Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1124914930.083992.301820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Bilge wrote:

TomGee, heir apparent to the joseph mccarthy kingdom of FUD:

Schoenfeld, he's also a Terrorist who sends your responses to his posts
to alt.moron and claims he has the right to do that just like other
terrorists have the right to bomb us in defense of their right to be
terrorists.

GeeTom, that's fascinating. You are one of the few people who are
astute enough to realize that everyone who posts to usenet will
gladly let you tell them what they can and can't write in their posts
rather live in fear of you labelling them a terrorist for posting
something y which you object.

Not fascinating at all, idiot, since you're a liar. You're the one who
claims to have the right to decide what belongs where and the right to
send poster's replies to what you call appropriate ngs like alt.moron.

Thomas, you really seem to have no idea how Usenet works.
Would you like me to explain it to you?

Here's ***** of ***** speaking up to defend his terrorist activity -
another idiot like Bilge who sends your posts to alt.morons.

"Thomas" <thomas.smid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124535773.243065.299400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]


Don't try to explain it to moortel, his IQ is less than 10,
he can't understand what you say, he's a troll and he says things
like

Discuss relativity?
With a load of crap like you?

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LoadCrap.html
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are about as funny as Wilson Rabbidge!

Dirk Vdm

Lock him away in a padded cell and he can scribble away all he likes.


On the court docket, Science v Einstein.

Judge:

"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"

Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."

Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.

Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,

x' =3D x-vt
y =3D y
z =3D z
t =3D t

You have to agree with that, Einstein states:

"If we place x'=3Dx-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.

"Objection! cries defence counsel.

"Yes?" asks the judge.

"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defence counsel,
"my client has already named the system k."

"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.

Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta,tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.

"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.

Prosecution continues.

Applying the galilean function g(),

For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) =3D g(x,y,z,t).

It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.

We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.

Now we come to the defendant's transformation.
Not Lorentz's, not Galileo's, but Einstein's.

For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) =3D cuckoo(x',y,z,t)

We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.

Einstein would have you believe that

tau =3D cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi =3D cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))

is called the "Lorentz transformation".

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =3D t."

"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."

"How say you to that?, asks the judge of the prosecutor.

I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship has been
stipulated to.

"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DLunch break=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.

"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".

Thank you, your honour. As I was saying:

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =3D t.",

the only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,

"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."

As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.

As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.

Here it is that proof:

=BD[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =3D tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v=

(given)

Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:

tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

Synchronize clocks at t =3D 0, tau(0,0,0,0) =3D 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+

tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,the coordinate x' is
independent of time. We do not have xi =3D x'-ut or x' =3D x'+ut or any
other function xi =3D fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is no u, v, w
or velocity between system k'and system kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between statioanry and movng frames, this is the moving
frame only, the stationary frame K is simmering on the back burner.

Hence:

tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) =3D
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) =3D
tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)),
the coordinate x' has no effect upon the time and is independent of
time,
the time is independent of the coordinate. Were it not so, the time at
the front of the moving train, an example the defendant uses in another
document, would differ from the back of th...."

"Objection!", interjects defense counsel, "that document is not in
evidence before the court".

"I can produce it if necessary", says the prosecutor, but I'll withdraw
the statement".

"Objection sustained, the reference to a train will be stricken from the
record", orders the judge. "Continue with the mathemetics, trains are
physical and you rested on that."

My apology to the court. Let me reiterate, time is independent of the
coordinate. I have NOT stated that time was independent of velocity,
that is for the jury to decide.

Removing the superfluous coordinates:

tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))

Setting the time a =3D x'/(c-v) and b =3Dx'/(c+v) for clarity:

tau(a+b) =3D 2*tau(a)

Renaming tau as f,

f(a+b) =3D 2f(a) or

=BDf(a+b) =3D f(a)

Chosing a > b, we have an example

=BDf(1+0) =3D f(1)

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.

In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.

In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.

In the fourth place you've been had!

I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.

Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

I now rest my case as a mathematician also.

Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague, "I'd enter him an
insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
=20
Counsel for the defence has the floor.
=20
=20
Androcles.

The light acts as the first object.
The source acts as the second object.
Both objects have a velocity as measured by the observer.
The observer uses vector addition and subtraction to calculate
the closing speed between the light and the source.