"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124494204.690107.43230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

(Snipping the rest).


Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124262972.705745.122550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

This is simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject
and
yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?

To make you waste yours.
It is called "to troll" ;-)

To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant
contradictions (infinite, apparently).

--
Jan Bielawski

I think I'll agree with both of you and join you in the holy cause.
I'll accept my car is shorter than my car, I can no longer withstand
blatant contradictions.
This is simply insane, goo gurgle Einstein gibber rant Lorentz fumble
padded cell mumble Einstein mumble Lorentz frame splodgit goo
inertial contraction gibber frame goo hole goo black spacetime
waffle...

Bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes.

You know practically zero about the subject and yet you write... THIS??
Why even do you waste your time on this?

"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124494204.690107.43230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:

On the court docket, Science v Einstein.

Oh dear. Not again :-)

Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.

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.
You'll see why shortly.

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

You cannot possible disagree with that, you can only object to my
choice
of name.

OK so far.

No, no no! How can you withstand such a blatant contradiction?

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

Meaning: a point at rest in k' has its x' coordinate independent of t.
OK.

No, no no! How can you withstand such a blatant agreement?

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

You cannot possibly disagree with that. (I know of one dumb relativist
that does...he insists the system of coordinates k' doesn't exist.
Such
is the mentality I deal with here.)

OK, OK, fine. Just skip the attacks, they take too much space.


Since you don't understand this stuff, why don't you refrain from
posting on this thread? What's your point? Anything wrong with being
decent and honest? -Jan Bielawski


One might object to it on philosophical grounds but not on mathematical
ones (its mathematics is very easy, BTW, this is not where the
difficulty
with this paper lies, and this is not where you'll ever find anything
wrong). -- Jan Bielawski


I still can prove that Einstein's 1905 paper
has no mistakes in it. -- Jan Bielawski

Don't like having your nose rubbed in your own *****?

It's what we do to little peeing puppies that have milk teeth and can't
bark yet.
Oh dear, not again :-)

Now we come to Einstein'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)

Never seen a "cuckoo" function before but OK otherwise.

I can't withstand such a blatant agreement.

You can now begin disagreeing out of pure phuckwittery.

No, out of your error. Details follow.

As I said, pure phuckwittery. Details follow.

We have a 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".

OK, fine.

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

Whatever.
I can't withstand such a blatant agreement. You must be wrong.

"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.

But I did that already, so I'll repeat it with additional comment for
the incompetent.

Here it is algebraically:
=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,=

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

OK so far.

Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as Einstein says,
you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance,
he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone,
dx/dt =3D x/t anyway with a constant velocity.

It's OK although I told you twice already how very simply to rewrite
this equation so that x' is ONLY a ccordinate, never a distance
(according to your terminology).


I'm glad you've told me three times now.
Since you don't understand this stuff, why don't you refrain from
posting on this thread? What's your point? Anything wrong with being
decent and honest? -Jan Bielawski

But wait!
WHY is coordinate x' zero, other than the reason I'd given?
Very simple. There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,

Right.

I can't withstand such a blatant contradiction. You must be right.

the coordinate x' is independent of time.

In other words, "objects at rest in kappa have x' coordinate
independent of t". OK.

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.

Here your first mistake creeps in.

k' and kappa use different sets of clocks

Really! My shorter car has a different clock to my car.
Gotcha, now I can see where I was insane. Thank you for curing
me of that insanity.

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

to define their times (k' uses t-clocks, kappa uses tau-clocks).

Yes, of course. I see it now.

This means kappa and k' - although at rest wrt one another - use
different length unit along the X axis.

Yes, I see it now. The kappa clock uses Greek marathons and the
k' clock uses Roman miles.

This means you cannot in principle rule out a relationship of the type:

xi =3D some_function(x', v)

where v is the relative velocity of K and k'.

Yes, of course. My desk is shorter than my desk when a bus goes by
outside because I have two different clocks on it. I see where my
mistake crept in.

It's true though that some_function does not depend on t, I grant you
this much :-)

Oh thank you so much! How very kind of you.
Be careful, though, if you give me a inch I might take a day.

The time at zero is the same time at x', same at xi;

You need to make this more precise.


Ah, I seeeeee......
Let's try a footnote to make it more precise and duck the issue:
"We shall not here discuss the inexactitude which lurks in the concept
of simultaneity of two events at approximately the same place, which can
only be removed by an abstraction."
Is that precise enough?

As I just said the clocks of kappa
and k' will read different things at, say, the place where the mirror
is situated or at the common origin of k' and kappa.

Yes, you did, didn't you?
And I ducked it with a footnote. My mistake crept in.
Phuckwittery is so much fun, isn't it?
You do realize your buddy moortel doesn't come up to the lofty
heights of an IQ of 10, in double figures, like yours?

Perhaps he's moving faster than you and had it Lorentz-contracted.
He still thinks I'm the troll, I don't want to disappoint him.
Sorry, I was adding a little curve to spacetime there.

no translation between frames, this is the moving frame only, the
stationary frame K is simmering on the back burner.

No movement between frames but there is still a non-identity
transformation between them.

Like this non-identity matrix?
[ 1 0 ]
[ 0 1 ]

I'll be sure to keep two clocks on my desk. I did notice that 30
centimetres and 12 inches on my ruler were not precisely the same
length, but I never realized it was because of special relativity.

Hence:

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

That's wrong, you can't reset x' to 0 in just one instance and not the
others.


Ah, I see. Ok, the time at zero is different to the time at x',

different
again at xi, even though x' is infinitessimally small and we shall not
discuss the inexactitude that the lurkers might perceive, and now I need
three clocks on my desk, one caesium, one balance-wheel and a cuckoo
clock with a pendulum because it's WRONG. Gotcha.