Spam-boy's trolled "FAQ"
Eleaticus
e> : You don't think he could hold such a ridiculous
e> : view? Ask him. It is my contrary view that
e> : is largely why my faq is being contested.
k> If you want to be non-controversial, you
k> will submit any future fact to the newsgroup
k> sponsors, and resolve differences, or designate
k> any disagreement sections as your personal opinion.
I don't care one way or the other about being either
controversial or non-controversial, but the fact is
the basic matter of complaint HAS been submitted to
sci.math, which is its domain, and the few respondents
there agreed with me in a context where I concealed
which side of the argument was mine; the respondents
both thought they were taking my opponents' side, and
that I was on the idiots' side.
I believe I correctly infer here that YOU believe
they are wrong about their "circle centers don't
have coordinates, they have constants" idiocy.
As long as folk like YOU won't step in and admonish
the idiots, you damn sure aren't going to see me
acquiesce to them.
You know damn well they are wrong on the basic
question, the one all the logic is built on.
It was at such a simple and basic level, I could
not have imagined in the most feverish nightmare
that anyone could question it.
Folks, I think he is not one of the crackpots who
believe there are points in the universe
(a) with coordinates on an axis and
(b) which do not get different coordinates
when the axis is moved laterally.
You don't think he could hold such a ridiculous
view? Ask him.
For that matter, he occasionally sticks his oar
in as if he had some idea what was being said; if
he does, the I ask him: Jim Carr does frequently
lie about my position when he says I say x0' is
a constant. Right? [hint: I always say x0'=x0-vt.]
Then there's the fact we both know what has a bug
up your butt, over and beyond when you jumped on
the idiot carr's bandwagon when he accused me of
forging, both of you ranting about how I owed him
an apology and neither one even saying oops when
his/your idiocy is pointed out.
I'm not sure I still have your email, but you were
right: I was and am still on the right track as far
as the content of the faq is concerned.
Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus Oren C. Webster Thnk...@concentric.net ?
! "Anything and everything that requires or encourages systematic ?
! examination of premises, logic, and conclusions" ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
Wayne Throop
if you want to cut to the chase )
: Thnk...@concentric.net (Eleaticus)
: I don't care one way or the other about being either controversial or
: non-controversial, but the fact is the basic matter of complaint HAS
: been submitted to sci.math, which is its domain, and the few
: respondents there agreed with me in a context where I concealed which
: side of the argument was mine; the respondents both thought they were
: taking my opponents' side, and that I was on the idiots' side.
This is only to be expected, since Thnky's description of what
he calls "the idiots" are claiming is both prejudiced and inaccurate.
For example:
: I believe I correctly infer here that YOU believe they are wrong about
: their "circle centers don't have coordinates, they have constants" idiocy.
Nobody claimed any such thing.
Thnky's distortion of what was claimed is basically unsupportable.
Here's a better paraphrase. The equations which express a circle
do not have constants replaced during a change of coordinates.
Obviously, the circle has a center, the center is the same locus of
events before and after the transform, any member of the set of events
belonging to the center has coordinates, and (neglecting exceptional cases,
eg, at the origin for a rotation or boost) the coordinates of any of
these events differ before and after the transform. But none of those
imply that the constants in the equation are to be replaced to express
it relative to the new components.
So yes. Once Thnky has strained the central point of disagreement
out of his paraphrase, and invented erronious positions to assign to
folks who disagree with him, a review of the resulting swill will
show Thnky to be the picture of logic and reason ministering to
the ignorant hoy-polloy.
: You know damn well they are wrong on the basic question, the one all
: the logic is built on.
Here's just about the simplest example of "the basic question",
with a couple of more complicated instances of the same thing.
Given an equation for an unmoving location in unprimed corrdinates,
x-K = 0
the question is how to transform that equation so that it denotes the
same events in primed coordinates obtained with the galilean transform.
My answer is, just replace x in that equation with the expression for x
in terms of primed coordinates, yielding
x'+vt'-K = 0
Note that K remained unchanged in this substitution.
That's my claim. Simple. Straightforward. Does Thnky disagree?
What about you sci.math participants out there (if any). Do YOU disagree?
For the case of "circle centers", the disagreement is about how to
transform the equation
(x-K1)^2 + (y-K2)^2 - K3 = 0
to primed coordinates obtained by galilean transform. Similarly
for the equation for a "lightcone" in spacetime with normalized units:
(x-K1)^2 + (y-K2)^2 + (z-K3)^2 - (t-K4)^2 = 0
My claim is (dealing with the extra variables but not constants)
that these are
(x'+vt'-K1)^2 + (y'-K2)^2 - K3 = 0
and (x'+vt'-K1)^2 + (y'-K2)^2 + (z'-K3)^2 - (t'-K4)^2 = 0
respectively. What do sci.math participants think about this?
And finally, the real dispute is over Thnky's "everything is galilean
invariant" claim. Most specifically, do sci.math participants agree
with Thnky's claim that Maxwell's equations are galilean invariant?
If so, how do you account for all those textbooks?
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
cla...@my-dejanews.com
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
<snip>
Eleaticus has been trying to troll sci.math. But it ain't been working!
Look for threads with the name "[ X of 87 ] Crackpots: HELP! PLEASE! BEG! BEG!
BEG! BEG!" (where X is a number 1 - 5 so far), and some other similar threads.
As far as I could tell he only had one or two responses -- hardly an
endorsement.
He got all upset because no one was replying and declared: "I have pretty well
promised myself I'll post it up to 87 times should there not be a sufficient
mass of sane replies." -- and admission of spamming I think! :-/
He's also been trying to xpost his regular s.p and s.p.r trolls to s.m in an
attempt to continue his trolling there -- in one thread he added 'sci.mat'
[sic] to the ng's by mistake <snicker>.
Simon -- SR crackpot, and disciple of the church of relativity.
--
crackpot /"krækpşt/ n. & adj.
sl.
_n. anyone who doesn't agree with Eleaticus'
twisted reworking of physics and mathematics
_adj. mad, unworkable (a crackpot scheme).
-- Eleaticus' head
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum