Re: eleaticus absurdities

From: Tom Capizzi (etianshrdlu_at_verizon.net)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:08:52 GMT

"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAp_d.52029$%Y4.11079@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:y5m_d.5443$ed6.5407@trndny06...
>>
>> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:nej_d.38501$5T6.4659@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>> > I gather that you finally got off your ass and found the Einstein
> material
>> > you accused me of inventing.
>
>> I did indeed attempt a search. I got a lot of hits but they were all
> written
>> about GR by others, not Einstein. Further, I never accused you of
> inventing
>> anything. I merely pointed out that Einstein was dead by 1962 and that
>> you
>> don't understand the context in which the equations were written.
>
> The last part is pure lie.
>
> And Einstein wasn't dead in 1916 (as in 1916/1962) so how is being dead in
> 1962 an excuse for your limemold behavior?
>
>
>> > Let's summarize.
>> >
>> > I said that when Einstein (1916/1962) asserted x=ct, x=-ct, and x=vt
>> > simultaneously in one continuous derviation process (to get his
>> > x'=g(x-vt),
>> > etc) he was being absurd. (He also asserted, simultaneously, x'=ct' and
>> > x'=-ct'.)
>
>> In the first place, you have written a formula from Special Relativity,
>> 1905.
>
> A formula from every paper on SR that ever existed. Funny that you think
> he
> wouldn't use the formula in any paper but in the 1905 derivation.
>

In the 1905 paper there is no mention of x = ct and x = -ct.

>> > (A) You defended him, saying it was OK to do so.
>
>> I said you misinterpreted what he had done, and took equations out of
>> context to create your own absurd derivation
>
> That's a lie:

Prove it or shut up. Post a URL.

> -------------
> The two equations describe two different light rays that start at the
> origin. So what? Would you feel better if they were x1 = ct and x2 = -ct?
> -------------
> .
>> > (B) You continued to do so after reading my Dirk The Dim (Dimmy) fable
>> > which
>> > gave an example of the kind of ludicrous result possible with such
>> > 'logic'.
>
>> Your attempt at 'humor' failed to amuse or interest me.
>
> My showing that simultaneous use of x=ct and x=-ct was absurd because it
> would result in x=ict didn't amuse you either. The message was the same.
>

And just as irrelevant.

> From x=ct and x=-ct we get x^2=-(ct)^2, and x=ict.
>
>> > (C) You told me I was using poor, spurious logic when I showed an
> example
>> > of
>> > an impeccable continuous derviation from his assertions that even you
>> > agreed
>> > led to a ridiculous result.
>
>> You don't know the meaning of impeccable. What you did is a classic grade
>> school algebra mistake.
>
> The meaning is rather obvious when it applies to just two simple algebraic
> operations:
>
> (a) mutliplying of equals by equals, and

Wrong. They are only equals in the trivial case x = t = 0. Multiplication of
both sides of an equation by zero removes any valid information.

> (b) taking the square roots of equals.
>

Always introduces the possibility of extraneous solutions, because as
everyone
knows, there are two square roots for every positive number.

> Since you consider those two operations as 'spurious', no wonder you have
> no
> idea what impeccable means.
>

Speak for yourself.

>> > I multiplyed x=ct by x=-ct (left side by left side, etc) to get
>> > x^2=-(ct)^2
>> > and x=ict. (That's multiplying equals by equals.)
>

No. That's multiplication by zero.

>> As you yourself pointed out, these variables only represent equals when
>> solved simultaneously, and then only in the trivial case when x = t = 0.
> In
>> that case even your ridiculous conclusion becomes true.
>
> Not MY ridiculous conclusion. Einstein's. Implicit in Einstein's
> simultaneous equations.
>

Post the URL. You misrepresent Einstein. Don't expect us to fall for your
cheap trick.

> Einstein's derivation of his x' and t' using them is ridiculous except
> when
> t=0.
>
>> > Yet, even x=ct plus x=-ct is ludicrous for t<>0, which is the time
>> > range
>> > goal of the derivation.
>
>> The only useful observation here is that t can be negative. In any case,
> you
>> repeat your error of taking equations out of context.
>
> ROFFLMFAO!
>

You must not have much of an ass left, chuckles.

>>>>. You
>> >> can whine all you want, but you don't get to make the rules, and you
>> >> can't play by them, so goodbye.
>
> Gee. You deleted my 'supposed' final comment remark. How did I guess your
> final wasn't your last?
>

Keep up the personal attacks and continue getting replies. You have no
other arguments worth responding to.

>> > I especially enjoy the rule that says you can assert mutually exclusive
>> > (for
>> > t<>0) theora simultaneously in one continuous derivation.
>
>> You don't get to invent your own rules, and you don't get to distort
> someone
>> else's argument by extracting pieces and claiming they are simultaneous.
>
> That's your rule. You said it was ok.
>

Another lie.

>> > I do hope you will publish your conclusion that the old standby,
> reduction
>> > to the absurd, isn't valid because it is ok to not just reach
>> > contradictions, but to include them as part of the logic.
>
>> The only conclusion I can publish is that eleaticus is absurd.
>
> LOL.
>
> So, you admit that using x=ct and x=-ct simultaneously, with or without
> x=vt, is ludicrous?
>
> So, you admit that using x'=ct' and x'=-ct' simulataneously is ludicrous?
>
> Yes or no, dip***?
>

Yes, you are a dip***. Post the URL. What's the big deal? Chicken?

> eleaticus
>
>

Quantcast