On the Definition of an Inertial Frame of Reference

Name one physicist that believes that my equations produce physical conclusions that differ from ordinary special relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That you are a crackpot and that your theory is bunkum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you quoted is in perfect agreement with what Guest said in post 46:

The only reason you'd now be declaring it off topic is if, in the meantime, you'd realised your errors and wanted to change the subject.

That's the whole point. Whether Eugene's transformation is "valid" depends on what you mean by "valid". And what everyone has agreed on is that in the only sense Eugene's transformation could be considered "valid", it is also completely trivial. That's why we don't bother evaluating Eugene's essay. Knowing the generally covariant formulation, we can place an upper bound on its usefulness that's so low it doesn't justify a rigorous critique.

What's telling? You picked a "challenge" that has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread and I have no reason to concern myself with it. I consider that a perfectly valid reason for ignoring your exercise. On what basis, other than wishful thinking, are you ruling out that explanation? I am under no obligation to prove myself to you. You do not get to dictate how I should spend my time - even five minutes of it - and I'm not going to jump through every arbitrary hoop you set out solely for the purpose of shutting you up.

I thought I'd already explained that to you. At least twice now. Why do you consistently need things explained to you a dozen times before they begin to sink in?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How often do I have to say this? My nonlinear model of the Lorentz transformations is an extraordinarily simple idea that physicists are confused about.

 

That's the dishonest way to spin the nature of your work when described properly as at best as "mathematically trivial," adding nothing but a particularly backward example to the introductory volumes on the analysis of coordinate transforms and as physically meaningless, since the framework is neither appropriate for teaching physics nor does it usefully introduce any physical hypothesis.

Posted from some iPhone.

 

The challenge is relevant since it is a way of proving the theory in discussion (Shubert's) invalid. THIS is what I mean by "valid". The fact that you refuse to participate in the discussion shows that you are not capable.

All true. It is also true that you are unable to solve the challenge. If you were, you would have done it long ago.

 

Two challenges for Guest254, Alphanumeric and przyk (5 minutes each):

Prove that :

1. Shubert's theory predicts an incorrect result for the SR tests for speed composition
1a. Find out Shubert speed composition formula.
1b. Show that the prediction of 1a is falsified by experiment(s)

2. Shubert theory predicts anisotropic light speed
2a. Find out the light speed in Shubert's theory
2b. Show that the prediction is falsified by experiment(s)

 

I consider the Lorentz transformation to be useful and I have learned from my generalized Lorentz transformations therefore my minimal axiom set is useful also. Obviously, if you don't understand my paper, then it's simply not useful to you.

 

Hint. Understand equation (64).

Hint. Realize that light speed must be defined operationally. To illustrate, how would you prove that the two-way speed of light is always c? The answer is trivial. You only need to assume that a photon pulse can be approximated by a ridiculously fast traveling twin and use equation (84) and (85).

 

The Riemann Hypothesis is proven at last!

http://members.rediff.com/shamix/c28.html

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin//isoc/mcalee.htm

 

So, you can't calculate the speed composition formula. You don't even understand what is asked of you. Therefore you are unable to determine by yourself that your theory is falsified by experiment. This is why you need help from the three musketeers.

Shubert, you have no clue how to solve this challenge either.

LOL

 

Will this guy ever stop digging!

Again, I'm more than happy for you to quote, verbatim, the section of the book and I'll explain to you (again) that you don't understand it.

As has been explained to you, about 1,000,000 times now, that general covariance is the property of equations retaining their form under arbitrary coordinate changes. Let's see how your objections have evolved over the thread...

• First you didn't understand what tensors are.
• Then it was your claim: tensor transformation laws only hold for linear changes of coordinates .
• Then AGAIN it was that you thought tensor transformation laws only hold of linear changes of coordinates.
• Then it was because you thought Lorentz covariance and General covariance were the same thing.
• Then it was because you thought his coordinates were too complicated.
• Then it was because you had trouble differentiating his coordinates.
• Then it was my personal favourite: that "you get partial derivatives with respect to f".
• Then it went back to "but his coordinate functions are nonlinear!" again.
• Then it was because of "implicit functions", as if they're some terribly complicated thing.
• More objections to implicit functions.
• Then it was more trouble with the chain rule and "derivatives of S with respect to itself".
• Then it was the famous "covariant and partial derivatives coincide on flat space" gem.
• You then continued with the "covariant and partial derivatives coincide on flat space" objection, deciding that polar coordinates aren't a good enough counter example for you.
• Then it was because you couldn't calculate the relevant g_{ij} for the coordinate change.
• Then you drop that and return to a confusion between Lorentz covariance and general covariance.
• You continue with the confusion between Lorentz covariance and general covariance and use this confusion as your objection.
• You continue with this confusion.
• Then we go back to your objection based on the fact you couldn't calculate g_{ij}.

