the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 8, 2008, 5:24:06 PM8/8/08

to

Anyone on this newsgroup that is willing to argue in a friendly spirit
is invited to join this discussion.
Anyone who argues only to prove he is right or to make fun of others
will be ignored.

glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 8, 2008, 5:38:20 PM8/8/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ae3d9568-1745-4c80...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Why does it have to be friendly? I'm not your friend, I'm your conscience.

And what's wrong with making fun of clowns? They set themselves up for it.

| Next question: What does it mean for a clock that moves at v = .6c
| to lag by .9375 seconds if it is .9 units of X away from its own
| origin clock?

[the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.]

It means abject nonsense, a trivial schoolboy blunder.

Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt
to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

K-frame -> [f(x)= x-vt] ->
"a system of values x', y, z, independent of time" -> [g(x) =
x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)] ->
k-frame

The domain of f() is the K-frame
The image or codomain of f() is the kappa-frame.
The domain of g() is the image of f(),
the image of g() the k-frame.

A flower for Einstein? The clown deserves a cow-regurgitated
dandelion, he was a drooling cretin and no mathematician.

Einstein, in 1895, failed an examination that would have allowed him to
study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs).

He was an incompetent clod.

| Next question: Einstein omitted a Lorentzian symbol from his setup
| equation and from his entire paper! What was it?
|
the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.

kappa-frame, aka the "system of values x', y, z, independent of time"
Lorentz was an aetherialist moron anyway.

What is the value of the velocity u of a point x moving with respect to
itself?

PD

unread,

Aug 8, 2008, 9:29:40 PM8/8/08

to

Thanks for the warning.
But as a procedural note, argument is of little value in science for
finding the truth. Moreover, uncovering errors is not a guarantee of
finding the truth.
One finds in science that there are often more than one plausible and
self-consistent argument that are candidates for physical
explanations.
The way science discriminates between competing plausible explanations
is not by force of argument or freedom from error, but by comparison
with experimental results.

There is all too much "argument" and "uncovering errors" on this
newsgroup, and far too little reference to experimental data. In fact,
there are a number of posters here who deliberately dismiss experiment
if it is inconsistent with their arguments. This is the height of anti-
scientism.

mathkills

unread,

Aug 8, 2008, 9:49:31 PM8/8/08

to

> Why does it have to be friendly? I'm not your friend, I'm your conscience.
>
> And what's wrong with making fun of clowns? They set themselves up for it.

Agreed, it doesnt have to be altogether friendly, but it is not
beneficial to just act like an idiot. (That is not an
accusation...yet)

> It means abject nonsense, a trivial schoolboy blunder.

Interesting viewpoint... oh good you're gonna use math to back up an
argument... :D <--- teeming with excitation!

> Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt

A function f defined on x whose values are x-vt... I thought you were
interested in functions defined on t... oh sorry t doesnt exist. So
is it a constant?

> to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),

A Lorentz contraction... defined on x (not to be confused with the
previous x I assume...u is dx/dt I assume.

> then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

profound.

> K-frame -> [f(x)= x-vt] ->
> "a system of values x', y, z, independent of time" -> [g(x) =
> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)] ->
> k-frame

OK so, I was right, independent of time. So what values of time are
you taking here... is time even a variable? Don't try to confuse
people with fancy talk... speak simply... remember that by your own
accusations alot of us are pretty stupid.

> The domain of f() is the K-frame

As you defined. K-frame is the set of all inputs to f()... Does that
really make alot of sense... well thats ok, you can name the domain
whatever you want. I think I will call it Jerry.

> The image or codomain of f() is the kappa-frame.

See above.

> The domain of g() is the image of f(),

Not compulsory but true in this case.

> the image of g() the k-frame.

OK... and... oh wait thats your result. What the hell are you talking
about man!?

Androcles

unread,

Aug 9, 2008, 9:11:36 AM8/9/08

to

"mathkills" <math...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:4dbb0e7c-dfdf-4c12...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Why does it have to be friendly? I'm not your friend, I'm your conscience.
>
> And what's wrong with making fun of clowns? They set themselves up for it.

Agreed, it doesnt have to be altogether friendly, but it is not
beneficial to just act like an idiot. (That is not an
accusation...yet)

> It means abject nonsense, a trivial schoolboy blunder.

Interesting viewpoint... oh good you're gonna use math to back up an
argument... :D <--- teeming with excitation!

> Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt

A function f defined on x whose values are x-vt... I thought you were
interested in functions defined on t... oh sorry t doesnt exist. So
is it a constant?

================================================
It's Einstein's function, sonny, I'm just reporting it. Be sorry.
There exists a function from the K-frame to the kappa frame, x |-> x-vt.
Here's a picture for your pathetic intellect to absorb.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif

> to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),

============================================

A Lorentz contraction... defined on x (not to be confused with the
previous x I assume...u is dx/dt I assume.

============================================
Mathematicians do not make assumptions. If you don't understand
that's your problem, but I'll make it easy for you:

to which a second function g() is applied, g: (x-vt) |->
(x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
u is d(x-vt)/dt = d(x - dx/dt * t)/dt.

============================================

> then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

profound.
==========
Wipe your chin, you are drooling.
=======================

> K-frame -> [f(x)= x-vt] ->
> "a system of values x', y, z, independent of time" -> [g(x) =
> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)] ->
> k-frame

OK so, I was right, independent of time.

