Re: Roberts considers Einstein paper to be irrelevant verbiage.

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:18:27 -0500

"Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in message
news:41a9daf3@sys13.hou.wt.net...
> "Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> news:fd0fc2fa.0411280404.3bb83278@posting.google.com...
> > "Eugene Shubert" <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote in
> > message news:<41a96b4c@sys13.hou.wt.net>...
> >>
> >> Eugene Shubert wrote:
> >> "Here is a magic derivation of the Lorentz transformation that
> >> is so baffling that many physicists have dogmatically declared
> >> that it is impossible."
> >
> > The recurrances of the term "magic" suggests you understand
> > less than you would like to admit.
>
> Initially, yes.
>
> >> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> >
> > Your paper still needs work.
>
> I will continue improving the paper and exposing the magic of
> relativity until relativists crap their pants.
>
> > 1) You STILL refuse to number the equations, making discussion
> > of it within newsgroups harder than it should.
>
> Is your inexperience with high school mathematics an issue for you or
> is it something else?
>
> > 2) Your language within the paper STILL needs work! I will give as
> > many obvious examples as I can for the abstract + first page.
> >
> > The inane amount of references to magic. It suggets that you are
> > ignorant in some way regarding mathematics.
>
> Rage Bilge calls the math of my paper 'symbol manipulation.'
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c45b45b3.0408092138.1d26efce@postin
g.google.com
>
> > The rambling abstract. The first two paragraphs are not inclusive to
> > the working definition of an abstract.
>
> It's perfectly fine to suggest that relativity is magic and that it's
> my job to expose the trick.

When one charge moves *RELATIVE* to another, some
surprising phenomena can be observed. As these phenomena
are exploited and fundamental to our everyday experience
they don't really fit into what we usually consider a performing
art.

I suppose one unfamiliar with methyl chloride could be
convinced that a "Drinking Bird" toy is magic.

|> >> Is it possible or impossible to derive the Lorentz transformation
|> >> from the Galilean transformation?

Yes... but start with one charge moving relative to another. Why
do ya think they the magic "The Lorentz Force" ?

Kind regards,
Sue...

>
> I say in a footnote that if you understand the magic then you
> understand relativity.
>
> > The use of a quote from the American Journal of Physics' editor
> > tells the reader to "move on, nothing to see here".
>
> It says very authoritatively that there's nothing remarkable about
> deriving the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation.
>
> > The third paragraph of your abstract has a gaping hole in it.
> > Specifically that in a strictly Galilean universe, the Lorentz
> > transformations do not exist. If the Lorentz transformations do
> > exist, the universe is NOT Galilean.
>
> Starting in a Galilean universe, I can reset clocks thereby modifying
> the usual Galilean transformation into a Lorentzian transformation. I
> can also pick any k=1/c^2 that I want. It's magic.
>
> > *** it. Im stopping at the end of the abstract.
>
> That's a logical place to stop. If you don't understand an abstract,
> why continue?
>
> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote
> >>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=npIpd.32646$Qv5.9901@newssvr33.new
s.prodigy.com
> >> > Bottom line: your claim that "many physicists have dogmatically
> >> > declared that it is impossible" is based on your own limitations
> >> > and inexperience, not any fault of "physicists".
> >>
> >> Is it possible or impossible to derive the Lorentz transformation
> >> from the Galilean transformation? It seems that Tom Roberts is
> >> beginning to understand my thesis and, therefore, refuses to
> >> answer my question decisively.
> >>
> >> Eugene Shubert
> >
> > No.
> >
> > This is because what you are doing is slapping on a scaling factor
> > to the Galilean transformations and calling it a derivation.
>
> Euclidean distances are untouched. All that I'm doing is resetting
> clocks.
>
> > Furthermore, your method of doing the "derivation" will not work
> > with all 3 spatial dimensions - the answers will be wrong.
>
> Does it work in one spatial dimension?
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Eugene Shubert
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantcast