Spacetime Explained

Dear Anuraganimax & Uno Hoo:

You are utterly incorrect about the Lorentz transformation. It is a well known fact that it can be transformed and applied to Galilean as well as non-Galilean reference frames. I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Galilean reference frames education. If you can admit your errors, you will have contributed construtively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate Galilean and non-Galilean reference frames are needed to get you to change your mind?

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
 
Lawson's Criterion said:
Dear Anuraganimax & Uno Hoo:

You are utterly incorrect about the Lorentz transformation. It is a well known fact that it can be transformed and applied to Galilean as well as non-Galilean reference frames. I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Galilean reference frames education. If you can admit your errors, you will have contributed construtively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate Galilean and non-Galilean reference frames are needed to get you to change your mind?

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Click to expand...


Amateurs who have not extensively studied the Lorentz work are often unable to connect the dots correctly. I apologize for expecting you (all) to have more background than you now seem to have.

I will be more specific. The Lorentz paper of about 1890, similar in main body of thought to (somewhat contemporary) work of Voigt, Heaviside, J. J. Thomson, Fitzgerald, et al, proposed a Length Contraction which was crucially dependent upon the propagation of the electric field at a speed which was constant related to an absolute reference frame, but, which was therefore variable in the observation of any observer. This specific Length Contraction cannot be mathematically justified in the absence of an absolute reference frame. This specific Length Contraction was claimed as "borrowed" by Einstein in his Special Relativity.

It is not possible to demonstrate a length contraction with the same numbers as the Lorentz Length Contraction (vintage about 1890) without the absolute reference frame. And the concomitant variable speed of propagation of electric field.

You and your herd of numerous irate physicists, taking a break from screwing in light bulbs, are free and welcome to demonstrate exactly how the Einstein length contraction math formula is supposed to work without an absolute reference frame and a variable speed of propagation of electric field.

Go, girl!
 
Last edited:
AlphaNumeric said:
I see you're unwilling (because you're unable) to justify your point of view.

You don't seem to know how science works. Person A obtains Result 1. Person B obtains Result 2. Person C reads Results 1 and 2 and realises they lead to Result 3.

Every single paper in a reputable journal will have tens, dozens, even hundreds of references to other papers. Sometimes its just a passing comment, other times it is "I have taken their equation and will now use it". That isn't theft, that's the scientific method. I gave you the example of Newton. He was known as staggeringly arrogant but even he admitted he did what he did by building on the works of others.

The only people who do work which doesn't reference others are hacks. Look on vixra.org compared to arxiv.org and you'll see hacks reference very few people and often only previous work they have done.

You claimed Lorentz transformations require an absolute frame. This is demonstrated wrong in the very derivation of Lorentz transformations in any special relativity textbook. You have made a claim you didn't justify and is demonstrably false. The fact you don't read said books doesn't mean they aren't there.

I haven't seen you justify a single claim you've made so the empty rhetoric is yours.
Click to expand...

You really do have amusement value. Clowns in the circus arena have similar amusement value.

If the day ever comes when you realize that you should have used your personal talents to righteously investigate current mainstream physics creeds and, if necessary, try to improve and correct them, I hope that you still have enough breaths left to accomplish something worthwhile.

For now, it is obvious that you only wish to parrot the herd talk and fit in.

So long, parrot.
 
Uno Hoo said:
If the day ever comes when you realize that you should have used your personal talents to righteously investigate current mainstream physics creeds and, if necessary, try to improve and correct them, I hope that you still have enough breaths left to accomplish something worthwhile.

For now, it is obvious that you only wish to parrot the herd talk and fit in.
Click to expand...
Ah the assumptions of the crank. The fact I have to correct you on basic mainstream information doesn't mean I mindlessly repeat it and can't think for myself. I have 2 papers published in reputable journals and a third current being reviewed. The third one is entirely my own work, with minimal input from anyone else.

I am absolutely certain that's more contributions to mainstream work than you have managed.
 