=======================================

That's correct, x is independent of time in K-frame and x' is independent
of time in the kappa-frame.
=======================================

So what values of time are
you taking here... is time even a variable?

==========================================
It's not my function, sonny, it's Einstein's. I'm just reporting it.
Don't try to shoot the messenger, you'll only shoot yourself in the foot.
================================================

Don't try to confuse
people with fancy talk... speak simply... remember that by your own
accusations alot of us are pretty stupid.

================================================
Which you are.
================================================

> The domain of f() is the K-frame

As you defined. K-frame is the set of all inputs to f()... Does that
really make alot of sense... well thats ok, you can name the domain
whatever you want. I think I will call it Jerry.

=====================================
Call it what you like, Einstein gave it the name he chose.
=====================================

> The image or codomain of f() is the kappa-frame.

See above.
=====================================
Call it what you like, Einstein forgot to give it a name.
=====================================

> The domain of g() is the image of f(),

Not compulsory but true in this case.

> the image of g() the k-frame.

OK... and... oh wait thats your result. What the hell are you talking
about man!?

================================================
Mathematical functions which you are too stupid to understand.
"One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of
functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a
function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite
function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input
of the second one. This feature of functions distinguishes them from other
mathematical constructs, such as numbers or figures, and provides the theory
of functions with its most powerful structure."

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

mathkills

unread,

Aug 9, 2008, 4:09:10 PM8/9/08

to

Are we really arguing about composition of functions...

RELEVANCE:
NOUN: 1. Pertinence to the matter at hand.
ref. www.bartleby.com

The point is you fail to make any argument at all...
You state:

>>It means abject nonsense, a trivial schoolboy blunder.

The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical. Which
I guess was your point... What are you supposedely quoting here...
I'd really like to look up this paper/book and see it for myself.

-mk

Androcles

unread,

Aug 9, 2008, 5:03:31 PM8/9/08

to

"mathkills" <math...@ureach.com> wrote in message

news:0cb6068a-3de7-421e...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

| Are we really arguing about composition of functions...

I'm not but you were. Your comment was "profound", I recall.
==============================================

The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad we agree. Einstein's function x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
is nonsensical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I guess was your point...

--------------------------------------
Correct.
-----------

What are you supposedely quoting here...
I'd really like to look up this paper/book and see it for myself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No problem, here it is:

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

The relevant cuckoo malformations (which you would call Lorentz
transformations,
probably misquoted) are here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
where
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif

As you can see,

x |-> x' |-> xi,
y |-> y |-> eta,
z |-> z |-> zeta,
t |-> t |-> tau,
which is probably supposedly misquoted.

Perhaps you are not so stupid after all. We'll see when you have the
courage to admit you were being rather overconfident and profoundly stupid.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 9, 2008, 4:04:09 PM8/9/08

to

gl...@aol.com <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
ae3d9568-1745-4c80...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com

The purpose of this newsgroup is to make fun of the idiots
who take it too seriously.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 10, 2008, 5:08:28 AM8/10/08

to

mathkills <math...@ureach.com> wrote in message

0cb6068a-3de7-421e...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com

Never mind Androcles.

Dirk Vdm

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 11:34:13 AM8/11/08

to

On Aug 9, 4:04 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> The purpose of this newsgroup is to make fun of the idiots
> who take it too seriously.
>

As one of the people who initiated this group, i know
that our purpose was to discuss Relativity in order to
let everyone on it totally understand the subject.
Rather than poking fun at those who don't already
understand it, which includes almost all present
physicists and many who think they can make fun
of anyone who disagrees with them, was and is to
argue on a FRIENDLY basis any points whose meaning
they now disagree on.
By the way, one doesn't have to know someone in order
to argue on a friendly basis; one only has to remain
civil despite disagreeing. In that spirit, sometimes, in this
thread, I will support "the other side" of an argument, even
if for the moment I am thereby defending Einstein.

glird

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 12:03:06 PM8/11/08

to

On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

>Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt

that may or may not have been prompted by Einstein's statment,
"If we place x' = x - vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system k mut have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
Whether or not it was, "let x go over to x-vt" is entirely
different.

>to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),

Presumably, "|->" is identical to "->".

>then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
>
Letting x' replace x in the first expression on the right of the =
sign,
this is what you seem to be saying:

Given that we have a function f: x' -> x-vt

to which a second function g() is applied, g: x' -> x/sqrt(1-u^2/
c^2),
then g(f(x)) = x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
(The latter is the Lorentz transformation, in which x' is a co-
ordinate
point on a system moving at v on X of system K.)

If that is what you mean, it indicates that you don't understand
Einstein's
above sentence quoted above. If it is NOT what you mean, please
correct me.

glird

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 12:35:20 PM8/11/08

to

gl...@aol.com <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message

bf690e5f-cc86-4dfb...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 9, 4:04 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The purpose of this newsgroup is to make fun of the idiots
>> who take it too seriously.
>>
> As one of the people who initiated this group, i know
> that our purpose was to discuss Relativity in order to
> let everyone on it totally understand the subject.

no no no... the purpose was to take the anti-relativity crackpots
OUT of sci.physics.

