Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Recommendation for Physics Discussions
Posted:
May 29, 2012 1:17 PM
|
|
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>
|
|
|
|
