Lorentz transformation is a fiction, not real

To makeup a nice transformation factor doesn’t mean it is real.
For a Lorentz transformation boost in the xy-direction, we have:

Let us play a game.
Assume that we have a dog’s bone，circle at a distance of 1 meter with the speed of 0.9999c for 10 years, and thus

t=10*365*24*60*60sec=315360000sec
v=0.9999c
c=3x10^8 m/s
therefore:


After 10 years, do you think a dog’s bone will become a dinosaur’s bone?

Let us play another game.

Define a GULLIVER'S transformation factor as


Anybody can define a transformation factor, but they are all fiction not real.

Totally agree, all bollocks this Lorentz transformation stuff.

GPS you say?

thats not a real world, experimental proof of the validity of Lorentz's calculations that I use every day, its fucking witchcraft I tells ya WITCHCRAFT

allenliou wrote:Anybody can define a transformation factor, but they are all fiction not real.

Anyone can say anything about reality, but the trick is doing it in a way which is agreed with by observation. This is something that Einstein was very good at doing, and you aren't.

And as has been pointed out, general relativity is used to correct GPS calculations. If this were not done they would be extremely inaccurate. Are you going to disagree with this correction?

So far, all the threads you have made have been stupid and a waste of everyone's time. You are posting in the manner of someone who clearly thinks he is a scientific genius, but isn't.

Paul Almond wrote:

allenliou wrote:Anybody can define a transformation factor, but they are all fiction not real.

Anyone can say anything about reality, but the trick is doing it in a way which is agreed with by observation. This is something that Einstein was very good at doing, and you aren't.

And as has been pointed out, general relativity is used to correct GPS calculations. If this were not done they would be extremely inaccurate. Are you going to disagree with this correction?

So far, all the threads you have made have been stupid and a waste of everyone's time. You are posting in the manner of someone who clearly thinks he is a scientific genius, but isn't.

Sorry for Einstein lover, I have another post call "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths, for one century had past, it’s time to wake up", please wait

I, for one, would like to focus on the positive aspect of allenliou's posts: he knows which subforum to put them in.

allenliou wrote:
I have another post call "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths, for one century had past, it’s time to wake up", please wait

I shall hold my breath in anticipation of the next back of an envelope falsification of a well established principle in physics from Some Guy On The Internet.

allenliou wrote:I have another post call "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths, for one century had past, it’s time to wake up", please wait

No. I have already seen enough to convince me that you don't have any idea.

In addition to the other observations above, the idea that maths is wrong if it is not real is really idiotic. Of course maths is not real, it is a language for modeling, and models are not real either.
But even if we propose the fatuous idea that models are reality, it does not follow that unreal maths is useless. The Hardy-Weinberg model is total fiction: infinite populations, exact ratios, no genetic drift, no selection. Total bollocks. But useful bollocks, because it is a null hypotheses to which real populations, real allele ratios, real genetic drift and real selection can be compared with.

[Disclaimer: Of course, we are just talking about observational phenomena and there is no need to claim reality, and it is better that we don't because that involves invoking metaphysical [and useless] baggage]. The science works as well, or in fact works better, without the metaphysics of claims to reality etc].

Darwinsbulldog wrote:In addition to the other observations above, the idea that maths is wrong if it is not real is really idiotic. Of course maths is not real, it is a language for modeling, and models are not real either.
But even if we propose the fatuous idea that models are reality, it does not follow that unreal maths is useless. The Hardy-Weinberg model is total fiction: infinite populations, exact ratios, no genetic drift, no selection. Total bollocks. But useful bollocks, because it is a null hypotheses to which real populations, real allele ratios, real genetic drift and real selection can be compared with.

[Disclaimer: Of course, we are just talking about observational phenomena and there is no need to claim reality, and it is better that we don't because that involves invoking metaphysical [and useless] baggage]. The science works as well, or in fact works better, without the metaphysics of claims to reality etc].

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

Allen Liou wrote:-

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

No, sorry, I am too much of a retard for such complex maths.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Allen Liou wrote:-

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

No, sorry, I am too much of a retard for such complex maths.

I guess so.

allenliou wrote:

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

It's actually

Speaking of math, without a calculator, do you know what is 1+2=?

Spell-check is your friend. Also, what is the point of such an obviously complex question?

matt8819 wrote:

allenliou wrote:

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

It's actually

Speaking of math, without a calculator, do you know what is 1+2=?

Spell-check is your friend. Also, what is the point of such an obviously complex question?

I agree

allenliou wrote:

matt8819 wrote:

allenliou wrote:

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

It's actually

Speaking of math, without a calculator, do you know what is 1+2=?

Spell-check is your friend. Also, what is the point of such an obviously complex question?

I agree

..okay...

matt8819 wrote:... Also, what is the point of such an obviously complex question?

allenliou wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Allen Liou wrote:-

Speaking of math, witkout a calculater, do you kouw what is 1+2=?

No, sorry, I am too much of a retard for such complex maths.

I guess so.

Yeahbuut did u understand my post??

@ OP: Convoluted Logic:-