| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2005 06:36:08 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 11:38:07 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
You really are extremely stupid and malicious - even for
a Bulgarian.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 11:52:10 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
or,
(x' - c t')/((x - ct) = lambda
Hahahahahahahahahahah......
Mike
You really are extremely stupid and malicious - even for
a Bulgarian.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 12:26:47 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123865530.904093.308820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
or,
(x' - c t')/((x - ct) = lambda
Hahahahahahahahahahah......
Mike
Well there is no need to show what an imbecile *you* are,
Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
and I'm still waiting for that professional mathematician
you would find to debunk
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Given up on it?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 01:06:29 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123865530.904093.308820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
or,
(x' - c t')/((x - ct) = lambda
Hahahahahahahahahahah......
Mike
Well there is no need to show what an imbecile *you* are,
Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
and I'm still waiting for that professional mathematician
you would find to debunk
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Given up on it?
Dirk Vdm
Listen you retarded flying dutchman:
A bijective function with domain R and range R of the form y = ax maps
0 to 0. Now look at your poopies:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
This is not a bijective mapping but it was made to look like one to
suit the final purpose of deriving the Lorentz transform.
Who said idiot, retarded psychotic, irreducible moron, that x' - c t'
= lambda (x - c t) is a function?
It is simply 0 = lambda x 0 by definition
That makes lambda any function of the form f(x=0) = y = 0
If one is to claim that x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) is a function,
one must have the balls to prove it. Can you dig that stupid?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 01:14:37 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123869989.078003.13590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123865530.904093.308820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
or,
(x' - c t')/((x - ct) = lambda
Hahahahahahahahahahah......
Mike
Well there is no need to show what an imbecile *you* are,
Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
and I'm still waiting for that professional mathematician
you would find to debunk
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Given up on it?
Dirk Vdm
Listen you retarded flying dutchman:
A bijective function with domain R and range R of the form y = ax maps
0 to 0. Now look at your poopies:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
This is not a bijective mapping but it was made to look like one to
suit the final purpose of deriving the Lorentz transform.
Who said idiot, retarded psychotic, irreducible moron, that x' - c t'
= lambda (x - c t) is a function?
No one said that anywhere.
"The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear."
is shorthand for:
x'( x, t ) = a x + b t
t'( x, t ) = c x + d t
It is simply 0 = lambda x 0 by definition
How stupid.
That makes lambda any function of the form f(x=0) = y = 0
If one is to claim that x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) is a function,
No one claims that.
Gee, you really don't even have the slightest idea what
this is about.
You are even more of an imbecile than Androcles :-)
Dirk Vdm
one must have the balls to prove it. Can you dig that stupid?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
13 Aug 2005 03:48:59 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123869989.078003.13590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123865530.904093.308820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123846568.035015.18720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
Source:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap01.htm
Title:
"Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation"
| A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis
| of x, is transmitted according to the equation x = ct or
| x - ct = 0 (1).
| Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative
| to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
| system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula
| x' - ct' = 0 (2)
| Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also
| satisfy (2).
| Obviously this will be the case when the relation
| (x' - c t') = lambda (x - c t) (3)
| is fulfilled in general, where lambda indicaes a constant.
Nothing wrong with the logic, and very well suited for the
target audience of lay people.
For non lay people:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
or,
(x' - c t')/((x - ct) = lambda
Hahahahahahahahahahah......
Mike
Well there is no need to show what an imbecile *you* are,
Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
and I'm still waiting for that professional mathematician
you would find to debunk
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Given up on it?
Dirk Vdm
Listen you retarded flying dutchman:
A bijective function with domain R and range R of the form y = ax maps
0 to 0. Now look at your poopies:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
This is not a bijective mapping but it was made to look like one to
suit the final purpose of deriving the Lorentz transform.
Who said idiot, retarded psychotic, irreducible moron, that x' - c t'
= lambda (x - c t) is a function?
No one said that anywhere.
"The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear."
is shorthand for:
x'( x, t ) = a x + b t
t'( x, t ) = c x + d t
It is simply 0 = lambda x 0 by definition
How stupid.
No, you are an imbecile and stupid. You belong to the set of incopetent
physicists that look at mathematical symbols like little dolls they can
play with, feed then, dress them up and then put them to sleep with
their little bear.
x - ct = 0 by definition
x' - ct' is 0 by definition
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) makes no sense mathematically in the
domain and range these are valid (i.e. zero). Lambda can be anything,
any number or function of the form f{x,x',t,t') or even any function at
all, of some other variable, like a "hidden variable".
