|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents" | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 10 | March 4th 11 04:26 AM |
The "Venus/Mercury Radar Reflection Conjunction Anomaly", is a firm motive to question Special relativity and a support for the idea of "Planetary lightspeed frame dragging" by a so called LASOF. ( Local Anti-Symmetrical Oscillati | [email protected][_2_] | Misc | 8 | November 9th 07 05:57 AM |