Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"

On Mar 3, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected).

That is just bull****. You are just a liar. For example, in the
following post recently, you have grossly mis-applied the Lorentz
transform to justify your faith in SR.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f7ea4506?hl=en

Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms involve two observers and
one observed. The transform then relates how the observation of the
observed by one observer is related to the observation of the same
observed by the other observer. So, in the case of the Lorentz
transform described below,

** dt’ = (dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz

The primed observer uses (x’, y’, z’, t’) to observe the observed, and
the unprimed observer uses (x, y, z, t) to observe the same observed.
In doing so, the speed between the primed and the unprimed observer is
v.

So, in this application the following is true since the observed is
light itself.

** (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2

Instead, you have misunderstood the above to be the following.

** (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = v^2

Any result coming out of your mathemagics can only be nonsense as had
been explained to you in the reply to your post.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9cefefcd?hl=en

You cannot use them consistently.

Said from someone who does not understand the Lorentz transform.
shrug

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently.

And you don’t have that. The example yours truly has brought up is
the proof. shrug

Who cares about what Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
meant?

I would say that you certainly do.

Have you not heard what yours truly has rightfully described your god
as what he truly was? Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. Again, Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Hopefully this sinks in. Thus, there is no hatred, no jealousy, and
no giving a damn about a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Got it?
shrug

You are invested in the claim
that Einstein was a "nitwit, plagiarist and liar".

This is no claim but a realistic description of Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar. shrug

The nitwit made a serious of mistakes in his 1905 papers but was able
to arrive at a sociological agreeable answer. This showed the nitwit
was also a plagiarist plagiarized on others’ works. The nitwit and
the plagiarist later on claimed all this came from a dream of his.
The nitwit and the plagiarist was also a liar. Oh, yes “creativity is
to know where to hide your source” becomes the most famous quote by a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

If you didn't
care about Einstein, then you wouldn't bring him up in the discussion.

It is just unavoidable to discuss your nitwit, your plagiarist, and
your liar. shrug

Einstein is your obsession. He's your John Lennon and you're his
Mark Chapman.

LOL Again, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is no idol of yours truly but
yours. Ahahahaha…

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

That is so typical of an Einstein Dingleberry. When an Einstein
Dingleberry is embarrassingly exposed of not understanding SR and GR,
he can only resort to name calling to rant about his indigestion of
the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. shrug

In the meantime, stop defecating your voodoo mathematics all over
these usenets. shrug

On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:





On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.


And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.


Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.


How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

Marcel Luttgens

On Mar 3, 3:33*pm, mluttgens wrote:
On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:



On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.

What infinities?
The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
finite.

Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
case that would be infinite.




And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
demand the other.
But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
with a tiger because they both have stripes.

An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
nonzero volume. Nor does any of the properties that it does have
DEMAND that it have volume.


Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.

Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

Of what measurable property?


The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.

How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
mass.
A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.
An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
nonzero mass.


Marcel Luttgens

On 3 mar, 19:53, PD wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:33*pm, mluttgens wrote:





On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.

What infinities?
The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
finite.

Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
case that would be infinite.

What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically
nonsensical.

And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
demand the other.
But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
with a tiger because they both have stripes.

An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
nonzero volume.

I agree.

Nor does any of the properties that it does have
DEMAND that it have volume.

If it had no volume, its density would be infinite.


Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.

Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

Of what measurable property?

Its density. But of course, an infinite density is not measurable,
and makes no sense.


The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.

How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
mass.
A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.

Sorry, I meant a zero volume with a nonzero mass.

An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
nonzero mass.

An infinite density has no physical meaning.


Marcel Luttgens

"Daryl McCullough" wrote:
... Yes, I know that the nonsensical
version is the version that Einstein actually
meant , as is demonstred by Daryl's
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Daryl giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,
ahahaha... ahahahahanson

Marcel "mluttgens" wrote:
Paul PD wrote:
[...]
Marcel you got Paul by his short hair and then
by his beytsim:

--- [ Marcel 2 : Paul 0, zilch nada ] ----

& you made Draper Paul explain his
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Paul giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual.


ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,
ahahaha... ahahahahanson

"Marshall" marshall.s "pig" wrote:
[...]
snipped vociferous excuses & useless
explanations & posted instead "pig"'s own
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Marshall giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual
--
Marshall



ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,
ahahaha... ahahahahanson

On Mar 3, 5:58 pm, mluttgens wrote:

What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically nonsensical.



Lattkes,

What gives you the idiotic idea that density applies to particles?

On Mar 3, 6:14*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Marshall" marshall.s "pig" wrote:
[...]
snipped vociferous excuses & useless
explanations & posted instead "pig"'s own
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Marshall giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual
--
Marshall



ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,

Back at ya, dude. That you assumed my post was about
your pet issue without reading it gave me a laugh as well.
Although I have no particular opinion about your pet
issue or physics in general, I can still see you're less
intelligent than a brain-damaged weasel.


Marshall

"Marshall Spight" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:

"Marshall" wrote:
[...]
snipped vociferous excuses & useless
explanations & posted instead "pig"'s own
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Marshall giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual
--
Marshall

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,

Marshall cranked himself and wrote:
Back at ya, dude. That you assumed my post was about
your pet issue without reading it gave me a laugh as well.
Although I have no particular opinion about your pet
issue or physics in general, I can still see you're less
intelligent than a brain-damaged weasel. Marshall

hanson wrote:
ahahahAHAHA.... First, you are laughing and then
you get depressed, angry and you are lashing out...

Marshi-pooh, I hope that you can see from your own
post that you are highly bi-polar; manic-depressive;
symptomatic of your severe Einstein Dingleberryism,
for which there is only one successful therapy:

Show your own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
over and over again with you, Marshi-pooh, staying
up-front and center , while chanting & worshipping
Albert's sphincter with the passion of a Kike, or an
Evangelical or one of those penturnal Ass-venters...

Your physico-religious belief is good for you... and
thanks for the laughs again...ahahahahahahanson