Recommendation for Physics Discussions

On 5/25/12 5/25/12 8:24 AM, wrote:

Is it scientific method to assume the following?
1. Reciprocity.
2. assume RoS.
3. refuse to measure the value for the one-way speed of light
directly.
4. define the value for the speed of light using the speed of light.
5. etc.....

How silly. You CLEARLY have no idea of how relativity is actually derived and
studied, and why it is a pillar of modern physics. Here's a summary:

1. ASSUME that inertial frames are possible, at least locally, and each one
behaves as expected in Newtonian mechanics. (All experiments are performed
locally, so there's no real need for infinite extents.)

Bad ASSUMPTION! Assuming the existence of special frames of reference
and calling them inertial frames imply non-inertial frames don’t obey
the same laws of physics. This is just absurd. shrug

2. ASSUME that all inertial frames are equivalent, in that the laws of physics
are the same in all inertial frames. This is known as the Principle of
Relativity.

This assumption is too narrow. All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics. In this case, the principle of relativity is
just a special case to the general law that governs all laws of
physics must be the same everywhere and everywhen. shrug

3. Recognize that 1 and 2 imply that the transforms between the coordinates of
different inertial frames must form a group. This is required so that the
descriptions using different inertial coordinates will be consistent.

That is where the metric comes in. To describe that invariant
geometry, a metric is unique in the choice of coordinate. Thus, the
metric is not invariant. Nor is the coordinate system. The geometry
is. The concept of differential geometry placing the metric as
equivalent to the geometry is very fvcked up. shrug

4. From the lemma that the transforms form a group, and from basic group
theory, deduce that only three groups are admissible transform groups
among inertial frames: the Galilei group, the Euclid group (in 4-d), and
the Lorentz group.

Nonsense! There are an infinite numbers of transforms, discovered by
Lorentz, that satisfy the null results of the MMX. None of these
satisfy the principle of relativity. In fact, no mathematically
consistent transforms satisfy the principle of relativity except the
Galilean transform. The Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent, and it is a paradox itself --- not to mention manifesting
the time paradox. shrug

5. Basic observations of the world easily rule out the Euclid group (time is
different from space).

What observations? Giving the following segment of spacetime,

** dTau^2 = c^2 dt^2 – ds^2

Where

** dTau = local time flow
** dt = remotely observed time flow
** ds^2 = remotely observed space

You can trivially write down the following.

** dTau = dt sqrt(1 – (ds/dt)^2 / c^2)

Where

** ds/dt = observed speed
** sqrt(1 – (ds/dt)^2 / c^2) = Lagrangian

The Lagrangian is the density to the action of minimizing any event
time. Thus, with that Lagrangian, you can derive the relativistic
momentum and (E = M c^2). shrug

So, where mathematically the mathematics of SR is supporting your
statement? shrug

6. Observations of optical phenomena and of particle experiments rule out
the Galilei group.

Yes, we know. Both the combination of electromagnetism and the MMX
rule that out. shrug

7. Literally zillions of experiments confirm the validity of the Lorentz group
as the transform group among (locally) inertial frames.

Nonsense! These same so-called experimental verifications also
support the infinite other transforms satisfying the null results of
the MMX where the principle of relativity is ruled out in favor of an
absolute frame of reference. shrug

8. The Lorentz group is the essence of Special Relativity.

Namely the Lorentz transform, yes. shrug

9. More importantly, no experiment or observations are significantly
inconsistent with SR, within its domain.

No experiments have supported mutual time dilation. SR predicts
universally incoherent interference patterns which is falsified by any
interferometers and the same experiment that gave rise to SR. shrug

Yes, this is following the scientific method.

Only in your make believe world. shrug

Note that Einstein's original second postulate is not necessary -- experimental
results are a better approach. Note also that the ACTUAL assumptions, 1 and 2,
are quite solid, and are much more fundamental than the nonsense you spouted above.

This reads like a scripture. shrug

On May 26, 3:50*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On 5/25/12 5/25/12 * 8:24 AM, wrote:

Is it scientific method to assume the following?
1. Reciprocity.
2. assume RoS.
3. refuse to measure the value for the one-way speed of light
directly.
4. define the value for the speed of light using the speed of light.
5. etc.....

