🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric Gisse wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >
> > > > Physicists still believe in absolute silly things such as
> > > >
> > > > **  Principle of Relativity which has been proven false by
> > > > Hafele-Keating experiment, GPS, and more.
> > >
> > > None of which are in SR's domain of application. Congratulations on
> > > continuing to be stupid.
> >
> > Some of them are.  You are being ignorant again.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Areas where gravity has a measurable influence means you can't use SR.

Who said so?  God?

> > > > **  Goedesics follow the path with the maximum amount of accumulated
> > > > spacetime.
> > >
> > > Whatever that means.
> >
> > Study.
>
> Study what? Your own personal lingo?

What we are discussing even if my personal lingo.

> Don't be upset when others do not understand your personal vocabulary.
> The terms most commonly used for what you call 'spacetime' in this
> context is invariant distance or invariant interval.

It is the other way around.  The others understand my lingo, and they
are getting very upset because I am right.

> > > What is maximized is actually proper time.
> >
> > That is exactly the stupid sh*t the physicists believe in right now.
> > It makes no sense.  Because for a photon, the spacetime is zero, there
> > is no maximum in spacetime to a photon.  That means light cannot travel
> > in space according to you.
>
> Yes, ignoramus. The concept of the null path is something that is quite
> unremarkable.

There is not such principle of the null path.  You indeed live in the
la-la land.

> What you don't seem to understand is that the proper time
> parameterization only exists for _timelike_ paths, of which a photon is
> not a part.

That is exactly the crap that photons are lightlike is invented to fool
you the never-will-be educated.  You can never think and rationalize
for yourself but allow the "experts" to do the thinking for you.

> > > > **  SR does not manifest the twin's paradox.
> > >
> > > In that it isn't a paradox or that you are too stupid to see how the
> > > apparent paradox comes up?
> >
> > Where have you been?
> >
> > > > **  ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j = f(dq, dq)
> > > >
> > > >       g_ij = f()
> > >
> > > Yes, Riemannian geometry is _silly_.
> >
> > You can say that again.
> >
> > > > **  All solutions to the field equations where the equations are only
> > > > valid with one specific choice of coordinate system suddenly represent
> > > > a unified solution with each solution associated with each possible
> > > > choice of coordinate system.
> > >
> > > A complaint made manifest by your inability to understand tensors.
> >
> > No, it is in the very simple mathematics.
> >
> > > > **  GPS proves GR and/or SR where some certain crackpots may not agree
> > > > that GPS does prove SR.
> > >
> > > GPS has nothing to do with SR. What are you even ranting about anyway?
> >
> > Except the synchronization part of the satellites in different orbits.
>
> Which has fuck-all to do with SR since SR is only defined for inertial
> frames.

SR is a piece of crap anyway.  However, the inertial frames crap is a
way out of SR.  You are so cluless.

> Frames that are under the influence of gravity are
> non-inertial.

There are no such frames of references as the inertial or the
non-inertial.  So, when do you allow invented terms to shape the real
universe?  Let me remind you that you are no god.

> > > These "problems" make you seem delusional.
> >
> > No, I understand the problem crystal clear.  I even pointed out the
> > garbage of what you believe in in the past.
> >
> > > > **  Field equations were derived while Einstein fancying himself in
> > > > free fall.
> > >
> > > ....huh?
> >
> > Don't understand?  Re-read then.  <shrug>
> >
> > > > **  Einstein Equivalence Principle is the most power of them all
> > > > despite it serves no real purpose.  Galileo's principle of
> > > > equivalence paved the way for Newton's law of gravity.
> > >
> > > Of course it serves no real purpose in your mind - you haven't actually
> > > studied the theory and seen where it is used.
> >
> > Yes, I have.  You have not even tried to understand it.  It is like the
> > calculus of variations thing, eh?
>
> My offer stands.

Mine, too.

> Give me a problem to work on if you think it is something I can't
> understand. My only stipulation is that _you_ have to be capable of
> solving it.

Solving what?  The Einstein Equivalence Principle is no different from
Galileo's equivalence principle that allowed Newton to describe the
law of gravity.  You are just whining because of your shallow knowledge
in physics and math.  <shrug>

> > > > **  The math-illiterate, Einstein, himself can come up with the math of
> > > > the field equations.
> > >
> > > ...classic.
> > >
> > > You really think Albert Einstein, who had a PhD in physics, was
> > > math-illiterate?
> >
> > Absolutely.  Look at the 9th one in the following link.
> >
> > http://www.empyrean.ca/words/quotes/einstein.html
>
> ...and you think that means he is math-illiterate?

Yes, absolutely.  Einstein could not even do simple algebra.

> Why not just simply come out and say you are anti-Einstein and give it
> a rest?

I am not a faithful of SR and GR.  Since Einstein played plagiarist
roles in both SR and GR, I am not anti-Einstein.  I am anti Larmor,
Lorentz, Poincare, Hilbert, and others.  Einstein was a nobody.

> > > > **  ...
> > > >
> > > > And the most absurd of it all.
> > > >
> > > > **  The curvature in spacetime is caused by energy where energy is an
> > > > observed phenomenon.
> > >
> > > So basically you think everything about GR is absurd, from the
> > > foundations of differential geometry to the field equations.
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Too bad you are absolutely incapable of doing anything with your
> version of differential geometry.

I represent the true interpretation to differential geometry.  Yes, it
is I, Koobee Wublee, also referred to respectfully as K-W.

> > I am not delusional.  If so, you with a blank mind would not be such
> > angry.

Yes, you are angry, and I love to make you angrier.  <shrug>