Dirk VDm

Androcles

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 1:23:19 PM8/11/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ed6a94d6-f40d-492c...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

| On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt
| that may or may not have been prompted by Einstein's statment,
| "If we place x' = x - vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
| system k mut have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
| Whether or not it was, "let x go over to x-vt" is entirely
| different.
|
| >to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
| Presumably, "|->" is identical to "->".
|
| >then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
| >
| Letting x' replace x in the first expression on the right of the =
| sign, this is what you seem to be saying:
| Given that we have a function f: x' -> x-vt
| to which a second function g() is applied, g: x' -> x/sqrt(1-u^2/
| c^2),
| then g(f(x)) = x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

Completely WRONG.
g(f(x)) = \xi = x'/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

"One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of
functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a
function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite
function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input
of the second one. This feature of functions distinguishes them from other
mathematical constructs, such as numbers or figures, and provides the theory
of functions with its most powerful structure."

This is very undergraduate Math 101, lesson one, week one.

That you could misread it is quite incredible, although you could be a troll
like Dork Van der moortel or simply uneducated. Since you've asked
for a friendly discussion I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I normally
rap the knuckles of the dumb students and plonk the trolls.

| (The latter is the Lorentz transformation, in which x' is a co-
| ordinate
| point on a system moving at v on X of system K.)

The latter is nothing at all, it isn't even mathematics. I deliberately
chose the letter 'u' the represent the velocity between x' and \xi.

It is NOT what I mean and I HAVE corrected you. I strongly suggest you
learn very basic mathematics, to wit, the composition of functions.

K-frame |-> \kappa-frame |-> k-frame

x |-> x' |-> \xi
y |-> y' |-> \eta
z |-> z' |-> \zeta
t |-> t' |-> \tau

as shown here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

where \beta is 1/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) and NOT 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and the \kappa-frame omitted.

The \kappa-frame is the "system of values x', y, z, independent of time"
which Einstein failed to name. It should be noted that Einstein too
failed his math lessons and was a dunce, so don't feel too bad, just get
educated.
If you wish to be friendly then point out that the dork, Dork Van der
moortel
the local village idiot, is a troll and intent only on having his ignorance
of
mathematics displayed.
And stop trying to sell a worthless book, you are not competent.
The purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth. -- Glird.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 2:26:40 PM8/11/08

to

Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
fA_nk.102915$dz3....@newsfe20.ams2

> <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ed6a94d6-f40d-492c...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>
>>> Given that we have a function f: x |-> x-vt
>> that may or may not have been prompted by Einstein's statment,
>> "If we place x' = x - vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
>> system k mut have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
>> Whether or not it was, "let x go over to x-vt" is entirely
>> different.
>>
>>> to which a second function g() is applied, g: x-> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
>> Presumably, "|->" is identical to "->".
>>
>>> then g(f(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
>>>
>> Letting x' replace x in the first expression on the right of the =
>> sign, this is what you seem to be saying:
>> Given that we have a function f: x' -> x-vt

We write this as:
f: x -> f(x) = x' = x-vt

>> to which a second function g() is applied, g: x' -> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),

And this as:
g: y -> y/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
or, if you like:

g: x' -> x'/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),

>> then g(f(x)) = x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

g(f(x)) = g(x') = g(x-vt) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

>
> Completely WRONG.
> g(f(x)) = \xi = x'/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)
>
> "One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of
> functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a
> function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite
> function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input
> of the second one. This feature of functions distinguishes them from other
> mathematical constructs, such as numbers or figures, and provides the theory
> of functions with its most powerful structure."
>
> This is very undergraduate Math 101, lesson one, week one.

very undergraduate Boolean algebra:

very undergraduate calculating 2*5:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HumanBeing.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaliciousImbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidQuestion.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheProblem.html

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html

very undergraduate polar coordinates:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PolarManager.html
very undergraduate limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
very undergraduate equations:

very undergraduate square roots:

very undergraduate partial differential equations:

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 6:56:22 PM8/11/08

to

On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
>K-frame -> [f(x)= x-vt] -> "a system of values x', y, z,
>independent of time"->[g(x) = x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)]-> k-frame

If x, x', and t are coordinates of K, and x' = x-vt means what
Einstein said it means, then x' is not the f(x) to which you here
refer.

>The domain of f() is the K-frame.
Ok. That includes x, x', y, z and t; in which the k-frame (your
"kappa"?) moves at v on X as plotted by K and has the Greek-letter
coordinates Einstein used.

> The image or codomain of >f() is the kappa-frame.

You left out a sentence explaining the domain of f(g).
If the domain of f(g)is the image of the K-frame, then
"[g(x) = x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)]-> k-frame" is either incorrect
or unrelated to Einstein's paper.

> The domain of g() is the image of >f(), the image of g() [is?] the k-frame.
Please explain how the domain of g() can be the k-frame and still
have the
image of g() also be the k-frame; without letting the image of ploop
be its own domain.
(If that is where you are going, and want to thereby prove Einstein
was wrong, it won't work.)

>| Next question: Einstein omitted a Lorentzian symbol
>|from his setup equation and from his entire paper! What
>|was it?
>
>the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth.

Yes.

>kappa-frame, aka the "system of values x', y, z,
>independent of time"

> Lorentz was an aetherialist moron anyway.

Although I disagree with his thesis that a universally stationary
ether
fills space; and that everything we see, including air, water, people
and
planets stars and galaxies, are made of wave systems moving through
this medium,
Lorentz was the smartest physicist of them all. (There is only 1
mathematical error
in his 1904 paper; rather than the six or more asserted by the
Relativists.

