sci.physics.relativity

On Oct 9, 7:45 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> Koobee Wublee says...


> > The article started by making a series of errors.
>
> > ** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Larmor totally
> > referenced to Voigt's work early but not FitzGerald/Lorentz length
> > contraction. The special theory of relativity has become merely an
> > interpretation to the Lorentz transform in which this interpretation
> > was already addressed by Poincare and somewhat by Lorentz before
> > 1905. So, SR cannot possibly be Einstein's work. In his 1905 paper,
> > Einstein fudged the derivation of the Lorentz transform so badly.
> > Anyone seriously in studying this subject include the history should
> > have no reservation to identify Einstein as a nitwit, a plagiarist,
> > and a liar. This is all in the history backed up by the forensic
> > evidence of mathematics itself.
>
> > ** The set of field equations is the theory of general relativity.
> > Only through the bullsh*t Lagrangian pulled out of his ass, that
> > allowed Hilbert to derive the field equations. Einstein had no
> > involvement in the nonsense of the field equations.
>
> [...]
>
> > If you are talking about (E = m c^2), the relationship actually has
> > not been derived except by yours truly through the calculus of
> > variations. The concept is simple, but it cannot be embraced because
> > if so, GR would fall like a house made of a deck of cards as Androcles
> > had put it. Embracing how spacetime can cause the observed mass to
> > reduce, the stupid hypothesis known as the general theory of
> > relativity would blow itself into bits. How? It is worth
> > another chapter of discussion if anyone is interested.

> Why should anyone take what you have to say seriously,

Why not? Continuing to lick up my droppings every chance you get is a
tell-tale sign that you clowns are scared sh*tless.

> when
> you can't do the most trivial calculations involving the subjects
> that you pontificate about?

Over the weeks, I see how desperate and agitated that janitor from
Cornell is becoming over this farce about that dumb question that I
don't see any point of answering. He is consumed by his quest to find
the answer for that question.

> How do you calculate areas in non-Cartesian
> coordinates?

If you don't know how to do it, please consult with a student from
Cornell.

> Why can't you answer such a trivial question.

That trivial but very stupid question bares no relevance to our
discussions on the relationship between the invariant geometry and the
choice of coordinate system.

> Even the janitors at Cornell understand this stuff better than you do.

That janitor from Cornell is day-dreaming again. You go to tell him
that.