|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lorentz transformation
It looks like McCollough is begging for another performance of the
Relativity Play. So, here it is. * * * * Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation. Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two assumptions which I have proudly speculated. The first speculation is the principle of relativity, and the second one is the constancy in the speed of light. Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of relativity. Newton: Yes, that is so true. The principle of relativity is the basis of my works. I am standing on the shoulders of giants. Galileo: Thank you, Mr. Newton. I was lucky to be born right at the start of the Renaissance. Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary mechanism to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment as the constancy in the observed speed of light regardless if the principle of relativity holds or not. That is how I derived the Voigt transformation. In another words, my transformation does not satisfy the principle of relativity but explains the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment through the constancy in the speed of light. Larmor: Well, the Voigt transformation is certainly not the only one that explains these null results. I have discovered another one by dividing one side of the Voigt transformation by the square root quantity which is the inverse of the so-called gamma factor. It also does not satisfy the principle of relativity in general. Just like the Voigt transformation, one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. All observations must reference back to this absolute frame of reference. Galileo: What good are the Voigt and the Lorentz transformations when neither satisfies the principle of relativity? Mind you that the Galilean transformation allows the two observers to be anyone. All observations are relative, and space is relative. Michelson: My interferometer works because time must be absolute. If time were to be relative, there would be no coherent interference patterns, and there would be no definitive null results to all my experiments related to the measurements of the earth-Aether drift velocity. Maxwell: There is no scientific axiom that requires the principle of relativity to hold. In fact, Maxwell’s equations explain the propagation of light without the principle of relativity. The absolute frame of reference must exist to allow for the propagation of light, and the Aether must exist. Lorentz: Well, Mr. Maxwell is correct, and I have come across an infinite such transformations on top of what Mr. Voigt and Mr. Larmor have discovered. They all satisfy the null results of the Michelson- Morley experiment but not the principle of relativity. This is getting more interesting since electromagnetism. Maxwell: Good point, Mr. Lorentz, Mr. Larmor, and Mr. Voigt. These null results actually prove the existence of the Aether. Michell: Hold it, gentlemen. The ballistic theory of light explains these null results and satisfies the principle of relativity. In fact, the ballistic theory of light has the strongest support in the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein: Hooray! My speculation which is based on farce can turn out to be correct after all, and it is all mine. Galileo: whispering to Newton After stealing my discovery on the principle of relativity, this idiot does not realize his second speculation fails the ballistic theory of light. Newton: Although I am the founding father describing light as classical particles, I have to disagree with Mr. Michell. The ballistic theory of light cannot explain light propagation as waves under electromagnetism. Lorentz: Mr. Maxwell’s work represents one of mankind’s finest achievements by writing down the mathematical model explaining definitively how light propagates as waves and at a certain speed relative to the stationary background of the Aether. Mr. Michell was before electromagnetism, and he cannot discount electromagnetism easily. Poinca Then among all these infinite numbers of transformations that Mr. Lorentz discovered, which one is valid? Wait, gentlemen. With the way Mr. Larmor wrote down his transformation, the absolute frame of reference vanishes for this special case. Michelson: Yes, Mr. Poincare. This is a special case where both observers are moving in parallel relative to the absolute frame of reference. Larmor: Sorry about the way I wrote down my transformation. It caused a lot of confusion. It is valid only when both observers are moving in parallel relative to the stationary background of the Aether. In general where both observers are moving in any arbitrary directions does not yield a transformation that satisfies the principle of relativity. Galileo: In case if the audience does not know what Mr. Michelson and Mr. Larmor are talking about, even my transformation, the good old Galilean transformation, is a tale of three parties. You can call them points, frames, or whatever you want. They can move around in any way they