>What is the value of the velocity u of a point x moving with respect to itself?

Ask a silly question and you will have to answer it yourself;
because it is totally unrelated to the "x' = x – vt" in E's paper,
in which x' and x are different numerical values of the same point
that is itself at rest in "the 'stationary' system, K".

glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 11, 2008, 7:59:37 PM8/11/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:94116f28-ec26-4276...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
>K-frame -> [f(x)= x-vt] -> "a system of values x', y, z,
>independent of time"->[g(x) = x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)]-> k-frame

If x, x', and t are coordinates of K,

==============================

In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"

x is in K, x' is in \kappa, \xi is in k

============================================

and x' = x-vt means what
Einstein said it means, then x' is not the f(x) to which you here
refer.

=============================================
x |-> x'

That's a function.
I give it a name.
The name of the function is f.
I write f: x |-> x'

In Plain English:
"The function f such that x maps to x-prime."

I write f(x) = x-vt.
In Plain English:
The image of x under the function f is equal to x-vt.

See Spot run.
Spot runs fast.

This is M101 lesson one.
You should have learnt this 50 years ago, but it is well known
that one cannot teach old dogs old tricks, let alone new tricks.
==============================================

>The domain of f() is the K-frame.

Correct.

==============================================

Ok. That includes x, x', y, z and t;

==============================================

No it does not! (sigh)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF

==============================================

When you can understand "See Spot Run", let me know,
and when you learn not to snip, I'll stop doing it too.
In the meantime, I will be friendly and considerately restore
what I wrote (for you to read it again) and which you very
inconsiderately snipped. I'm fast losing my patience with you.

g(f(x)) = \xi = x'/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

"One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of
functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a
function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite
function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input
of the second one. This feature of functions distinguishes them from other
mathematical constructs, such as numbers or figures, and provides the theory
of functions with its most powerful structure."

This is very undergraduate Math 101, lesson one, week one.

That you could misread it is quite incredible, although you could be a troll

as shown here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

"The purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth." -- Glird.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 3:00:57 PM8/12/08

to

On Aug 11 "Dirk Van de moortel"wrote,

>> As one of the people who initiated this group, i know
>> that our purpose was to discuss Relativity in order to
>> let everyone on it totally understand the subject.
>
>no no no... the purpose was to take the anti-relativity crackpots
>OUT of sci.physics.

A crackpot is someone who believes what he was taught, even if
it contradicts logical reason and disagrees with the equations it
supposedly represents. Anyone who UNDERSTANDS the
STR equations knows they prove that the <theory> is false.
As to keeping anti-relativists out of sci.physics, if those in it
prefer to remain ignorant, so much the worse for all of us.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 3:33:53 PM8/12/08

to

gl...@aol.com <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message

3cc8f833-a796-43c4...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 11 "Dirk Van de moortel"wrote,
>>> As one of the people who initiated this group, i know
>>> that our purpose was to discuss Relativity in order to
>>> let everyone on it totally understand the subject.
>>
>> no no no... the purpose was to take the anti-relativity crackpots
>> OUT of sci.physics.

> A crackpot is someone who believes what he was taught, even if
> it contradicts logical reason and disagrees with the equations it
> supposedly represents. Anyone who UNDERSTANDS the
> STR equations knows they prove that the <theory> is false.

Dream on, while even a sub-moron like Androcles can tell
you where you go wrong. Imagine that!

Dirk Vdm

Androcles

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 4:16:45 PM8/12/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3cc8f833-a796-43c4...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Nature is not a democracy, and neither is usenet. However,
it is a benevolent dictatorship where crackpots have freedom
of speech. Fortunately we all have the freedom not to listen,
especially to Dorks that advocate censorship. You are trying
to covert a bigot to your point of view. Failure will inevitably
result.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 5:30:06 PM8/12/08

to

On Aug 12, 3:33 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
> gl...@aol.com <gl...@aol.com> wrote

> >>>On Aug 11 "Dirk Van de moortel"wrote,
> >>> As one of the people who initiated this group, i know
> >>> that our purpose was to discuss Relativity in order to
> >>> let everyone on it totally understand the subject.
>
> >> no no no... the purpose was to take the anti-relativity
> >> crackpots OUT of sci.physics.
>
> > A crackpot is someone who believes what he was taught,

> > een if it contradicts logical reason and disagrees with

> > the equations it supposedly represents. Anyone who
> > UNDERSTANDS the STR equations knows they prove that the
> > <theory> is false.
>
> Dream on, while even a sub-moron like Androcles can tell
> you where you go wrong. Imagine that!
>

You and Androcles can continue making fun of each other.
I will merely prove TO HIM that he doesn't understand the high-school
mathematics Einstein used in his 1905 paper.
You haven't given me any reason, so far, to think that you do
either.

Regards,
glird

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 5:48:15 PM8/12/08

to

On Aug 12, 4:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message

>
> | A crackpot is someone who believes what he was taught, even if
> | it contradicts logical reason and disagrees with the equations
> | it supposedly represents. Anyone who UNDERSTANDS the
> | STR equations knows they prove that the <theory> is false.
> | As to keeping anti-relativists out of sci.physics, if those in
> | it prefer to remain ignorant, so much the worse for all of us.
> |

> ... You are trying to covert a bigot to your point of view.
> Failure will inevitably result.
>
I am trying to help everyone, including Dirk Van de moortel
AND YOU, to understand the equations in Einstein's 1905 paper, in
order to help them understand the physical meanings of the Lorentz
transformations he was trying to reach. Once you do, you will be able
to understand the underlying physical realities those equations - and
all others that fit experimental results - impose.
If and when you do, Dr. Parker, perhaps you too may understand the
structure if the entire universe; thus why I want the entire human
race to join together in the project set forth in "T all".