How silly. You CLEARLY have no idea of how relativity is actually derived and
studied, and why it is a pillar of modern physics. Here's a summary:

1. ASSUME that inertial frames are possible, at least locally, and each one
* * behaves as expected in Newtonian mechanics. (All experiments are performed
* * locally, so there's no real need for infinite extents.)

Bad ASSUMPTION! *Assuming the existence of special frames of reference
and calling them inertial frames imply non-inertial frames don’t obey
the same laws of physics. *This is just absurd. *shrug

2. ASSUME that all inertial frames are equivalent, in that the laws of physics
* * are the same in all inertial frames. This is known as the Principle of
* * Relativity.

This assumption is too narrow. *All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics. *In this case, the principle of relativity is
just a special case to the general law that governs all laws of
physics must be the same everywhere and everywhen. *shrug

3. Recognize that 1 and 2 imply that the transforms between the coordinates of
* * different inertial frames must form a group. This is required so that the
* * descriptions using different inertial coordinates will be consistent.

That is where the metric comes in. *To describe that invariant
geometry, a metric is unique in the choice of coordinate. *Thus, the
metric is not invariant. *Nor is the coordinate system. *The geometry
is. *The concept of differential geometry placing the metric as
equivalent to the geometry is very fvcked up. *shrug

4. From the lemma that the transforms form a group, and from basic group
* * theory, deduce that only three groups are admissible transform groups
* * among inertial frames: the Galilei group, the Euclid group (in 4-d), and
* * the Lorentz group.

Nonsense! *There are an infinite numbers of transforms, discovered by
Lorentz, that satisfy the null results of the MMX. *None of these
satisfy the principle of relativity. *In fact, no mathematically
consistent transforms satisfy the principle of relativity except the
Galilean transform. *The Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent, and it is a paradox itself --- not to mention manifesting
the time paradox. *shrug

5. Basic observations of the world easily rule out the Euclid group (time is
* * different from space).

What observations? *Giving the following segment of spacetime,

** *dTau^2 = c^2 dt^2 – ds^2

Where

** *dTau = local time flow
** *dt = remotely observed time flow
** *ds^2 = remotely observed space

You can trivially write down the following.

** *dTau = dt sqrt(1 – (ds/dt)^2 / c^2)

Where

** *ds/dt = observed speed
** *sqrt(1 – (ds/dt)^2 / c^2) = Lagrangian

The Lagrangian is the density to the action of minimizing any event
time. *Thus, with that Lagrangian, you can derive the relativistic
momentum and (E = M c^2). *shrug

So, where mathematically the mathematics of SR is supporting your
statement? *shrug

6. Observations of optical phenomena and of particle experiments rule out
* * the Galilei group.

Yes, we know. *Both the combination of electromagnetism and the MMX
rule that out. *shrug

7. Literally zillions of experiments confirm the validity of the Lorentz group
* * as the transform group among (locally) inertial frames.

Nonsense! *These same so-called experimental verifications also
support the infinite other transforms satisfying the null results of
the MMX where the principle of relativity is ruled out in favor of an
absolute frame of reference. *shrug

8. The Lorentz group is the essence of Special Relativity.

Namely the Lorentz transform, yes. *shrug

9. More importantly, no experiment or observations are significantly
* * inconsistent with SR, within its domain.

No experiments have supported mutual time dilation. *SR predicts
universally incoherent interference patterns which is falsified by any
interferometers and the same experiment that gave rise to SR. *shrug

Yes, this is following the scientific method.

Only in your make believe world. *shrug

Note that Einstein's original second postulate is not necessary -- experimental
results are a better approach. Note also that the ACTUAL assumptions, 1 and 2,
are quite solid, and are much more fundamental than the nonsense you spouted above.

This reads like a scripture. *shrug- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Boring and spamming crossposting idiot

On May 25, 7:50*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:


This assumption is too narrow. *All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics.

And what if, Mr. Wublee, nature doesn't agree with you that it should
conform to such a rule?

On May 26, 6:29 am, LaLALa wrote:
On May 25, 7:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

This assumption is too narrow. All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics.

And what if, Mr. Wublee, nature doesn't agree with you that it should
conform to such a rule?