choose. There is no condition that they have to be inertial or not whatever inertial means. The parties are two observers and one observed. The transformation merely relates how the observations done by each observer on the same observed are related. Poinca Nevertheless, we can “*******ize” Mr. Larmor’s transformation into a new one where the two observers can be anyone just like the Galilean transformation. In this case, the principle of relativity is preserved. Let’s now call the *******ized version of Mr. Larmor’s transformation the Lorentz transformation, OK? Larmor: That is not right. My transformation cannot be “*******ized”. What you call the Lorentz transformation has nothing to do with the real world. Michelson: I agree with Mr. Larmor. The Lorentz transformation reflects no experimental bases. It is created in the minds of man. We are dealing with physics, and physicists should not play God. Einstein: Shut up, Mr. Michelson. You don’t understand relativity. My groundless speculations have finally paid off. I will now attempt to fudge the Lorentz transformation into the Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell: Where did they get this clown from? shaking his head Einstein: Mr. Maxwell, do you think I am stupid. Well then, I have personally discovered spacetime. Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who first wrote down all the equations of the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then only becomes very obvious from then on. Voigt: The Voigt transformation can also be written into a single, concise equation. Larmor: So is the transformation I have discovered and the infinite others that Mr. Lorentz has discovered. H. G. Wells: Well, Mr. Einstein, I don’t know if you have read my book “The Time Machine”. In it, I have already described time and space forming a single entity in which a time traveler can travel from one set of time and space to another. Langevin: Hold it, gentlemen. There is a serious flaw in the Lorentz transformation. It manifests a time paradox through the mutual time dilation. Say a pair of twins start out together at rest relative to each other. One twin travels away and comes back at rest to the other twin again. The difference in time elapsed by each twin will render a paradox. Poinca So what? That is because simultaneity is relative. Michelson: Hey, you guys don’t know what you are talking about. Simultaneity must be absolute, or else again there would be no coherent interference patterns. Einstein: giving Michelson the middle finger The Lorentz transformation must be regarded as valid regardless of any experimentations because I said so. Tom: I have to agree. I have compiled a list of so-called experiments that verified the Lorentz transformation. However, none of them did verify this mutual time dilation thingy. We can certainly ignore the verification on the mutual time dilation part despite the symmetric mutual time dilation is the only thing unique to the Lorentz transformation. Whatever Mr. Einstein said must be valid. shrug Self-styled physicists: In addition to what Tom is saying, the twins’ paradox brought up by Mr. Langevin has been observed in experiments. Newton: What? nearly choking himself You guys don’t know what you are observing. Michelson: Their interpretations to their experimental results are totally screwed up. I cannot believe the experimental physicists after my time would become such inept. Langevin: Well, it appeared that I have spoken too soon about a paradox in the Lorentz transformation. If we apply plenty of mathemagics with a little bit of voodoo chants, the paradox will go away. Galileo: Does voodooism involve chants? talking to himself Gee! I must have been born too early. Self-styled physicists: Oh, we see it. Each unique chant in voodoo appears to resolve the twins’ paradox. Michelson: I thought you guys have claimed to have observed this twins’ paradox experimentally. folding his arms in a disbelief with eyes looking up on the ceiling Maxwell: But each so-called resolution falsifies others. The paradox is very real and unresolvable. Self-styled physicists: Shut up, Mr. Maxwell. Your achievements have been downgraded by several knots. Do you want us to believe in Mr. Michell’s ballistic theory of light? Count your blessings that we have kept Maxwell’s equations but managed to dispense the Aether by modifying Maxwell’s equations with the Lorentz transformation. Maxwell: shaking his head I am indeed horrified by what you guys have done. Clearly the Aether does exist, and you are turning your back on the Aether. The Cosmic Background Radiation was even discovered to have a Doppler shift. Perhaps, that is a good place to look for the absolute frame of reference. Galileo: I have to side with Mr. Maxwell on this matter. What the self-styled physicists are doing does not represent how science is done by embracing the lesser of two evils. Einstein: Another experimental support for the Lorentz transformation is the relativistic Doppler shift. Self-styled physicists: In the transverse Doppler shift, it has been observed as red. Michelson: The experimental results can also be interpreted as no shift. Einstein: Just take a look at the equation of time transformation in the Lorentz transformation. It shows a red shift agreeing with experimental results. Galileo: In your 1905 paper, you clearly showed the relativistic Doppler shift with the equation in energy transformation. Using the energy transformation instead of time transformation, you get a blue shift in the transverse direction of relativistic Doppler shift which has the exact opposite result of the time transformation. Einstein: That is the beauty of the Lorentz transformation. You can fudge almost anything out of it. So, whatever the experimental results are, you just toss out the appropriate mathematics even if the mathematics are totally self-contradictory. Self-styled physicists: It is just amazing. Mr. Einstein is a genius with no equal in the history of mankind. Galileo: shaking his head once again and whispering to Newton Expect more nonsense from this idiot and the ones who worship this idiot. Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and the twins’ paradox for now and talk about General Relativity. I personally discovered the principle of equivalence by picturing myself as that falling apple trapped in the gravitational field. Newton: Trapped? That is very stupid. Gravity can only be characterized by observing how an object would have behaved under the influence of gravitation not through how you experience it. Galileo: Not only that, I had already discovered the principle of equivalence. Newton: This is another example of what I mean by standing on the shoulders of giants. My law of gravity is also based on Mr. Galileo’s principle of equivalence. Einstein: Well, my discovery of the equivalence principle actually came after I have finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Are you calling me that I have reverse-engineered the principle of equivalence? Galileo: Umm!!! clearing his throat Newton: whispering to Galileo You are correct. This guy is truly an idiot! Born: “Have you ever been mellow?” singing joyfully Oh, I was just singing one of my granddaughter’s hit singles. What were we discussing? Oh, yes, the twins’ paradox. I have an idea to resolve this. Galileo: whispering to Newton again Well, is “Have you ever been mellow?” another voodoo chant? Newton: whispering back No, it was a hit song by Mr. Born’s granddaughter. Let’s hear about Mr. Born’s resolution to the twins’ paradox. Born: Since the traveling twin must accelerate and decelerate again to unite with the other twin, acceleration must break the symmetry. Since gravity also manifest time dilation, acceleration must also manifest a time dilation. Thus, the net result is that the traveling twin will age slower. Einstein: Yes, that must be correct. I just know so. dancing Newton: Mr. Born, can you show the mathematics supporting what you are talking about? Self-styled physicists: Never mind the mathematics. In the spacetime diagram, just draw couple lines, and you will see that there is no such paradox. Galileo: I have had enough of this nonsense. I am out of here. Bye! leaving the play Michelson: In addition, the traveling twin can coast for an arbitrary time with no acceleration. According to the Lorentz transformation, the mutual time dilation will build up since time dilation is accumulative, and no mathematics can account for this arbitrary accumulated time dilation in any scenario of the twins’ paradox. Self-styled physicist: We have to admit that we have not seen any evidence of time dilation under acceleration other than gravity. Newton: Of course not. I thought you have dispensed gravity as a force. Oh, I see. Gravity is not a force under General Relativity but is capable of acceleration. So, care free to jump out a ten-story building to test the hypothesis? Tom: The spacetime of jumping out a ten-story building will eventually intercept the ground in a tragic end. shrug Newton: Where did that come from? Einstein: Well, I am also the first one to suggest gravity as a curvature in spacetime. Riemann: I have already attempted to suggest that gravity is caused by curved space, but since the mathematical concept of time and space forming into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went nowhere. Hilbert: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes, but as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity. Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime, then. I personally have derived the field equations and beat Mr. Hilbert to it by a whopping minus five days. Grossmann: Mr. Einstein, you know nothing about mathematics. There is no way in hell you can come up with the field equations without a massive amount of help. Yes, helps like what I gave you without a single ounce of gratitude from you while we, more like I alone, were developing the “entwurf” to explain the laws of gravity through rigorous coordinate transformations. It also makes me look like an idiot by sending all my friends post cards telling them “Hey, look, guys. I am falling [flapping my arms], and I will discovery what gravity is better than Newton did”. Einstein: Well, the bottom line is that you have failed me, Mr. Grossmann, and that is all I cared. I don’t appreciate your incompetence. shrug Christoffel: Hold it, gentlemen, before a fight breaks out. Before Mr. Einstein claim more credits, I was the one who was credited with the Christoffel symbols of the second kind which got the ball going for differential geometry. In case if Mr. Einstein has not realized that yet, differential geometry plays a crucial role in the development in the general theory of relativity. Einstein: I did not know that. The mathematics is really too complex for me. Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Mr. Christoffel and the geodesic equations, I was able to invent something called the covariant derivative. By taking the double covariant derivative of the spatial distance between two points in space or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-dimensional matrix now called the Riemann curvature tensor. In space, it is a 3x3x3x3 matrix with 81 elements, and in spacetime, it is a 4x4x4x4 matrix with 256 elements. Riemann: I just want to clarify this. Although I was the first to mathematically describe what the curvature of space is, the Riemann tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me. Grossmann: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the connection coefficients in which now are called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind, there is another anti-symmetric arrangement, and this other arrangement of the connection coefficients would result in a different Riemann curvature tensor through a different covariant derivative defined by Mr. Ricci. Ricci: Oops. There is another possible covariant derivative different from what I have invented. Hey, nobody is perfect. shrug Levi-Civita: But who cares? As long as the metric is diagonal, they are the same. For no definitively apparent reasons, I was able to reduce the 4-dimensional Riemann tensor into a 2-dimensional matrix which is now called the Ricci tensor. Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only discussing the diagonal metric, all these tensors should be identical. So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor would fully describe gravitation. Laplace: Yes, the null Ricci tensor does degenerate into the Laplace equation and the Laplacian operator. d'Alembert: The d’Alembertian operator is more general than the Laplacian operator. You can make waves out of my operator. Maxwell: Yes, Maxwell’s equations in vacuum result in two equations involved with the d’Alembertian operator. That is exactly how we know light propagates as waves, and the medium it propagates through having unique properties in the permeability and the permittivity of free space. Only through these two properties of the Aether, the exact propagating speed is known. Rosen: Well, the Ricci tensor actually degenerates into one with the d’Alembertian operator. Thus, I can write down the mathematics of gravitational waves based on this operator. Hey, after all, it is all in the mathematics. Maxwell: It sounds like the Aether allows the propagation of gravitational waves as well according to your mathematics. Einstein: Yes, the Lorentz transformation has done away with the Aether even in electromagnetism. Thus, it is possible for waves to propagate without a medium. Just use your imagination. Maxwell: You guys have no idea of what you are talking about. I have had enough of this nonsense as well. leaving the play Poisson: Well, forget about gravitational waves for now. The Poisson equation is more general to the Laplace equation, and the null Ricci tensor does not satisfy the Poisson equation. Mr. Nordstrom’s work is not complete. Hilbert: Well, I have a better idea. I will throw in the square root of the negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci scalar. Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be stationary, the recourse is the set of field equations. Einstein: No, the field equations are derived by me only. The fact that Mr. Hilbert was able to present the same field equations five days before my own presentation is immaterial. Minkowski: Shut up, Mr. Einstein. Remember that you were my worst student. Yeah, instead of studying physics, you were thinking with your dick and chasing after the only skirt in that class. Weber: Oh, in my class on electromagnetism, Mr. Einstein was drawing women’s blouse in his class notes. I was deeply insulted by that. Einstein: Hey, I suddenly had an idea about women’s blouse in Professor Weber’s class. I even had a patent on that. Minkowski: I have a question for Mr. Hilbert. Why is the stationary condition to this action necessary? How did you pin the significance of the square root of the determinant to the matric to your Lagrangian? Hilbert: I don't know that myself. I fudged it in a desperation after Mr. Einstein told me that he had already derived the perihelion advance of Mercury. Einstein: What I had done had nothing to