct 2005 02:57:13 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=3D>J=E4mmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Dear Al, I still am waiting to hear from you about your experiments
with equivalence, only heard that you expect to have results this
autumn. Can I see them?=20
Thank you kindly,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
24 Oct 2005 04:47:38 AM |
|
|
None wrote:
=
Uncle Al wrote:
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=3D>J=E4mmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
=
Dear Al, I still am waiting to hear from you about your experiments
with equivalence, only heard that you expect to have results this
autumn. Can I see them?
=
Thank you kindly,
=
Sergey
Snicker..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
24 Oct 2005 04:56:30 AM |
|
|
Snicker..
********************
Al right, young man. What's so funny!!! Please share it with the
whole group!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:31:43 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads.
Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
Still I see, this is your speciality.
This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.
You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.
Dirk Vdm
You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said you
have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
Your toilet paper died in its very first section, just like
your toilet paper with the non-zero curl(grad):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
Face it, imposter - you are not smart enough for this kind
of deception. You must try much harder to hide your errors.
Dirk
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:51:35 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads.
Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
Still I see, this is your speciality.
This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.
You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.
Dirk Vdm
You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said you
have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
Your toilet paper died in its very first section, just like
your toilet paper with the non-zero curl(grad):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
Face it, imposter - you are not smart enough for this kind
of deception. You must try much harder to hide your errors.
It seems, Dirk, you are at the last stage of this desease. This is
already dangerous for your health. I am very pity that our works so
badly affect the rest of your brain. But this is physics. It is
impossible here to have such feeble brain as yours. All what you can at
your brain level is to wash toilets. Perhaps this is just what you are
doing, as only toilet themes are in your mind.
Sergey
Dirk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:57:43 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129470695.202405.182170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129469080.206756.149500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads.
Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.
Still I see, this is your speciality.
This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.
Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.
You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.
Dirk Vdm
You did not answer my first question; this means, all what you said you
have to address to yourself. Firstly, as we showed in our paper,
Your toilet paper died in its very first section, just like
your toilet paper with the non-zero curl(grad):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
Face it, imposter - you are not smart enough for this kind
of deception. You must try much harder to hide your errors.
It seems, Dirk, you are at the last stage of this desease. This is
already dangerous for your health. I am very pity that our works so
badly affect the rest of your brain. But this is physics. It is
impossible here to have such feeble brain as yours. All what you can at
your brain level is to wash toilets. Perhaps this is just what you are
doing, as only toilet themes are in your mind.
I must admit, the toilet you have chosen to deposit your
droppings, stank like hell. Fortunately the stench was so
overwhelming that it didn't take much effort to find and
flush the source.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
02 Oct 2005 04:18:06 PM |
|
|
None wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1127476641.656874.132000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
On basic formalism of special theory of relativity
Abstract:
We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.
Enjoy reading full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.
We will be pleased to hear your responds.
Equation (11) of
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sr29/sr29.html
a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2) / ( 1 + v u'(t')/c^2 )^3
is the standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in the x-direction. There is nothing new about that and it
is easily derived from the Lorentz transformation.
Then you say:
| We see from (11) that in passing from stationary RF to that
| moving, the constant acceleration becomes time-variable and
| we can provide its constancy only if
| u'(t') = const =/= 0
This obviously implies that for the object
a'(t') = const = 0
and of course
u(t) = const =/= 0
a(t) = const = 0
So your following statement is rather silly:
| With it the dotted RF becomes non-inertial and we, on one
| hand, come to inconsistency with the computations on whose
| basis we yielded (11), and on the other hand, we
| automatically exceed the limits of SR validity.
| Additionally, the dotted frame cannot be the intrinsic frame
| for the accelerated body, as at zero speed of body in this
| frame we yield quite strange relation
| a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)
This relation actually says
0 = 0
which is not quite strange.
I find your functions with non-zero curl(grad) much more
quite strange:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
and elsewhere...
Dirk Vdm
There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads. This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique. The standard
relativistic expression with its derivation we showed in page 30
(formula (24)). You ought to know what you are so hard defending.
Now about your usual method to pervert what the opponent says on the
grounds of your own silliness of which Nightbat pisses boiling water.
;-)
The main property of inertial reference frames is that they do not
change the pattern of body's motion. This means, if the body moved
with the uniform acceleration with respect to stationary RF, it has to
move the same with respect to any other inertial RF. While the formula
which you so much liked shows the opposite. Namely, that the uniformly
accelerated pattern of body's motion does not conserve in
inertial-frame-to-inertial-frame passing. And, as we showed in our
work, both our formula and relativistic (24) show it. Have you a hiccup
because of your own silliness? Nothing of surprise, it is seen in your
psychotic idle talk. ;-)
And when you recalled our non-zero curl(grad) irrelevant here, it would
be to the point to recall also, what Tim Shuba and EL told you on this
subject. It was so nice how you have shut up then. ;-) I do not mention
what I said and explained you, anyway you are unable to grasp and
analyse, as your mathematical abilities clearly do not excess the level
of school for children with mental inability. Helpless to explain. And
now, what a sense is in your writing 0 = 0? You are unable even to
distinct one symbol from another. You mixed camels and horses to one
crowd and sit on your own eggs, as a brood-hen. ;-)
Drink water, it can help. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
02 Oct 2005 04:21:07 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.867737.210900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
For me, Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable
is very much alive and entertaining:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
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/HiPsycho.html
Keep digging, pig ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
02 Oct 2005 08:47:50 PM |
|
|
Sergey, > > For me, relativity is dead.