It can be assured that the best way to study nature is not to assume a
very narrow band of operation. The question to ask is that what if
nature does not agree with LaLALa’s narrow scope of assumption?
Generally, any narrow minded assumptions are always wrong. shrug

This is the case for SR. By assuming the principle of relativity is
valid over all, it creates a pile of garbage without addressing if
that assumption is valid. Except the Galilean transform that models
light as classical particles, all other infinite numbers of transforms
that satisfy the null results of the MMX invalidates the principle of
relativity. The Lorentz transform was fudged out of Larmor’s original
transformation. The Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. Thus, assuming the validity in the principle of
relativity is downright stupid. shrug

On May 27, 5:56*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 26, 6:29 am, LaLALa wrote:

On May 25, 7:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

This assumption is too narrow. *All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics.

And what if, Mr. Wublee, nature doesn't agree with you that it should
conform to such a rule?

It can be assured that the best way to study nature is not to assume a
very narrow band of operation. *The question to ask is that what if
nature does not agree with LaLALa’s narrow scope of assumption?
Generally, any narrow minded assumptions are always wrong. *shrug

This is the case for SR. *By assuming the principle of relativity is
valid over all, it creates a pile of garbage without addressing if
that assumption is valid. *Except the Galilean transform that models
light as classical particles, all other infinite numbers of transforms
that satisfy the null results of the MMX invalidates the principle of
relativity. *The Lorentz transform was fudged out of Larmor’s original
transformation. *The Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. *Thus, assuming the validity in the principle of
relativity is downright stupid. *shrug

LaLaLa speaks with so much rhetoric and sarcasm, that I lose ijntrest
in the first few sentences. OTOH, if my gut instinct is correct, it's
a welcomed difference reading a female in this newsgroup.

-y

On May 26, 3:56*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 26, 6:29 am, LaLALa wrote:

On May 25, 7:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

This assumption is too narrow. *All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics.

And what if, Mr. Wublee, nature doesn't agree with you that it should
conform to such a rule?

It can be assured that the best way to study nature is not to assume a
very narrow band of operation. *The question to ask is that what if
nature does not agree with LaLALa’s narrow scope of assumption?
Generally, any narrow minded assumptions are always wrong. *shrug

This is the case for SR. *By assuming the principle of relativity is
valid over all, it creates a pile of garbage without addressing if
that assumption is valid. *Except the Galilean transform that models
light as classical particles, all other infinite numbers of transforms
that satisfy the null results of the MMX invalidates the principle of
relativity. *The Lorentz transform was fudged out of Larmor’s original
transformation. *The Lorentz transform is not mathematically
consistent. *Thus, assuming the validity in the principle of
relativity is downright stupid. *shrug

MMX does not invalidate relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.

The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the MMX is in the
same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation
about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual
representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the
aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a
superfluid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to
determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would
still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.

The superfluid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is
in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the
superfluid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same
state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about
its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and
the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the aether.

On 5/26/12 5/26/12 - 8:29 AM, LaLALa wrote:
On May 25, 7:50 pm, Koobee wrote:
All laws of physics must apply to all
frames of reference including what you call non-inertial ones, or else
there is no physics.

And what if, Mr. Wublee, nature doesn't agree with you that it should
conform to such a rule?

Koobee Wublee repeatedly makes so many errors, acts so childish, and is so
abusive, that I rarely if ever read his nonsense or respond to him. But the
quote above is one of his rare correct statements; true to form, he stated it
poorly and in the wrong context. Here is a better statement of essentially the
same concept:

The laws of physics are independent of coordinates.

Indeed, this is the basis of General Relativity, where it goes by the (somewhat
misleading) name of "general covariance". It is much more complicated than SR
and its inertial frames, but with tensor analysis is tractable.


Tom Roberts

On May 29, 8:36 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

This does not prove anything. The Voigt transform also predicts
the same thing, and yet the Voigt transform says the Aether must
exist. Your experimental result satisfies just about an infinite
number of the mathematical model dealing with how observations are
related as observed by two frames of reference. Why do you
cherry-pick the Lorentz transform, which is the only one that
satisfies the principle of relative through some mathematical
fudging, to be the only one to do so? This should not be too much
to ask when dealing with scientific method in mind. shrug

Well, you can certainly claim the sole validity in the Lorentz
transform, but you must provide irrefutable experimental results
to justify the cherry-picking.

Koobee Wublee repeatedly makes so many errors,

Where? Making things up to hide your faith again, Tom? shrug

acts so childish, and is so abusive, that I rarely if ever read his
nonsense or respond to him.

