OT: Einstein's BooBoos - D^1
- From: "eleaticus" <eleaticus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:58:29 -0700
The theme of the D^n series is invariance and fraud, Galilean and SR's
respectively..
[[ Any D^m, m=n+1 is one add-on to the D^n post.]]
I. Introduction.
II. Relativity Cult Corruption illustrated..
III. Correctly formed equations in coordinate form.
IV. Universal Galilean Invariance demonstrated.
V. Differential Galilean transformations.
VI. Michelson-Morley-based SRian fraud
VII. c+v Michelson-Morley.
VI. Einstein-Maxwell-based SRian fraud.
..
I. Introduction.
For a physical law to be universal, by definition it must hold true
everywhere. We can't test any law in even a reasonably large portion of
"everywhere", and so we put the lawful equations in coordinate-based form
and test whether the law is "invariant" - gives the same result - when we
change from one coordinate system to another.
In the case of Special Relativity - or Galilean/Newtonian relativity - the
change is from one inertial coordinate system measurements to another.
It should be noted that there is no coordinate-based physical or geometric
equation in which a coordinate does not stand for a distance/length,
although when not just the typical x, but a y and/or z is in use, it is a
projection's length on an axis that is measured.
Sometimes, of course, the coordinate-measurement is used to calculate
areas (such as in inverse-square laws) and volumes (such as in much of
electromagnetics).
The Special Relativity cult makes many fraudulent claims about invariance,
both Galilean non-invariance and its own invariance.
The claims against Galilean/Newtonian invariance are based either on
willful stupidity or conscious fraud, and the claims for Special
Relativity invariance based on pure fraud - with perhaps some willful
stupidity involved.
Herein we demonstrate the impossibility that any correctly formed
coordinate-based equation would not be invariant under the Galilean
transformations.
And we demonstrate Relativity's fraud on equations as simple as the
formula for the area of a square,on up to Maxwell's equations of
electromagnetics, the cornerstone of Relativity cult fraud.
II. Relativity Cult Corruption illustrated..
There are way too many examples of Relativity cult intellectual corruption
to catalog here but the most authoritative will suffice.
I was recently re-introduced to a supreme example from web-guru
physicist/Relativist "Uncle Al". Here is a sufficient segment of an old
post of his in which he virtually shouts his corruption:
Uncle Al:
-----------
Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of
multivariable calculus. He has no concept of the Chain Rule in
multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean Transformation goo and
dribble:
t' = t,
x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.
His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
variable springs from a massive empirical stupidity re space and time
are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four coordinates
instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional manifold, and that
the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates.
This is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
(electric and magnetic fields for example).
----------
end Uncle Al.
So, Uncle Al virtually shouts that he is intellectually or morally
incapable of discussing a thesis on the basis of the assumptions of the
thesis.
The subject was Galilean invariance -or not- under the Galilean
assumptions.
So, Uncle Al shouts that the Galilean-assumption analysis is
mathematically incorrect because it isn't the Relativity cult assumptions
in play.
As we'll see, that would be circular reasoning at best because not only
are all properly formed coordinate expressions invariant under the
Galilean assumptions, virtually nothing is invariant under the Relativity
cult's assumptions.
So,Uncle Al has essentially shouted:
"I, Uncle Al, am way too corrupt intellectually and morally to give an
honest read of anything that challenges my belief system."
III. Correctly formed equations in coordinate form.
Any competent adult - outside the deepest jungles - knows how to use a
ruler to measure a length when the ruler's origin - zero point - is not in
ideal position. So, too, most teenagers not severely retarded.
The same applies to elapsed times.
Take the ending time or coordinate value and subtract the beginning time
or coordinate value.
D = (x1 - x0).
T = (t1 - t0).
The Relativity cult seems incapable of understanding this when it comes to
questions of invariance.
[ Why? Because to do so belies their fraudulent claims.)
The problem with coordinate-based equations in the usual form is that they
are all based on the most convenient coordinates, one end of a length is
at x=0, the starting time is always at t=0.
But when you transform coordinates you are moving the axis origin away
from the convenient position, from where your original x-value can truly
represent a length to where it cannot possible represent such a length.
Hence, if you are going to transform a coordinate-based equation - under
the "translations" of both Galilean and Relativity-cult transformations,
you must use the "difference" versions.
Repeat:
You MUST use the "difference" versions if are going to transform
(translate) the coordinate axis.
Actually, the Relativity cult has to avoid the obvious difference formula
for time because it doesn't work for them. Well, not any worse than their
time transforms ever are.
