Re: Light speed invariance

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 06/27/04 

Date: 27 Jun 2004 09:11:48 -0700

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<S6bDc.166649$w85.8402009@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:cce403e3.0406251529.6239c4c1@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<DjRCc.4715$Xp3.1276@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> > > "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:cce403e3.0406241819.1a7d55f9@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<gYxCc.4641$Lu2.305@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> > > > > "sal" <SpamMeHere@foobox.com> wrote in message news:d657f887.0406231301.6292680@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ma1Cc.122$nd6.1449214@news-text.cableinet.net>...

xnipped
> > > > xxein: Why don't you multiply -3 by -3 and give us your result?
> > > >
> > > > Is -3 a square root of (-3)^2 or not?
> > >
> > > The thing sqrt(anything) is BY DEFINITION a positive
> > > number.
> > > The *equation* x^2 = 9 has two *solutions* for x.
> > > The *polynomial* x^2 - 9 has two *roots* (things that
> > > make the polynomial zero).
> > > The roots of the polynomial x^2 - 9 are 3 and -3
> > > The roots of the polynomial x^2 - 5 are sqrt(5) and -sqrt(5).
> > > This way sqrt is a positive number - by fucking world-wide
> > > definition.
> > >
> > > In sloppy, confusing language people sometimes say
> > > that 9 has two "square roots", namely 3 and -3.
> > > You see where this bad habit gets them:
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
> > > It makes you think that there must be two gammas.
> > > If you think like that, you can't possibly understand
> > > *any* equation involving a square root.
> > > Being so arrogant about it, is super-stupid and makes
> > > it qualify as an immortal fumble.
> > >
> > > See also the thread "A little lesson for sqrt(144) year
> > > olds".
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > xxein: Along with not being able to separate CS's (to the
> > intermingling of observations),
>
> I'm still waiting for the continuation of the thread "OWLS measurement"
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=VEXvc.143873$p56.7347332@phobos.telenet-ops.be
> where I tried to help you solve your obvious confusion between two
> coordinate systems, resulting in statements like
> | "What math or theory can declare that light (an infinitessimal
> | or no mass) should behave any differently?"
> showing nothing more than your ignorance - willing or unwilling.
> I gave you good pointers and exercises to help you solve your
> problem. You willingly ignored them. That was *your* choice.
>
> > you have also confused Math with/and
> > Physics.
>
> This topic on the sqrt( ) function has *nothing* to do with physics.
> This is pure math. And you obviously haven't got what it takes
> to follow the argument. In this you are alone with your buddy
> Androcles, and probably a few others... dead in the corner.
>
> The one who confuses physics and math is you, by obviously
> applying mathematical equations you don't understand to
> physical situations you can't understand, resulting in a statement:
> | "When you are done, I hope you will see the need for an ether
> | to supply the necessary configuration for a physical reality.
> | Now you only have to guess what gravity is. Hah!
> |
> | Comments are always welcome and my email is valid."
> I gave you a clean, sec and helpful comment, and you decided
> to throw it away. So you were lying in that last line.
>
>
> > What is sad is that you know of nothing wrong with the way
> > and what you think. That is blind belief and has no function in
> > understanding this universe or beyond.
>
> I can understand that you try to understand this universe or beyond,
> but obviously you haven't got what it takes. If you think that sqrt(4)
> can be -2, then you can't read *any* book or article that contains
> an equation.
>
> >
> > Willingly or unwillingly, you are a shaman
>
> That's what would-be religious fanatics like you need: priests for
> guidance. If they can't find their priest, they start halucinating evil
> shamans all over the place. You are merely frustrated.
> Mostly harmless, and at least somewhat entertaining, so by all
> means don't stop what you think you are doing.
>
> Dirk Vdm

xxein: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipalSquareRoot.html

Quantcast