Wait a second. You started this shrugging. You have repeatedly asked
anyone who did not agree with you to read up on books as if they are
so much uneducated. You have talked down on others and calling them
stupid. All are beneath you according to you. Before you calling
must posts abusive, you’d better read your posts again and picture
yourself as the ones you were responding to. shrug

There are an infinite numbers of mathematical models that satisfy the
null results of the MMX not solely in the Lorentz transform. However,
other than the Galilean transform that models light as classical
particles, the Lorentz transform is the only one that satisfies the
principle of relativity. So, Koobee Wublee has repeatedly asked you
what experiments have settle the Lorentz transform apart from the
infinite others that do not satisfy the principle of relativity?
There are actually none. So, the assumption that nature obeys the
principle of relativity had no and still does not have any
justifications --- what’s so ever. Thus, the ones who embrace a
theory based on assumptions without later justifications are just so
f______ s_____ (you fill in the blanks). shrug

The Lorentz transform is derived from Larmor’s transform where one of
the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. The
mathematical models of spacetime of both are exactly the same. How do
you know what spacetime you are referring to since one does not
satisfy the principle of relativity, but the other one does? How can
you build an entire theory on something you have no idea of
identifying at its foundation? Thus, the ones who embrace a theory
without its foundation thoroughly identified are just so f______
s_____ (again you fill in the blanks). shrug

These questions are not abusive but down to the point. Since you have
answered more abusive posts before, you are just choosing to ignore
the ones you cannot answer in which they would SHAKE the very
foundation of your faith in SR and GR. After all, you are sort of a
scientist, and you just cannot afford not to read Koobee Wublee’s
posts. So, go ahead and choke on what Koobee Wublee has to write, but
wait for the rare opportunity where Koobee Wublee would slip out and
spill your gut on that. shrug

All laws of physics must apply to all frames of reference
including what you call non-inertial ones, or else there is
no physics.

But the quote above is one of his rare correct statements; true to
form, he stated it poorly and in the wrong context. Here is a
better statement of essentially the same concept:

The laws of physics are independent of coordinates.

There are subtle differences. For instance, bringing in coordinate
systems implies observers. So, when you say the laws of physics are
independent of coordinates, you are saying the laws of physics must be
observed to be the same for all observers. Thus, for something not
observable, your statement does no longer encompass. One example is
the mutual time dilation under SR. Koobee Wublee’s statement is more
intrinsic in nature. It says the laws of physics must be the same
everywhere and everywhen regardless of events can be observed or not.
shrug

Indeed, this is the basis of General Relativity, where it goes by the (somewhat
misleading) name of "general covariance".

This is just wrong. General relativity is based on the invariance in
the metrics not in the invariance in the geometry. Since
mathematically the metric cannot represent reality if the choice of
coordinate system is not yet established, GR is based on a
misconception in geometry. The geometry must be invariant regardless
what coordinate system one chooses to employ. For each choice of
coordinate system describing the same invariant geometry, there is a
unique metric associated with that particle set of coordinate system
in describing that invariant geometry. This should be basic down in
the fourth or fifth grade level of mathematical concepts. It is
definitely very “surprising” that the physicists would start and
continue to make that same mistake. Thus, the ones who embrace a
theory that is erroneous from the basic concept in grade school
geometry can only be described as f______ s_____ (once again you fill
in the blanks). shrug

It is much more complicated than SR
and its inertial frames, but with tensor analysis is tractable.

GR is not much more complicated than SR. It is merely more complex in
the mechanics of mathematical manipulations. Once you have understood
the motivation and how the Christoffel symbols are derived, the rest
is a piece of cake. Self-styled physicists have allowed themselves in
indulging in mysticism. The origin of the Christoffel symbols have
since shrouded in mystery and mysticism. It is no wonder that they
have promoted GR as the most complex piece of theory ever conceived by
man through the branch of mathematical study called tensor calculus.
Well, in reality, there is no such thing as tensor calculus. It is
still following the same and exact rules of calculus established by
Leibniz since the time of Newton almost 400 years ago. The whole
thing about GR is way too overblown, and guess what the motivation
is. Thinking along the same line as ancient priests attempting to
keep their elite status quo from peasants would not be too far off.
shrug