IV. Universal Galilean Invariance demonstrated.
So, under the Galilean transform, x' = x - vt, which applies to any and
every x-value in the universe:
D = (x1 - x0).
D' = (x1' - x0').
D' = [ (x1 - vt) - (x0 - vt) ].
D' = ( x1 - x0 ) = D.
D' is D.
There is no t-transform under the Galilean assumptions because everyone's
t is everyone else's t.
Well, if you ignore time zones, but even then the difference formula works
out right.
We see from the above simple algebra that the movement of the coordinate
axis (the translation) has no effect on the distance calculated,
regardless of the time and/or velocity involved. Hence, no effect on area
or volume.
The distance difference is inside parentheses with no non-coordinate term
inside the parentheses, so obviously it is impossible for the difference
expression of distance to not be invariant.
Hence, it is impossible for any properly expressed coordinate based
equation to not be invariant under the Galilean assumptions and
transformations.
Repeat:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any properly expressed coordinate based equation to
not be invariant under the Galilean assumptions and transformations.
This applies not just to x but also y and z.
Now, why would the Relativity cult be so exercised about this? (Lord, I
wish those cretins could be exorcised!)
A major justification for their existence is that there is no Galilean
invariance, especially of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations.
They have to go beyond that fraud,of course, and make the fraudulent claim
that Maxwell is invariant under their own transformation.
V. Differential Galilean transformations.
Uncle Al et al corruptly insist on there being a time transform in
contradiction to the Galilean assumptions, but the idea of examining the
transforms in differential form is fine.
Take some simple f[ (x1-x0) ];
df'/dt = dx1'/dx1 - dx0'/dx1
df'/dx1 = d(x1 - vt)/dx1 - 0
******* df'/dx1 = 1
Similarly for dx0, and
df'/dx1 - df'/dx0 = 0.
Our x1 and x0 don't change so a difference calculation can't change
because of them.
df'/dt = dx1'/dt - dx0'/dt
df'/dt = d(x1 - vt)/dt - d(x0 - vt)/dt
df'/dt = 0 - v - 0 + v.
******* df'/dt = 0.
So, even the differential form tells us the difference version of a
coordinate-based equation is invariant over time.
VI. Einstein-Maxwell-based SRian fraud.
Back in 1881 the predominant theory of light was the aether/ether theory,
based on the idea that light is a way.
In analogy to waves in air and water it was believed that light must have
a medium,something through which the energy.
passes.
Michelson in 1881 devised and ran an experiment to test that thesis but
the accuracy was considered too inadequate to trust the results, which
seemed to show that ether did not exist.
He gained a partner and ran the more accurate and famous Michelson-Morley
experiments which Relativity cultists sometimes takes as justification for
their existence.
The results again showed that ether did not exist.
The premise was that light would behave like waves in water.
Toss a pebble into a still pond and the ripples spread uniformly in all
directions.
Toss a pebble into a smooth flowing river and the center of the ripples
move downstream, and the ripples spread more rapidly downstream than up.
Which is to say the ripples move with their own basic velocity plus the
velocity of the river.
If the base velocity is v and the river's r, then the downstream velocity
of ripples move at v+r total velocity, and those going upstream at v-r.
And those ripples trying to directly cross the river in either direction
instead move downstream at velocity r even as they make progress toward
the shores.
Thus, the velocity of the ripples, the light, depends on the medium's
velocity.
Further,just as the waves of two boats create various interference
patterns as they cross each other,just so light from two directions or
sources creates various interference patterns.
Hence, this (ideal) design:
Light from a single source enters the MMX (Michelson-Morley Experiment)
device at a corner.
It is split into two directions at a right angle.
The two "beams" travel the same distance to mirrors that reflect the beams
back to a common location where the interference pattern can be examined.
Perhaps one beam is going "upriver", against the ether flow, and then
down-river, and thus moves at a very different velocity than the beam
going cross-river both ways.
This assumes that Earth moves relative to the ether.
In any case, the interference pattern of the two beams' reunion is noted.
The thing is, if you don't change the distances the beams travel you can
rotate the device however much or little you want, but the interference
pattern doesn't change.
That is, there is no medium for light, although there are still folk who
want to believe in it. Perhaps the ether travels with the earth!
The first notable reaction to the no-ether result came from H.A. Lorentz,
whose name is used en re transformations than Einstein's.
He developed essentially the same equations as did Albert but on the basis
that the ether's resistance to the device compressed the device's arm,more
when going up river, none when straight across-river, so to speak.
And the claim is often made that Einsteinian Relativity is required to
explain Michelson-Morley.