Al..whatever; I don't give a shit about your papers written to give your weird friends jollies.

Explain to us how the Lorentz Length Contraction, circa about 1890, based crucially upon an absolute reference frame, was stolen by Einstein, and, was then accepted by a herd of idiots to be functional in Einstein's totally relative reference frame theory.

It makes no sense at all. It is total moronic idiocy. Explain it.
 
Uno Hoo said:
Al..whatever; I don't give a shit about your papers written to give your weird friends jollies.
Click to expand...
Ah, you suddenly go from "I bet you can't think for yourself" to "I don't care" when I demonstrate I've done more worthwhile thinking for myself than you have.

Uno Hoo said:
Explain to us how the Lorentz Length Contraction, circa about 1890, based crucially upon an absolute reference frame, was stolen by Einstein, and, was then accepted by a herd of idiots to be functional in Einstein's totally relative reference frame theory.
Click to expand...
Explain something you claimed and I disagreed with? Good one.

Have you ever even seen the derivation of Lorentz transformations within special relativity? They are done without the assumption of a specific reference frame. That doesn't mean you couldn't derive them some other way, such as by assuming a specific reference frame, but the fact is you can derive them without such assumptions.

Lorentz developed the transformations as the invariances of Maxwell's electromagnetism. Einstein derived them in the context of physics in general. If you want to be technical, Lorentz's work shows the electromagnetism U(1) bundle has Lorentz invariant fibres while Einstein showed it was the base manifold with the Lorentz invariance.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Ah, you suddenly go from "I bet you can't think for yourself" to "I don't care" when I demonstrate I've done more worthwhile thinking for myself than you have.

Explain something you claimed and I disagreed with? Good one.

Have you ever even seen the derivation of Lorentz transformations within special relativity? They are done without the assumption of a specific reference frame. That doesn't mean you couldn't derive them some other way, such as by assuming a specific reference frame, but the fact is you can derive them without such assumptions.

Lorentz developed the transformations as the invariances of Maxwell's electromagnetism. Einstein derived them in the context of physics in general. If you want to be technical, Lorentz's work shows the electromagnetism U(1) bundle has Lorentz invariant fibres while Einstein showed it was the base manifold with the Lorentz invariance.
Click to expand...

You, from your extremely limited vantage, have seen yourself do more worthwhile things in science than you have seen me do. Duh. When I have been doing my worthwhile science things, I have not seen you in the room with me,watching me. So, I know for damn sure that I have done worthwhile science things that you are ignorant of.

I would not have written of the original Lorentz Length Contraction if I were not familiar with it, you condescending twit. You are not talking about the same simple, basic, thing that I have already clearly explained. You are writing about some latter day fourth generation perversion of the original Lorentz concept that Einstein stole, and which even to this day is the millstone around his theory's neck.

There cannot be a Length Contraction observed as a real physical contraction unless it works exactly like the original Lorentz concept. And the original Lorentz concept is perfectly impossible without an absolute reference frame. Special Relativity is fundamentally incompatible with its stolen and pimped (original) Lorentz Length Contraction.

This is my last reply to you. I did not start posting here to get a thing going with you. You are a genuine waste of my valuable time.
 
Uno Hoo said:
You are a genuine waste of my valuable time.
Click to expand...
Anyone reviewing your post history will see that if you post only when its more valuable than your 'valuable time' then your time isn't anywhere close to as valuable as you wish it was.
 
Lawson's Criterion said:
Dear Anuraganimax & Uno Hoo:

You are utterly incorrect about the Lorentz transformation. It is a well known fact that it can be transformed and applied to Galilean as well as non-Galilean reference frames. I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Galilean reference frames education. If you can admit your errors, you will have contributed construtively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate Galilean and non-Galilean reference frames are needed to get you to change your mind?

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Do you happen to know a Richard Kottenstette? curious

sorry for the OT question :D

Edit: addition I do have a question On Topic:

If an observer and an object are moving in opposite directions both traveling C would the percieved speed from either perspective in relation to the other object be C2?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top