For x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), for arbitrary x, x' then t, t' are
ill-defined, it is not a unique relationship and largely undefined,
because you have one equation, x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), with two
unknowns, t, t', even if lamdda is known a priori, for any t, t', x, x'
that do not make x' - c t' and x - c t zero.
Thus, the Lorentz transform derivation via this approach is based on a
purely mathematical trick than fails elementary algebra. Therefore, it
must be derived some other way.
Don;t you agree that if someone were to submit a paper having this type
of algebra in it and claim some derivation it would be rejected right
away? By that, I do not insist that the Lorentz transform is false,
what I claim is the Einstein forced its derivation in a very
innapropriate, insane, stupid, incopetent way.
maybe you know of a mathematically sound way of deriving the Lorentz
transformations? Do you psychopathetic, impecile, stupit, moron Dirt of
the Motel?
Mike
That makes lambda any function of the form f(x=0) = y = 0
If one is to claim that x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) is a function,
No one claims that.
Gee, you really don't even have the slightest idea what
this is about.
You are even more of an imbecile than Androcles :-)
Dirk Vdm
one must have the balls to prove it. Can you dig that stupid?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
14 Aug 2005 02:28:03 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123922939.111599.37040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1123869989.078003.13590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
It is simply 0 = lambda x 0 by definition
How stupid.
No, you are an imbecile and stupid. You belong to the set of incopetent
physicists
You seem to have no idea about what I am :-)
that look at mathematical symbols like little dolls they can
play with, feed then, dress them up and then put them to sleep with
their little bear.
That seems exactly what you do :-)
x - ct = 0 by definition
Idiot :-)
x' - ct' is 0 by definition
Idiot again :-)
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) makes no sense mathematically in the
domain and range these are valid (i.e. zero).
Idiot once more :-)
Lambda can be anything,
any number or function of the form f{x,x',t,t') or even any function at
all, of some other variable, like a "hidden variable".
Sorry...
Imbecile :-)
For x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), for arbitrary x, x' then t, t' are
ill-defined, it is not a unique relationship and largely undefined,
because you have one equation, x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), with two
unknowns, t, t', even if lamdda is known a priori, for any t, t', x, x'
that do not make x' - c t' and x - c t zero.
Thus, the Lorentz transform derivation via this approach is based on a
purely mathematical trick than fails elementary algebra. Therefore, it
must be derived some other way.
You are a complete imbecile :-)
Don;t you agree that if someone were to submit a paper having this type
of algebra in it and claim some derivation it would be rejected right
away? By that, I do not insist that the Lorentz transform is false,
what I claim is the Einstein forced its derivation in a very
innapropriate, insane, stupid, incopetent way.
But you are complete utter imbecile :-)
maybe you know of a mathematically sound way of deriving the Lorentz
transformations? Do you psychopathetic, impecile, stupit, moron Dirt of
the Motel?
You really are incredible :-))
Congratulations with your third entry:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
For anyone else, who might be interested in what this really
is about and how an imbecile like Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill
Smith aka Undeniable completely fucks it up and even
reaches an orgasm in the process, here is a little proof, a
little applicat6ion of linear algebra and analytical geometry.
In the (rather silly) words of the original poster:
Antecedent:
- If x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
- The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
Consequent:
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
Proof:
The linear transformation (x,t) --> (x',t') is given by
x' = P x + Q t
t' = R x + S t
with unknown P, Q, R, S.
The wordline of a light signal
x' = c t'
is the transformation of
P x + Q t = c (R x + S t)
which is equivalent with
(P - c R) x = (c S - Q) t
or
x = t (c S - Q) / (P - c R)
If this is to be equivalent with expression of the
worldline of that light signal in the unprimed coordinates
x = c t ,
then the coefficients of t must match, hence
c = (c S - Q) / (P - c R)
so
(c S - Q) = c (P - c R)
Now
x' - c t' = P x + Q t - c (R x + S t)
= (P - c R) x - (c S - Q) t
= (P - c R) x - c (P - c R) t
= (P - c R) (x - c t)
So we have found a lambda such that
x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t),
namely
lambda = P - c R.
Now *that* is what this is about. Big deal.
[ See also http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b5525c9583c9766 ]
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
15 Aug 2005 06:16:44 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip crap]
Proof:
The linear transformation (x,t) --> (x',t') is given by
x' = P x + Q t
t' = R x + S t
with unknown P, Q, R, S.
