|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach. The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. In doing so, the nitwit would attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on relativity in 1920 or so. The bull**** continued. The nitwit started with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps. It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. shrug Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing directly to do with light. You need to leave out “symmetries”. SR is just nonsense. All the transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. shrug Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the first postulate alone, If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism. shrug So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean transform at first. But seeing the after effect, they also had to modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. They have been clueless and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. shrug [rest of bull**** snipped] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are wrong?
Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
"Peter Webb" wrote in message ... | Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are wrong? | | Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's | paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions? | | Exactly which experimental prophecies of Relativity do you hallucinate are right? Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according to your crystal ball, gypsy Webb? DIESPAMDIE, you spamming *******. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 12:55*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach. The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is that Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but Einstein got a Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the most famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery of Recursion Theory. *In doing so, the nitwit would attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on relativity in 1920 or so. *The bull**** continued. *The nitwit started with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps. It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. *shrug Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing directly to do with light. You need to leave out “symmetries”. *SR is just nonsense. *All the transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. *shrug Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the first postulate alone, If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism. shrug So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean transform at first. *But seeing the after effect, they also had to modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. *They have been clueless and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. *shrug [rest of bull**** snipped] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:46:45 -0700, jim wrote:
On Jul 24, 12:55Â*am, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach. The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is that Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but Einstein got a Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the most famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery of Recursion Theory. Since there is not a Nobel prize in Mathematics, it is not interesting that Hilbert never won the Nobel prize in ... mathematics. Why is this relevant, anyway? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 4:08*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote: "Peter Webb" wrote in message ... | Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are wrong? | | Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's | paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions? | | Exactly which experimental prophecies of Relativity do you hallucinate are right? *Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's *paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according to your crystal ball, gypsy Webb? DIESPAMDIE, you spamming *******. Bravo, Androcles! — NE — |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 6:55*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach. The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. *In doing so, the nitwit would attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on relativity in 1920 or so. *The bull**** continued. *The nitwit started with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps. It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. *shrug Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing directly to do with light. You need to leave out “symmetries”. *SR is just nonsense. *All the transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. *shrug Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the first postulate alone, If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism. shrug So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean transform at first. *But seeing the after effect, they also had to modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. *They have been clueless and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. *shrug [rest of bull**** snipped] Aether not exist , exist only medium as an enviroment in which wave motion is spread. Spacetime is a phantasy of 1905. Now is 2011. See you please L. Vlcek : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava 1996 ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen. Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML Critical examination of fundamentals in physics http://www.trendsinphysics.info/ Einstein corrected the real difference of light speeds in different inertial frames (skeletons) by "different times" in a fictitious "SPACE-TIME". He helped himself with a mixture of "space-time" mathematically expressed by the Lorentz transformation equations. Then he helped himself with other new expressions, that rescue what is not possible to rescue, whereby those notions represent the following closed vicious circle: Lorentz transformation equations = local time = covariant equations = physical definition of simultaneity = = invariant interval = Lorentz transformation equations We have shown that the idea of space-time frames is entirely wrong. All notions in the closed vicious circle, including "mean proper lifetime of particle" calculated on the basis of the Einstein’s theory of relativity which was not measured experimentally in fact are absolutely wrong. Physics is overflown by such anabashed points. It is necessary to clean the physics. It is necessary to strictly distinguish the measured values of the particles lifetime from the so called proper (shorter) Einstein’s doubtful particle lifetimes, which takes into consideration velocity and shortens the real lifetime to the shorter fictitious (incorrect) proper lifetime, shown in the tables. The table proper lifetimes of particles have to be removed from the physical literature and be replaced by the measured real lifetimes simultaneously with the measured velocities of elementary particles. The incorrect notions of Einstein’s closed vicious circle lead to logical assumptions for the incorrect notions in physics such as different times in different frames, length contraction, energy- momentum tensor, paradox of twins, clock paradox, equivalence of mass and energy etc. That’s why it is necessary to remove this chaos from physics and to bring the results of classical experiments in the right proportion (the place they belong to). See you please Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML http://www.trendsinphysics.info/ See you please Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment 2.1.Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and Magnetic Field 2.1.1.Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory 2.1.2.Kaufmann's Experiment 2.1.3.Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations. 2.2.Non-linear form of the interference field 2.2.1.Fizeau's Experiment 2.2.2.Harre's Experiment 2.3.Doppler's principle - correct relations See you please Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML http://www.trendsinphysics.info/ because radius of force reach / as Einstein´s lenght / depends on velocity. See you Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is beautifull PDF |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thanks you for the post. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DARK ENERGY AND FLAT UNIVERSE EXPOSED BY SIMPLE METHOD -Einstein's assumption seemingly confirmed | mpc755 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 26th 10 03:22 PM |
Einstein's Simple Mistake; All Big Bang Theorists Are Incorrect | John[_29_] | Misc | 51 | September 28th 10 12:25 PM |
MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 4th 08 05:59 PM |
EINSTEIN 1905 DERIVATION OF LORENTZ TRANSFORMS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | September 30th 07 05:48 PM |
Key to understanding universe is understanding our brains | GatherNoMoss | Policy | 8 | October 3rd 06 01:27 PM |