That is a fraudulent claim.
VI. c+v Michelson-Morley.
Simple c+v light speed explains the MMX results perfectly. The Relativity
cult's silliness is not required.
The c+v is exactly as you experience everything in life involving movement
when air-resistance or water-resistance, whatever, is held to zero.
If a standing rock-thrower chucks one at you while you are not moving, it
hits with his basic throwing speed.
If either one of you is moving toward the other, it hits with even greater
speed.
And if both of are moving toward the other, ouch!
Similarly for movement away from each other: less ouch.
So, if his basic throw speed is c, and one of you is moving at v toward
the other, the net is c+v.
If both toward the other, the net is c+2v.
One away? c-v.
Etc.
Special Relativity and science in general believes that light speed is c
regardless:
c + 0v.
[[And there is more reason to believe that than there is for time
dilation.]]
Consider c+v versus the MMX:
Here we use vectors and for simplification do not elaborate on them.
Let the 3-d vector describing the end of one MMX arm relative to the
light's entry point into the MMX be A.
Let the vector describing the direction and velocity of the light toward
that arm end be C.
Let the vector describing the direction and velocity of the device through
space be V.
[[That makes |A| the length of the arm. |C| = c. |V| = v.]]
The following applies perfectly to either arm of the device; no particular
direction is ever specified.
By the time the light hits the mirror at the end of the arm, the arm-end
has moved to;
A + tV.
And the light has moved from the light splitter,entry point, to:
t(C + V) = tC + tV.
The light has picked up the additional velocity of the device.
Those positions at time t are identical, so:
A + tV = tC + tV.
A = tC.
That is, regardless of which arm you are discussing the c+v addition of
velocities says the movement of the device itself is immaterial.
The light when reflected or refracted at the splitter gains V in its
velocity according to the c+v assumption here.
It makes no difference what V is, nor v, nor anything else.
Well, what about the light's return trip?
A - tV.
t(C - V) = tC - tV.
A - tV = tC - tV.
A = tC.
Non-Relativistic c+v relativity fully explains the MMX results.
The MMX result does not require the Relativity cult's beloved spatial
contraction or time dilation.
VI. Einstein-Maxwell-based SRian fraud.
The roots of the Relativity cult's most important fraud is their claim
that the Maxwell electromagnetic equations are invariant under the BEER,
(Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity).
The fraud begins with Einstein 1905.
Having already developed his COORDINATE transformations, Albert presents
his "Transformations of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On
the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field
During Motion."
We use our g instead of his Beta.
Using X, Y, Z as the electric forces in the x, y, z directions,
respectively, and L, M, N as the magnetic forces in the x, y, z directions
respectively he gives us;
X' = X.
L' = L.
So far, no problem.
Y' = g( Y - vN/c).
M' = g( M + vZ/c).
Z' = g( Z + vM/c).
N' = g( N - vY/c).
No need to understand these equations.
The problem and point is about just what he is multiplying by g, an by v/c
for that matter.
Consult any book about electromagnetics. The charges and forces depend on
distance from the EM source.
For instance, Coulomb's Law,which if two charges are both located on the
x-axis,is in coordinate form:
Fx = [ k*q1*q2 ]/ x^2,
with the x-origin located at one of the two charges, and q1 and q2 are the
charges on the two particles, and k depends on the units of measurement.
That's an inverse square law.
What if you multiply this by g as part of a transformation?
It is the x that is supposed to be multiplied by g in its transformation.
To transform the coordinate in such an expression, the expression must be
DIVIDED by g.
The electric force along the x-axis at distance x^2 produced by a charge
at the x-origin:
Ex = kq/x^2.
You multiply that by g? No. Transforming that expression's coordinate
requires dividing by g.
That's basically Gauss' Law.
Satisfy yourself. Except in the case of uniform fields, distances
(squared, etc) are in the denominator of electric and magnetic formulae.
Multiplying such formulae/values by g is the inverse of proper coordinate
transformation.
And X, Y, Z, L, M, N are all such formulae/values in general.
There is no derivation of the transformation method Einstein and the
Relativity cult uses to claim Maxwell's invariance for themselves.
Their claim is fraudulent.
As is their claim the Galilean transforms don't work invariantly on
Maxwell. Just use the difference formula for every distance the x, y, z
represents.
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Happy Hiroshima Day
- Next by Date: Re: OT: I Am An American Conservative...
- Previous by thread: OT: I Am An American Conservative...
- Next by thread: POLL (and on topic, too): How many of you use two or more screens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