[snip incredible incompetence)
Quote from:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b5525c9583c9766
Demanding that there is a number U such that
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
and that there is a number V such that
x'+ct' = V*(x+ct)
is a nifty way to do that, since we can now immediately
write
x' = [U+V]/2 * x - [U-V]/2 * ct
ct' = -[U-V]/2 * x + [U+V]/2 * ct
unquote
hahahahahahahaha..... So idiot, you have now introduce the concept of
"nifty" physics. I wonder if you understand linear transformations.
You are the Dirt of usenet.
Mike
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
15 Aug 2005 06:35:24 AM |
|
|
<eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1124104604.437963.15530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip crap]
Proof:
The linear transformation (x,t) --> (x',t') is given by
x' = P x + Q t
t' = R x + S t
with unknown P, Q, R, S.
[snip incredible incompetence)
Quote from:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b5525c9583c9766
Demanding that there is a number U such that
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
and that there is a number V such that
x'+ct' = V*(x+ct)
is a nifty way to do that, since we can now immediately
write
x' = [U+V]/2 * x - [U-V]/2 * ct
ct' = -[U-V]/2 * x + [U+V]/2 * ct
unquote
hahahahahahahaha..... So idiot, you have now introduce the concept of
"nifty" physics. I wonder if you understand linear transformations.
You are the Dirt of usenet.
Mike
Nice.
And you didn't even find the typo I made :-)
Keep digging, pig:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 07:12:00 AM |
|
|
I don't know why you're being so hard on Einstein. After all, he was
just a specialist in physics, thus subject to fallacies from not having
the Big Picture. Too bad he wasn't also a cybernetic general systems
thinker. Then only our non-existent God could possibly know what he
might have come up with. But perhaps the Earth is well enough advanced
as it is. Or maybe not:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 07:58:40 AM |
|
|
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123848720.701919.234100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|I don't know why you're being so hard on Einstein.
Why was Newton so hard on Ptolemy?
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by
a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind
of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
I accuse Einstein of the same crime - fraud.
I see no reason to allow a fraud to be perpetuated, and Pentcho is right
to be hard.
|After all, he was
| just a specialist in physics, thus subject to fallacies from not
having
| the Big Picture.
No he wasn't. He was a specialist in hoaxes. There is no physics in
special relativity.
He mentions the "reciprocal dynamic action of a conductor and a magnet",
denies it,
shoves in his own notion that
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and develops a self-contradictory mathematical nonsense that you and
others
attempt to pass off as physics.
That is fraud.
|Too bad he wasn't also a cybernetic general systems
| thinker.
Too bad he was a criminal, he might have been a useful physicist.
| Then only our non-existent God could possibly know what he
| might have come up with. But perhaps the Earth is well enough
advanced
| as it is. Or maybe not:
|
| http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
Off topic. Start your own god-bashing thread, this thread is
Einstein-bashing.
:-)
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 10:12:57 AM |
|
|
Oh, I don't really care about your analysis of Einstein's life. I'm
just saying the person(s) who will dethrone Einstein wll be
cyberneticists, not physicists. Now, you may continue the argument
with yourself and also befriend lions.
Douglas R. Hofstadter - "I don't care to engage in endless debates.
At this point in my life I'm just looking for happiness."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein teaches logic to his zombis |
12 Aug 2005 11:01:28 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In logic one derives the consequent from the antecedent but the
opposite procedure (deriving the antecedent from the consequent) is a
fallacy that has received a special name: the fallacy of affirming the
consequent. Needless to say, Einstein would not be The Juggler if he
had not taught his zombis how to convert the fallacy of affirming the
consequent into a powerful logical tool. So in Appendix 1 in his
"Relativity" he initially has:
Antecedent: (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
Consequent: If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0 and vice versa.
Clearly, the consequent does follow from the antecedent but the
antecedent by no means follows from the consequent. Einstein's lesson:
Zombis, if you badly need the antecedent, do derive it from the
consequent although logic does not allow you to do so. You are zombis
in the RELATIVITY CULT and therefore should obey the RELATIVISTIC
LOGIC. In that logic deriving the antecedent from the consequent is not
a fallacy. Rather, it is a legitimate and extremely fruitful procedure.
The glory of the theory of relativity would be impossible without this
procedure.
Pentcho Valev
It is clear you do not understand logic. Consequents are not in any way
derived from antecedants. What logic says is that if the conditional:
p ---> q, where p is the antecedant and q the consequent
is true, AND if
p is true
then q is true
This is the well known modus ponens rule of inference.
Now, going to Eistein, he has no logial error, but a methematical
oversight that gave room to compensatory theories. I am not going to
explain it to you though, because it is obvious that you do not
understand simple logic and have real trouble with the basics. In
short, you are a troll.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
