Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Relativity in terms of False Premises
Replies: 4   Last Post: Mar 18, 2013 9:18 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Koobee Wublee

Posts: 1,417
Registered: 2/21/06
Re: Relativity in terms of False Premises
Posted: Mar 17, 2013 1:39 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 16, 6:08 am, Wayne Callahan <wca...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Among many others, relativity is based on the following weird premise:
>
> 1. The METER [M] determines the SPEED of LIGHT [SoL]
> 2. The SPEED of LIGHT [SoL] determines the METER [M]
>
> Obviously, those are indefinite recursive function, with no start nor end.
>
> Any comments?


You got SR all wrong. SR is not about the definition of the speed of
light in that circular understanding you have pointed out. SR is the
interpretation on the real world to the Lorentz transform and nothing
else. <shrug>

If one reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform, there are two
assumptions that this mathematical model is built out of. These two
guesses, glorified as intelligent and educated guesses called
postulates, are what foundation of SR is in the first place. The
first assumption is the principle of relativity which has never been
verified without any circular references similar to the one you have
raised. The second assumption on the constancy of the speed of light
is a suggestion of Voigt who saw wisely as a necessary requirement to
satisfy the null results of the MMX, and that took place in 1887. The
self-styled physicists have never given credits to Voigt for that
instead they gave it to the fvckwit they have worshipped --- Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Why is that? Because the
principle of relativity was already characterized by Galileo at least
three bloody centuries before. They had to credit their demi-god with
something that the fvckwit never had originally come up with. It is
all in history. <shrug>

Before the Lorentz transform, there was Larmor?s transform which along
with the Voigt transform was one of the infinite many that satisfy the
null results of the MMX. As a consequence, they also satisfy the
second postulate of SR --- the constancy in the speed of light --- but
not the first one --- the principle of relativity. <shrug>

All these transforms --- the Voigt, Larmor?s, the other infinite
numbers, and the good old Galilean transform --- are tales of three
points --- two observers observing the same observed. Each transform
merely relates how the two observers observe the same observed --- the
same event as observed by two observers. In particular, these non-
Galilean type transforms including Larmor?s transform say the Aether
must exist since they all reference any observations back to the
absolute frame of reference. It turns out that if these two observers
are moving in parallel to each against the stationary background of
the absolute frame of reference, any reference to the absolute frame
of reference would disappear in the mathematics. In doing so, the
Lorentz transform is born where the Lorentz transform only is valid in
this very special circumstance. Extending the law of physics
occurring in this very special circumstance to the rest and general
case, the Lorentz transform is born. Thus, it is totally fvcked up in
the first place. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee seems to be the only one who has realized this
mathematical error after more than a hundred years. Well, it is very
lonely at the top indeed. Does that mean Koobee Wublee believes in
Larmor?s transform? Well, all these transforms discovered by Lorentz,
including the Voigt, and Larmor?s transforms, that satisfy the null
results of the MMX manifest some and varying degrees of time
contradictions. The most severe case is the twin?s paradox manifested
by the Lorentz transform. Thus, they cannot be valid. <shrug>

The only transform left is the Galilean transform interpreting light
as classical particles with non-zero rest mass. This means the
ballistic theory of light which actually explains quite well on the
null results of the MMX. However, the hypothesis completely rejects
all the works put together so far in electromagnetism, and this is a
more serious flaw. <shrug>

Thus, what the self-styled physicists are so confident in is actually
very seriously flawed. The truth is still out there. Koobee Wublee
personally thinks electromagnetism has to be modified along with the
Galilean transform in order to cope with the reality in the null
results of the MMX and wavelight nature in light --- the very
existence of the Aether. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee is impartial to the Aether, but all the experimental
results seem to point to the very existence of the Aether as the best
course tested with rigorous scientific methodologies. Any serious
scientist must not downplay any experimental results properly
interpreted so. So, what is Koobee Wublee missing? <shrug>




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.