Regards,
glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 6:34:17 PM8/12/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a234b49b-1017-4662...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

No hope, glird. Until you understand the composition of functions
is not called "The Lorentz" but is a well-known combination to
mathematicians there is little hope you will understand anything
and NO hope that the dork, Dork, will.

Androcles

unread,

Aug 12, 2008, 6:53:38 PM8/12/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:01d51c64-b99d-4560...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

| On Aug 12, 4:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
| > <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
| >
| > | A crackpot is someone who believes what he was taught, even if
| > | it contradicts logical reason and disagrees with the equations
| > | it supposedly represents. Anyone who UNDERSTANDS the
| > | STR equations knows they prove that the <theory> is false.
| > | As to keeping anti-relativists out of sci.physics, if those in
| > | it prefer to remain ignorant, so much the worse for all of us.
| > |
| > ... You are trying to covert a bigot to your point of view.
| > Failure will inevitably result.
| >
| I am trying to help everyone, including Dirk Van de moortel
| AND YOU,

I don't need your help, you need mine.

| to understand the equations in Einstein's 1905 paper, in
| order to help them understand the physical meanings of the Lorentz
| transformations he was trying to reach.

Dork was trying to reach the cuckoo malformations and you
want to help him... ok.

| Once you do,

I never will. The only issue here is whether you will ever understand
you've been conned. I strongly doubt you are capable of admitting that.

| you will be able
| to understand the underlying physical realities those equations - and
| all others that fit experimental results - impose.

Does it fit Sagnac's experimental results? It is very easy to handwave,
glird, but where is this fucking PROOF you claim?

| If and when you do, Dr. Parker, perhaps you too may understand the
| structure if the entire universe; thus why I want the entire human
| race to join together in the project set forth in "T all".

To be honest I don't give a flying fuck what you want, you are not
and never will be a scientist anymore than Dork ever will. Nor am
I interested in your emotional desire to be "friendly". You are a
prat, an idiot, a cretin, a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door
telling me what their blind faith is. Now prove otherwise and I'll listen;
or fuck off, I've lost patience with you.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 13, 2008, 12:37:14 AM8/13/08

to

On Aug 11, 7:59 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote

> On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> >The domain of f() is the K-frame.
> Correct.

>> Ok. That includes x, x', y, z and t; [snipped bit pasted back:]

in which the k-frame (your "kappa"?) moves at v on X as plotted by
K and has the Greek-letter coordinates Einstein used.
>

>No it does not! (sigh)
>

Yes it does. I will explain it below. I will paste here another bit
that you snipped out:

< Letting x' replace x in the first expression on the right
of the = sign, this is what you seem to be saying:

Given that we have a function f: x' -> x-vt to which a second

function g() is applied, g: x' -> x/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2), then g(f(x))
= x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2). >

>|(The latter is the Lorentz transformation, in which x' is a

>}co-ordinate point on a system moving at v on X of system K.)

>
> The latter is nothing at all, it isn't even mathematics.

> I deliberately chose the letter 'u' to represent the velocity
> between x' and \xi.
>
Either you don't know that x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
IS a Lorentz transformation or you disagree as to the
meaning of x' in that equation. I will now try to help you understand
both:
Let the velocity of the moving system k be indicated
by u or v or w as plotted by K.(Take your choice; it
makes no difference in the equations.) Let x' -> xi be
a point on X' of the moving system k.
The Galilean transformation, x' = x-vt, finds
the value of x' by converting the value of x into
that of a momentarily coinciding point x' at
a time t. The Lorentz transformation converting
the value of x into that of a temporarily coinciding
point x' |-> xi would be: x' = xi = beta(x - vt)
in which beta = 1/q and
q = sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) or sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)or sqrt(1-w^2/c^2).
In Einstein's paper, however, x' was NOT a co-ordinate
of your "k-frame", system k. Rather, x' and x were
the same point on X of K, with different numerical v
alues such that x' = x-vt, where v was the velocity
of cs k (xi, eta, zeta, tau) as plotted by cs
K (x, y, z, t) and x was where a point xi on X'
of the moving system k would be on X of K at
a time t.
"If we place x' = x-vt" didn't change the
fact that x |-> x' remained a point on X of
K where a point xi on X' of k would be at a
K-time t.
By the way, in a different thread you asked,
"What is the gain of an Einstein clock
relative to a Newton clock?" I replied,
"The gain is t' = qt, where t' denotes
an Einstein clock, t denotes a Newton clock,
q = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and v is the velocity
of the Eclock." Perhaps I should have pointed
out to you that a moving relativistic clock
doesn't "gain" on a Newton clock; it runs slow,
thus loses rather than gains time.
Perhaps, had I said that, you might then have
seen that if t = 1 and v = .6c, then q = .8 so
t' = qt = .8; wherefore the E-clock didn't gain
any time on the Newton clock, it LOST .2 seconds
per second.
Perhaps you might then have revealed your ignorance
of how STR equations work by arguing thus:
In the LTE's time transformation, t' = (t-vx/c^2)/q,
at the origin of the Newtonian system, where x =0,
we'd get t' = (t-vx)/q = t/q = 1.25 which IS a gain f
or the e-clock. If you did, you'd be comparing
sourcrout and sugar and complaining that they
taste different than each other.