do with the field equations. I was just using the same method as Mr. Gerber did by modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential except that I modified it differently. Gerber: Yes, I merely modified the Newtonian gravitational potential with speed dependent terms. Hilbert: I did not know that. I should have known better from Mr. Einstein. shrug Newton: I could not believe that was how you clowns did physics in the early twentieth centuries. Klein: You have to excuse us, Mr. Newton. We were completely baffled by the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It never occurred to us that Galilean transformation is not valid in general. Voigt: Gee! Have you not read my publication on the Voigt transformation? Lorentz: Mr. Voigt, you were way ahead of your time. Your hypothesis was too radical for the physicists to accept then. Back then, we were still questioning Mr. Michelson’s interpretation to the experimental results. Michelson: Yes, I certainly can understand that. I was totally shocked myself. Newton: Well, with the null results, you can fix the electromagnetism or the Galilean transformation, and you guys had decided to fix the Galilean transformation. Klein: That seems to be the easiest approach. Michell: I’d rather to have you guys fixed electromagnetism instead and preserving the ballistic theory of light. Newton: Mr. Michell, we are not against you, but fixing electromagnetism represents a monumental work. Michell: I concede that we must do the best in the name of science. Klein: I concur. Hilbert: So, do I. Einstein: Not me. sticking his tongue all the way out Schwarzschild: Going back to solutions of the field equations, since the field equations are derived whether they are valid or not, having a metric with a determinant of -1 would result in drastically simplified field equations and thus the Ricci tensor. In doing so, I have transformed the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate into one that would yield -1 to the determinant of its metric. Thus, trivially, I have discovered the very first vacuum solution to the field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Klein: Yes, Mr. Schwarzschild able to come up with a solution in such a short amount of time was because Mr. Schwarzschild himself, Mr. Hilbert, Mr. Minkowski, and myself have been working on solving the null Ricci tensor off and on for a long time. Hilbert: Here is another such solution which is now named after Mr. Schwarzschild as the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must be total nonsense. I regret getting involved such deeply in this fiasco. wiping his hands in the gesture of washing them Einstein: Great! Now, I can claim sole proprietorship to the field equations. Self-styled physicists: Now, do you see why we worship Einstein as a God? He does not understand anything about differential geometry and was able to pull out the field equations. That takes a miracle --- a true genius in the making. Newton: shaking his head in total disbelief It appears that the self-styled physicists are standing on the shoulders of nitwits. Self-styled physicists: dismissing Newton’s remarks Wow, folks. Do you see the Schwarzschild metric manifests black holes? We could get a lot of attention and grant money to perpetuate our welfare by elaborating on these heavenly objects created through mathemagical nonsense that we do not even understand ourselves. Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not manifest black holes, and so are other infinite solutions to the field equations. Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same. shrug Riemann: That is not what I have described of curved space. You guys are just a whole bunch of clowns. The concept that the metric being the geometry is fatally flawed. The mathematical description of the thing called the metric alone cannot possibly be enough to describe the invariant geometry. You need to specify the choice of coordinate system as well. Each set of coordinate system would require another unique metric to describe the same, invariant geometry. Hilbert: applause Grade school children: Even, we can all understand what Mr. Riemann is talking about. College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs. Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled physicists. Whatever they say must be correct despite we don't know what they are talking about. Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for ourselves without any poison from Einsteinian mysticism. Hilbert: Going back to the discussion of gravitational waves, it is shown through mathematics that it is the metric that propagates as waves. Riemann: Thus, gravitational waves are too bogus. The metric is a parameter that interprets the invariant geometry according to an established choice of coordinate system. Claiming the metric propagating as waves is just absurd. Hilbert: That is correct. It should be the distance between two adjacent points (the actual geometry) in spacetime that propagates not the metric. Riemann: These clowns are still confused between the metric and the actual geometry. Hilbert: It sounds so unless these guys only limit the choice of the coordinate system to that linearly rectangular coordinate system also known as the Cartesian coordinate system where the metric is always unity in the sense of a signature in (+1, -1, -1, -1). Riemann: Ah! It is not even worth to think about the stupidities of the ones who equate the metric as the invariant geometry. There is one more issue about the mathematics of the gravitational waves. Whether time is absolute or not, space must be relative as I have discovered that curved space alone does not manifest gravitation. Any state in the curvature of space must be relative. One’s perception of flat space could be someone else’s observation of curved space, for one always observes his space being flat. Hilbert: Thus, the concept of gravitational waves is just too ludicrous especially the part where the observer’s perception of flat spacetime can be separated out. After all, the self-styled physicists chose to preserve the principle of relativity at all cost. Self-Styled physicists: Hey, hold it, Mr. Riemann and Mr. Hilbert. The binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 behaved exactly what the mathematics of gravitational waves said. Michelson: Being an unbiased experimental physicist, I would question the interpretation to the data for better qualification of the experimental result. If I were to be biased to believe in the principle of relativity, I would have interpreted the fringe effect differently to show a non-null pattern. Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no understanding of, I have discovered the Cosmological constant. By adding the Cosmological constant to the field equations, I can halt the gravitational collapse. Poisson: Yeah, I thought about the negative mass density in vacuum too but dismissed it as stupidity to the utmost degree. Newton: I have to agree with Mr. Poisson here. Self-styled physicists: But mass is energy. Just call this negative mass density in vacuum negative energy, or better yet, call it the Dark Energy. Wow! The mysticism could really proliferate into many generations to come. Eventually, physicists would figure out the stupidity within the concept of a negative mass density in vacuum, and that will be generations ahead of us. So, who cares? Einstein: Being no good at all in mathematics, even I see the stupidity in the Cosmological constant since (E = m c^2). My God, it was the biggest blunder in my life. I am indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug Michelson: Mr. Einstein, the Cosmological constant is the only blunder in your uneventful life of no discoveries. You are a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. leaving the play angrily Self-styled physicists: In supporting the Cosmological constant, we have discovered anti-gravity at very large distances in cosmological scale. Hilbert: You don’t have to invoke the Cosmological constant to do that. Among the infinite numbers of solution to the field equations, you can always find one that behaves like Newtonian law of gravity at short distances (say in galactic scale) and anti-gravity at large distances (say cosmological scale). Newton: Well, Mr. Michelson, a very respectable experimental physicist, has left us. I have to ask you guys what assumptions are made to interpret the experimental results in favor of an accelerating expansion of our universe. Chandrasekhar: The first assumption is that my derivation of the Chandrasekhar mass is valid. You see. In a binary star system, if one is cannibalizing on its companion, there is such a limit to the mass-increasing star. At that limit, it will explode as what is now called a type Ia supernova. Since all type Ia supernovae will explain at a fixed mass, the luminosity will be the same throughout the ages. Hilbert: But doesn’t the luminosity a function of what elements are present in the star. Chandrasekhar: They are all white dwarfs or even neutron stars. Newton: How can Mr. Chandrasekhar be so certain? Planck: cutting in Well, being a scientist, I was totally shocked out of my underwear when I had discovered the real world is sort of digital not analog through black-body radiation where the energy of a photon has an observed energy of (E = h f) where (h = Plank’s constant, and f = observed frequency). Thus, the issue of luminosity must be agreed on. That means everybody has to agree on how bright something is. Newton: There are many ways of deciding what parameters to use to determine this luminosity. Hubble: also cutting in before the self-styled physicists can answer Newton’s remarks Another assumption is based on my law --- Hubble’s law where the red shift increases linearly with the distance. Newton: In your time, Mr. Hubble, you could only observe objects out to one hundred parsecs at the most, but the later generations of the self-styled physicists were able to see at least two orders of magnitude more than you could. Could your law behave linearly at short distances but diverging from this linear relationship