Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP
From: David Evens (devens_at_technologist.com)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Degradation of nuclear weapons"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:53:51 -0500
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:30:31 -0600, "Eugene Shubert"
<http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote:
>"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:l1a5r0dcg3n8vdtbggc5edijq8c1uvnocf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 05:21:40 -0600, "Eugene Shubert"
>> <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote:
>>>In my paper, I derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
>>>transformation using magic, elementary algebraic manipulation and
>>>a clear definition of time.
>>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=451
>
>>>There are no references to magical derivations of special relativity
>>>in the scientific literature. I am the first to derive the Lorentz
>>>transformation from the Galilean transformation (AFAIK).
>>
>> Make up your pretended mind: Did you derive them, or did you use
>> magic?
>
>It's magic to those who don't understand it, which is just about
>everyone. It's a derivation to me.
Pure magic, no derivation whatsoever, then.
>>>Dr. Tom Roberts admits that the "Shubertian clock" is new and
>>>unique.
>>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=npIpd.32646$Qv5.9901@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com
>>
>> He also said that it wasn't relevant to physics, that your magic is
>> the sin of ommision of your source material, and that you are
>> inexperienced and ignorant.
>
>1. I never said it was relevant to physics. I said it's an idea in
>relativity that is too contemptible for review yet it's provably true
>and widely disbelieved by physicists and physics students.
Make up your pretended mind: Is it irrelevant to physics, or is it an
idea in relativity?
>"It is usually the case that when experts hear of a wild or impossible
>sounding idea and they examine it, the new idea is easily proven
>wrong. By definition, a thesis is truly astounding and revolutionary
>if it is too outrageous to be true, or if it's widely believed by
>experts to be too contemptible for review, yet is true anyway."
What does this have to do with the paper you specified above to be
thesis-free?
>2. Yes. Dr Tom Roberts explained his fetish about using the word
>"group" and insisted that I should too, even when it's not necessary.
You mean, like when you are using group theory.
>I admit that I didn't refer to "group theory" but group theory is not
>the idea that I'm trying to convey. What other "sources" did I
>exclude?
He mentioned four sets of things you intentionally omited. You didn't
snip the reference, you really should read it for the first time.
>3. The mathematicians at sci.math couldn't believe that the physicists
>who are contending with are so out of their minds as to oppose my
>simple logic, yet it is the truth.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=418dc083@sys13.hou.wt.net
No mathematicians supporting your vomit in that thread.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=418fb1a4_4@newsfeed.slurp.net
Apparent pathematician stating that you haven't supported your
definitions. Or are you making one of your famous fraudulent claims
again?
>http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=419638ea@sys13.hou.wt.net
Where you wuote the above lack of support and another article from the
thread stating that you aren't doing physics.
>>>I don't believe that my approach to SR came from any earthly source.
>>
>> Had you been capable of understanding the article you referenced
>> above, you would know that the methods you use are well known.
>
>Are you so blind as to not see that the majority of physicists and
>physics students who have responded to my thesis are saying that my
>thesis is impossible?
Of course deriving Einsteinian Relativity from Galilean Relativity is
impossible. Of course, you already admitted that you made no attempt
to do this whatsoever, so this doesn't come up.
>"This paper demonstrates that for any two inertial frames of reference
>in either a Galilean or Einsteinian universe, clocks can be reset
>thereby modifying the usual transformation equations into a Lorentz
>transformation with a new arbitrary constant c. This trick is
>exploited to derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean
>transformation."
You already stated that you did not even ATTEMPT to do this.
>> You didn't have a flash of insight, you used well-known techniques
>> that are already in the textbooks and pretended to not know about
>> them.
>
>Proclaim that to the physicists who whine about my thesis being
>impossible.
You didn't do anything like what you pretended to, and you already
admitted that fact.
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Only some energy has mass?"
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Degradation of nuclear weapons"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