> I strongly suggest you learn very basic mathematics,
> to wit, the composition of functions.
>
> K-frame |-> \kappa-frame |-> k-frame
> x |-> x' |-> \xi
> y |-> y' |-> \eta
> z |-> z' |-> \zeta
> t |-> t' |-> \tau
>
>as shown here: >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
>where \beta is 1/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) and

>NOT 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2 and the \kappa-frame is omitted.

>
> The \kappa-frame is the "system of values x', y, z,
>independent of time" which Einstein failed to name.

He "failed to name" YOUR \kappa-frame (x', y, z', t')
because it doesn't exist in his paper.
He did introduce "a third system of co-ordinates",
K', with co-ordinates x', y, z, t', but
THIS x' was NOT the x' in his "x' = x-vt'.
Indeed, in the equations immediately below
his intro of cs K' he found that x' = x,
y' = y, z' = z and t' = t!
Your k-frame xi, eta, zeta, tau is NOT the
K'-frame x', y', z', t'; nor is it the
K-frame x, y , z, t (in which, for simplifying
later equations, he temporarily let x' = x - vt
replace x). From your x |-> x' |-> xi it
is clear that you also don't understand Einstein's
10th-grade-level high-school mathematics.

glird

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 13, 2008, 3:03:15 AM8/13/08

to

gl...@aol.com <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message

a234b49b-1017-4662...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com

Indeed he doesn't. So much is clear.
Neither does he understand the physics.
But, unlike you, he thinks the physics doesn't matter.
But you don't understand the physics either.
Imagine that - YOU merely proving to HIM that he does not
understand :-)

> You haven't given me any reason, so far, to think that you do
> either.

I never intended to give you one.
If you want one, you'll find one here:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/tau-equation.gif
IIRC I once shot it at Androcles - obviously it missed the target.

Cheers,
Dirk Vdm

Androcles

unread,

Aug 13, 2008, 7:28:27 AM8/13/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a6e28ea-9d40-4001...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

No it does NOT, as explained pictorially by
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF
Fuck off, you poxy ignorant snipping troll and general arsehole!

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 13, 2008, 11:20:44 AM8/13/08

to

On Aug 12, 6:53 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message

>| I am trying to help everyone, including Dirk Van de moortel

>| AND YOU, to understand the equations in Einstein's 1905 paper, in

>| order to help them understand the physical meanings of the Lorentz
>| transformations he was trying to reach.

>| Once you do,
>
>I never will. The only issue here is whether you will ever understand
>you've been conned. I strongly doubt you are capable of admitting that.
>

I admit that I've been conned by you, a total nincompoop who posts
myriad
meaningless addresses on the Internet and uses postings to advertise
them to
unsuspecting victims like me, in order to make a buck every time a
sucker
clicks on an ad placed in any of his nonsensical postings.

> | If and when you do, Dr. Parker, perhaps you too may understand the
> | structure if the entire universe; thus why I want the entire human
> | race to join together in the project set forth in "T all".
>

> To be honest I don't give a flying fuck what you want, nor am

> I interested in your emotional desire to be "friendly". You are a
> prat, an idiot, a cretin, a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door
> telling me what their blind faith is. Now prove otherwise and I'll listen;
> or fuck off, I've lost patience with you.
>

As you already admitted when I said I'd teach you to understand STR
and the structure of nature, "I never will". Since we agree on that,
go con someone else. Goodbye and good riddance.

glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 13, 2008, 11:25:12 AM8/13/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:138ad248-971f-40c2...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

| On Aug 12, 6:53 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
| > <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
| >| I am trying to help everyone, including Dirk Van de moortel
| >| AND YOU, to understand the equations in Einstein's 1905 paper, in
| >| order to help them understand the physical meanings of the Lorentz
| >| transformations he was trying to reach.
| >| Once you do,
| >
| >I never will. The only issue here is whether you will ever understand
| >you've been conned. I strongly doubt you are capable of admitting that.
| >
| I admit that I've been conned by you, a total nincompoop

Maybe every mathematician is conning you, snipping paranoid fuckhead.
Fuck off, you don't even understand the composition of functions.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 11:02:06 AM8/15/08

to

On Aug 13, 7:28 am, "Androcles" wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote
> | > On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> | >>The domain of f() is the K-frame.
> | > Correct.
> | >> Ok. That includes x, x', y, z and t;

> | >No it does not! (sigh)
> | Yes it does.
>
> No it does NOT, as explained pictorially by
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF

Thanks for the picture, which I looked at again this morning.
Last night, while contemplating your term "domain", the following
thoughts occurred to me. Please check them and tell me your opinions,
without drooling all over the place.
1. We start with system k moving at v on stationary system K. The
domain of K is the K-frame, x,y,z,t and is spherical, not ovoid as in
your picture. The domain of k is xi,eta,zeta,tau. If lengths deform as
a function of velocity, but deform less in eta,zeta than in xi, the
image would be ovoid, as in your middle image.
2. We now let system K keep track of a point p_xi,eta,zeta, which is
moving at v relative to K, in some initially unspecified direction.
3. Let v be a vector, with components v_x, v_y, and v_z.
4. At a time t, the values of the components are
(v_x)t=(dx/dt)t = dx, v_y)t=(dy/dt)t = dy, and v_x)t=(dz/dt)t = dz,
in which dx, dy, and dz are lines whose lengths a a function of the
direction of v.
5. If that direction of v is restricted to the X,Y plane, then
dz = z is a point. If the direction is restricted to X, as in
Einstein's 1905 paper, then dz=dy=z=y are points and only the length
of x = +vt = dx is a function of t.
6. If we now let x -> = x-vt, then x = x + dx - dx = x is a point.
7. Designating this x as x', then x', y and z are the components of
point p_x,y,z where point p_xi,eta,zeta is at a given time t.
8. Question a: Is x' a component of that point?
Question b: The value of p_x,y,z is a function of t. If we
designate that as f(t) = p_x,y,z is the domain of f(t) p_x,y,z?
9. Regardless of your answers to these questions, the ovoid middle
frame in your picture should be a point, in which (perhaps) x'=y'=z'=0
and, as Einstein said, are independent of the value of t.

Although the word "domain" isn't in Einstein's paper, which is where
I learned what his equations mean, there is no "kappa-frame"
or domain "x',y',z',t'," in his paper nor in the above mathematics.
The k-frame, whose domain is xi,eta,zeta,tau, is also a point, not an
ovoid as in your picture.

glird

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 11:41:14 AM8/15/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2fc4aff5-4a5c-47c6...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

This is REALLY frightening.

Dirk Vdm

YBM

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 12:45:55 PM8/15/08

to

Dirk Van de moortel a écrit :

>
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2fc4aff5-4a5c-47c6...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

>> The
>> domain of K is the K-frame, x,y,z,t and is spherical, not ovoid as in
>> your picture. The domain of k is xi,eta,zeta,tau. If lengths deform as
>> a function of velocity, but deform less in eta,zeta than in xi, the
>> image would be ovoid, as in your middle image.

...
> This is REALLY frightening.

I wouldn't have believed that someone on earth could be so confused in
math that even Androcles could fail to explain something to him, while
being (on this very basic point) right !

Androcles

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 1:15:38 PM8/15/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2fc4aff5-4a5c-47c6...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 13, 7:28 am, "Androcles" wrote:
>> <gl...@aol.com> wrote
>> | > On Aug 8, 5:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
>> | >>The domain of f() is the K-frame.
>> | > Correct.
>> | >> Ok. That includes x, x', y, z and t;
>> | >No it does not! (sigh)
>> | Yes it does.
>>
>> No it does NOT, as explained pictorially by
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF
>
> Thanks for the picture, which I looked at again this morning.

" the purpose of argument is to uncover errors and find the truth " -
Glird.

You are duly recorded here as an ignoramus that cannot answer the question,
one of the trolls, cranks and weirdos listed at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm

READ IT! You are among them.

Re: Androcles' Obsession and Attraction to Obscure Reasoning

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5534f679-ea43-4826...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| > | On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > | > Why did Einstein say
| > | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > | > the "time" each way is the same?
| Though he said those things separately,

Not so, he said them together in this one inequality with a mistyped "="
sign:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

here are his reason:
| 1. Given a system moving at v in whatever conducts light at c,

That would be the same whatever that conducts bullets and arrows and
meteorites and all missiles, would it?
if a
| ray is moving to the right, thus in the same direction, it will pass a
| length AB at c-v;

Yes, I can agree with that.

and
| > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,

You seem to have stopped...was there some obscure reason for it?

(no reply)

end of Glird's Obsession and Attraction to Obscure Reasoning
===============================================

Don't come all that soft soap "thank you" shit with me, you nasty bastard.
When I discuss mathematics and physics friendliness has fuck all to do
with it and hypocrites like you are soon shown up for the lying, snipping
shit trolls they truly are.
When I have your humble apology for your disgusting and rude behaviour
I'll consider going on. Or you can fuck off forever, it's no skin off my
nose.
" the purpose of argument is to uncover errors
and find the truth " - Glird.

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 2:33:15 PM8/15/08

to

Which did you think is right, glird or the android?

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 2:35:10 PM8/15/08

to

On Aug 15, 11:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:2fc4aff5-4a5c-47c6...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

In what way?

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 3:43:20 PM8/15/08

to

YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
48a5b2c6$0$20716$426a...@news.free.fr

Well, I can believe that someone is confused about something,
but it is simply amazing that such a person would then embark on
a mission to *explain* it to someone who is "not even confused",
but simply downright insane.

I cannot believe that such people (both kinds) are allowed to vote.
Normally I would say "Good Grief", but in this case I must make
that "GOOD LORD!" - and I am an atheist.