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Sergey,
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:35:13 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.867737.210900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
For me, Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable
is very much alive and entertaining:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
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/HiPsycho.html
Keep digging, pig ;-)
Dirk Vdm
All ability of this doltish Dirk is to copy posts from forums,
selecting them with all his stupidity and misunderstanding of the
meaning. And after this he says, he has some introduction to the course
of relativity! You Dirk are unable to compose something except of a
collection of your own silliness.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 09:03:56 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1129469713.130459.286300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1128287886.867737.210900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > [snip]
| >
| > > Sergey,
| > >
| > > Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary
school
| > > arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
| > > square root function:
| > >
| > >
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
| > >
| > > Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in
life
| > > must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
| > > acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot
Dirk.
| > > Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
| > >
| > > Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
| > > experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on
physics.
| > >
| > >
| > > But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion
that
| > > Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal,
it
| > > appears that Sergey is correct.
| > >
| > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
| > > will do the experiment. I am
| > > not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
| >
| > For me, Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable
| > is very much alive and entertaining:
| >
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
| >
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/HiPsycho.html
| > Keep digging, pig ;-)
| >
| > Dirk Vdm
|
| All ability of this doltish Dirk is to copy posts from forums,
| selecting them with all his stupidity and misunderstanding of the
| meaning. And after this he says, he has some introduction to the
course
| of relativity! You Dirk are unable to compose something except of a
| collection of your own silliness.
|
| Sergey
"So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumbler] was and is
enseless." -Sergey.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 02:03:54 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 05:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A41A.D5F57279@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
|
|
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Auntie Alice <=> Wanker
Schwartz is *****.
The Chinese told him "*****, you DUMB *****"
They were right.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
02 Oct 2005 10:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:21:07 GMT
<7bY%e.10566$Wv2.532599@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.867737.210900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Of what?
[1] The light source?
[2] The observer?
[3] The train's wheels carrying light source or observer?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
For me, Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable
is very much alive and entertaining:
He'd be more entertaining if he weren't so damned repetitious. :-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
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/HiPsycho.html
Keep digging, pig ;-)
Dirk Vdm
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
03 Oct 2005 11:18:23 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:ijg613-2k3.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:21:07 GMT
<7bY%e.10566$Wv2.532599@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.867737.210900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Of what?
[1] The light source?
[2] The observer?
[3] The train's wheels carrying light source or observer?
[4] of his brain functions
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.cyclothymia.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:26:17 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
An anecdote from life. A student was asked to write a^2. He long
thought, wrote A and contoured with a square.
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
Mike
Dear Mike, relativity is dead of course, but this does not mean that we
need not experiments. If you or someone other prompt, how can we carry
out the experiment with a double quadrant described in the last item of
our paper "On light aberration",
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#aberration
it would be a progress in cognition. So I ask you and all colleagues
understanding the necessity to develop, out of this dead relativistic
conception. Let us join our efforts and scope, doing not confining
ourselves to claims that relativity is dead.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 08:32:05 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Sergey,
Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
An anecdote from life. A student was asked to write a^2. He long
thought, wrote A and contoured with a square.
Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
Mike
Dear Mike, relativity is dead of course, but this does not mean that we
need not experiments. If you or someone other prompt, how can we carry
out the experiment with a double quadrant described in the last item of
our paper "On light aberration",
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#aberration
it would be a progress in cognition. So I ask you and all colleagues
understanding the necessity to develop, out of this dead relativistic
conception. Let us join our efforts and scope, doing not confining
ourselves to claims that relativity is dead.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On basic formalism of special theory of relativity |
16 Oct 2005 09:01:34 AM |
|
|
"None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1129469525.376577.79580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Mike, relativity is dead of course, but this does not mean that
we
| need not experiments. If you or someone other prompt, how can we carry
| out the experiment with a double quadrant described in the last item
of
| our paper "On light aberration",
|
| http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#aberration
Hi Sergey: Much work, excessive analysis. Many agree that relativity is
a dead duck.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a duck to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a duck our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a duck.
Oops!... Did I say 'a duck'? Sorry...'light'.
Same math, though.
|
| it would be a progress in cognition. So I ask you and all colleagues
| understanding the necessity to develop, out of this dead relativistic
| conception. Let us join our efforts and scope, doing not confining
| ourselves to claims that relativity is dead.
| Sergey
Already begun.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months).
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
< | |