at larger distances? The squared root function comes in mind. Hubble: Mr. Newton, you are good. If the assumptions that Chandrasekhar mass being valid, the definition of luminosity, and Hubble’s law obeying a squared root function are indeed valid, the observed accelerated expanding universe can be explained without invoking the accelerating expansion of the universe. Hilbert: So, these assumptions must be all true before concluding an accelerated expanding universe. If not, the first law of thermodynamics would remain preserved. Self-styled physicists: No, the binary pulsar spelled out the doom for the conservation of energy. Newton: That is the only data point. I would question how the results are interpreted first instead of trashing the first law of thermodynamics. Self-styled physicists: Hmmm... Whatever you said, Mr. Newton. In the meantime, even if Mr. Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, we would continue to worship him. We love these groundless speculations. We are still bedazzled by how he can start with two equations equating zero with zero and pull out the Lorentz transformation from these. Einsteinian mysticism must continue, and Voodoo mathematics rules. College dropout: Goody! Now we can have empty space that expands itself, branes, multiverse, wormholes, black holes, budding universes, etc. It suits the minds of college dropouts like ourselves. Orwell: I told you so. wink ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS THEORY ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** BULL**** IS TRUTH ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION Self-styled physicists: Never mind Mr. Orwell. In the meantime, the GPS represent the most triumphant prediction of General Relativity. In order to allow the GPS to function, the satellite time must be in total synchronization with the ground. That means the clocks on board the satellite must tick a tiny bit slower to allow the slower ground clocks to keep up. Engineers: Gee! This is a myth perpetrated by the self-styled physicists to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. It is not the clock that has to be synchronized. The only requirement for the GPS is to synchronize is the calendar time among the satellites even if the clocks on board the satellites are different, and even if the ground clock or the ground calendar time is different. However, it is much easier to synchronize the satellite clocks to achieve universal synchronization of satellite calendar time. College dropouts: Although we don’t understand all that, we have to believe in the arm-chair designers of the GPS, namely the self-styled physicists. Engineers: Hey, look, punks. Any GPS receiver is receiving almanac information from the satellites at a slow pacing rate of 50 bits per second. The almanac information contains the position and the calendar time (relative to all the satellites) of one satellite. It takes several seconds to complete one record of information. With an acquisition of four satellites, the GPS receiver can build a set of four equations with the known positions and calendar times of the satellites and the unknown position and the unknown calendar time (relative to the satellites) of the receiver itself. With these four independent equations, all you have to do is to solve for these 4 unknowns. The calendar time of the ground does not come into play in determining a person’s position. However, we do provide an accurate universal time using the good old technique of “at the time of the beep, the time will be blah blah blah”, and this should not be extorted to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. Grade school children: So, engineers don’t take bull**** for answers. Engineers: That is correct. We cannot afford to take in bull****. If so, we will find ourselves out of jobs. Einstein: Well, I don’t really understand any engineering applications, but anyhow now I am worshipped as a god --- not bad for being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Creativity is to know how to hide your sources, and it pays off. wink A grade school kid: Hey, look, mom! The emperor has no clothes on. Tom: shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lorentz transformation
Langevin made the Lorentz Twins?
there is no need for a "ballistic theory of light," since waves are suited to propogate through the electrons and nucleii of "free space" qua "electromagnetism," omnidirectionally, viz Huyghen's wavelets. Self-styled physicists: *Shut up, Mr. Maxwell. *Your achievements have been downgraded by several knots. *Do you want us to believe in Mr. Michell’s ballistic theory of light? *Count your blessings that we have kept Maxwell’s equations but managed to dispense the Aether by modifying Maxwell’s equations read more »... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation | 1treePetrifiedForestLane | Astronomy Misc | 1 | October 16th 11 09:51 PM |
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 7 | August 9th 11 09:27 AM |
MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 4th 08 05:59 PM |