Dirk Vdm

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 15, 2008, 5:12:30 PM8/15/08

to

On Aug 15, 1:15 pm, "Androcles" <Heada...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
< Don't come all that soft soap "thank you" shit with me, you nasty
bastard. When I discuss mathematics and physics friendliness has fuck
all to do with it and hypocrites like you are soon shown up for the
lying, snipping shit trolls they truly are.
When I have your humble apology for your disgusting and rude
behaviour I'll consider going on. Or you can fuck off forever, it's no
skin off my nose. >>

Here is what Wikipedia writes about "domain";
<< Formal definition
Given a function f:X→Y, the set X of input values is the domain of f;
the set Y is the codomain of f. The range of f is the set of all
output values of f; this is the set. f(x) = x E X. The range of f can
be the same set as the codomain or it can be a proper subset of it. It
is in general smaller than the codomain unless f is a subjective
function.
A well defined function must map every element of its domain to an
element of its codomain. For example, the function f defined by f(x)
= 1/x has no value for f(0). Thus, the set of real numbers, R, cannot
be its domain. In cases like this, the function is either defined on
R{o} or the "gap is plugged" by explicitly defining f(0). If we
extend the definition of f to f(x) = 1/x, for x ≠ 0 f(0) = 0, then f
is defined for all real numbers, and its domain is R.
Any function can be restricted to a subset of its domain. The
restriction of g : A → B to S, where S ⊆ A, is written g |S : S → B.

Domain of a partial function
There are two distinct meanings in current mathematical usage for the
notion of the domain of a partial function. Most mathematicians,
including recursion theorists, use the term "domain of f" for the set
of all values x such that f(x) is defined. But some, particularly
category theorists, consider the domain of a partial function f:X→Y to
be X, irrespective of whether f(x) exists for every x in X.

Category theory
In category theory one deals with morphisms instead of functions.
Morphisms are arrows from one object to another. The domain of any
morphism is the object from which an arrow starts. In this context,
many set theoretic ideas about domains must be abandoned or at least
formulated more abstractly. For example, the notion of restricting a
morphism to a subset of its domain must be modified. See sub-object
for more.

Real and complex analysis
In real and complex analysis, a domain is an open connected subset of
a real or complex vector space. I n partial differential equations, a
domain is an open connected subset of the euclidean space Rn, where
the problem is posed, i.e., where the unknown function(s) are
defined.>>

It is easy to see why the shit-mouthing Android "Androcles" doesn't
understand his own terms and doesn't want to.

glird

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 20, 2008, 5:23:15 PM8/20/08

to

On Aug 9, 5:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "mathkills" <mathki...@ureach.com> wrote in message
>
>> The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical.
>
> I'm glad we agree. Einstein's function x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> is nonsensical.
>
There is no such equation in E's paper.

>> What are you supposedly quoting here...
>> I'd really like to look up this paper/book and see it for myself.
>
> No problem, here it is:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
That is a copy of Einstein's paper. There is no equation in it
corresponding to shitmouth's "x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)' in
which he mistakenly believes that x |-> x' |-> xi.
>
> The relevant cuckoo malformations (which you would call Lorentz
> transformations, probably misquoted) are here:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
The equations on that location ARE the LTE; and are perfectly
accurately
stated there.

> where > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
The value of beta is also accurately given on that location.

> As you can see,
> x |-> x' |-> xi,
> y |-> y |-> eta,
> z |-> z |-> zeta,
> t |-> t |-> tau,
> which is probably supposedly misquoted.
>
Not "misquoted, headass; they aren't there at all.

What the android doesn't understand is that x does
NOT become x'; nor are xi, eta, or zeta function of
x <-|-> x', or y, or z. ALL of them are function of
v and t; and so is tau.

glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 20, 2008, 6:42:01 PM8/20/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2f0dc7f1-dd69-4a22...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 9, 5:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> "mathkills" <mathki...@ureach.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical.
>>
>> I'm glad we agree. Einstein's function x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> is nonsensical.
>>
> There is no such equation in E's paper.

What's this then?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

Dead from the neck up, aren't you, ignorant useless fuckhead?

gl...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 21, 2008, 3:47:27 PM8/21/08

to

On Aug 20, 6:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headass...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <gl...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > On Aug 9, 5:03 pm, Headass wrote:
> >> "mathkills" <mathki...@ureach.com> wrote

>
> >>> The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical.
>
> >> I'm glad we agree. Einstein's function

> >> x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)is nonsensical.

>
> > There is no such equation in E's paper.
>
> What's this then?

> tp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
>
It is the LTE, in which the values of xi, eta, zeta
and tau are found from those known for x, y, z, and t.
There is no x |-> in it nor is there any x |-> x' there or
anywhere in Einstein's paper.

> Dead from the neck up, aren't you, ignorant useless fuckhead?

There you go again, Android, talking to yourself as usual.

glird

Androcles

unread,

Aug 21, 2008, 4:38:00 PM8/21/08

to

<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e5133b3-bcfb-4287...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 20, 6:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headass...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> <gl...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> > On Aug 9, 5:03 pm, Headass wrote:
>> >> "mathkills" <mathki...@ureach.com> wrote
>>
>> >>> The equations you present, probably misquoted, are nonsensical.
>>
>> >> I'm glad we agree. Einstein's function
>> >> x |-> (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)is nonsensical.
>>
>> > There is no such equation in E's paper.
>>
>> What's this then?

>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

>>
> It is the LTE, in which the values of xi, eta, zeta
> and tau are found from those known for x, y, z, and t.
> There is no x |-> in it nor is there any x |-> x' there or
> anywhere in Einstein's paper.
>
>> Dead from the neck up, aren't you, ignorant useless fuckhead?
> There you go again, Android, talking to yourself as usual.
>
> glird

Clearly Gerald Lebau has the mental age of a 10-year-old.