Then you got banned. So you went away and one would hope you spent this time reading a little about the various topics you've made elementary errors on. I think you (hopefully) realised that you made a fool of yourself with regards Tensor transformation laws and linear changes of coordinates, so on return you had a new objection...

• Now you claim the coordinates are degenerate.
• You also have a new objection that the Jacobian matrix should be orthogonal.
• Remarkably, during all that time you didn't realise how stupid your Christoffel symbols claim was, so also reverted back to that objection.

This is where we all had to give you endless explanations of why your "Christoffel symbols vanish" claim was stupid, but you continued to make a fool of yourself whilst beating your chest at the same time (which was priceless by the way). Even after Prometheus very kindly did an explicit calculation for you, you still couldn't see your error and continued to beat your chest. Finally, after much trying and having me explain to you a basic result, you did finally see your error (but of course you didn't admit to it). So this feels like it's time for you to change your objections again...

• Now it's because we're doing things on flat space.
• Then you were desperate to end the conversation, having realised you'd made a complete fool of yourself.
• But the humility was too much so you foolishly reaffirmed your position on the notion of general covariance.
• You return again to "can't do it in flat space" and "the coordinates are degenerate".
• You really push the degenerate coordinates thing quite hard, indicating that you hadn't actually managed to compute the determinant of the Jacobian yourself!

Again, one of the highlights of the thread came about. With a proud beating of your chest, you cling to the degenerate coordinate claim. Here's come the LOUD NOISES...

Tach: there is no way in hell that the jacobian has a determinant equal to 1
Przyk Response 1: Proof it's equal to 1.

Tach: You bought Shubert's claim on the decomposition. The claim is FALSE.
Przyk Response 2: Proof the claim is TRUE. (see, I can use capital letters too!)

So we all know what's coming next, right? You guessed it! Tach now moves onto a new objection:

• You have a problem with coordinate replacement! Claiming g_ij=g_ij(x,x').
• The whole Jacobian thing is dropped and now it really is about you not understanding that x'=x'(x,t) means f(x')=f(x'(x,t)) is a function of (x,t).
• Again you push with the embarrassing failure to replace x' with x'(x,t).
• And for some unknown reason return to your claim that Jacobian must be orthogonal.
• You reaffirm you position on this false claim, but citing a book you have previously demonstrated you do not understand.
• Continue to cite alleged result, but refuse to post the result you are referring to.
• Because you realise you're drowning, you desperately try to swing attention away from yourself by posting challenges.
• http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2643466&postcount=402Again, refuses to post the cited result, presumably because you're terrified that you've misunderstood it.
• You start referring back to my post (now seemingly not disagreeing with it), and hope that everyone forgets what's just happened.
• And now you're trying to separate yourself even more from the tirade of mistake you've made, by posting more challenges!

I thought a little more about my previous comment in regards projection, and I think they're accurate. Tach has continued to over use words such as idiot, crank, crackpot, pretender and so on. But these are the exact same words people have used to describe him (e.g. here and here). Being wrong, for him, cuts much deeper than it does for others, because he feels it would increase the accuracy of the aforementioned labels. And he seems to be the same on all the places he joins. He makes elementary mistakes, gets called on it and then spends his time beating his chest, calling people names and insisting that he's wrong and that everyone else is at fault.

 

By one of many possible definitions of "valid". You don't own the word "valid", you know.

Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking.

 

Then you should have solved them by now. You didn't.

Here, I'll give you a head start over the other two musketeers:

If the speed is \(u\) in frame S, then the speed in frame S', moving witt speed \(v\) wrt S is:

\(\frac{u(1+v \frac{dS_i}{dx})-v}{leftforyoutofillintheblanks}\)

 

Non sequitur.

Again: there is absolutely no reason I should bother myself with your exercise. If I'd said something in this thread about velocity addition then it might be reasonable to ask that I support what I said with a calculation, especially if I'd said something you disagreed with. But I haven't said anything about velocity addition. I do not need to support assertions I have not made.

This is now the fourth time I've had to explain that to you.

 

Does this fill your blanks?http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2643701&postcount=82

Jacobian?

 

I believe it's easy to discern Sir Knight's plea for help. He is desperate to have someone explain to him The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory. Unfortunately, I'm the only one on this thread that is qualified to explain my paper and I have no inclination to teach beautiful truth to unthinking chimpanzees.

 

Key:

* Spam.
* Creative, self-serving interpretation of others' posts.
* Self-adulation.
* Ad hominem.
* Interesting, informative content.

 

You need to stop torturing the poor animal. You can't answer his plea for help.