The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Relativity in Two Postulates
Replies: 12   Last Post: Mar 6, 2013 2:13 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 Two Postulates
Posted: Feb 22, 2013 2:24 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Feb 21, 4:53 pm, xxein <> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:36 am, Koobee Wubleewrote:

> > The constancy in the observed speed of light came from Voigt who
> > discovered the Voigt transform being the earlier non-Galilean
> > transform that satisfy the null results of the MMX. <shrug>

> > This has a lot of implications. The most overlooked one is the flat-
> > space ego where every observer will always observe his space to be
> > flat even if his space appears and is observed to be hopelessly curved
> > by someone else. Thus, the curvature of space is a relative
> > comparison in concept. It all results in Voigt?s wisdom. <shrug>

> > > - gravity equivalent to acceleration
> > The principle of equivalence was a Galilean discovery where the
> > Newtonian law of gravity becomes ever possible. So, this is not part
> > of core curriculum of relativity. It is merely a principle in
> > tradition. Without the principle of equivalence, Newtonian law of
> > gravity would not be possible. There is no big deal in the principle
> > of equivalence. However, when Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> > and the liar finally understood the simple Newtonian law of gravity,
> > the nitwit managed to reverse-engineer the Newtonian law of gravity
> > and since then had proclaimed the principle of equivalence as his own
> > basic organic discovery. What an insult to scholars of history if you
> > ask Koobee Wublee. <shrug>

> > The most basic tensor is the Riemann curvature tensor which has
> > nothing to do with Riemann himself. Looking for how an object is able
> > to move through perceived curved space, Christoffel trivially derived
> > the geodesic equations. From the geodesic equations, Ricci saw and
> > defined an operator that results in null 4-velocity. Through double
> > application of this man-made operator, now called the covariant
> > derivative, a 4x4x4x4 (complete with 256 elements) matrix can be
> > fudged in which Ricci who named it the Riemann tensor. Arbitrarily
> > realizing 256 elements to a matrix is hopelessly useless. Ricci?s
> > student, Levi-Civita, condenses the 4-dimental Riemann tensor into a 2-
> > dimensional one which is now called the Ricci tensor with any
> > scientific justifications. The whole tensor business of things is an
> > idol of voodoo cult in practice. <shrug>

> xxein: I might as well ask. What do you base your knowledge of the
> physic upon?

Years of study just like what Tom requests all to do, of course.
Textbooks as well as what are beyond the textbooks. <shrug>

> Um. Without name-dropping. Or as Sgt. Joe Friday
> (badge 714) would say "just the physic, m'am".

What is that again? You still make no sense after all these years.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.