The obvious. Re: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 03/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:04:58 -0600

"Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:1139ekkdc2nat2b@corp.supernews.com...

> So in the above equations, I would it understand better if x = ct
and -x
> = -ct. As it stands, I don't understand the meaning of the equation.

Einstein was trying to once again derive his x'=g(x-vt) and t'=g(t-vx/cc).
It is not possible to do so without (a) assuming the conclusion or (b)
mixing in absurdities.

Besides x=ct, x=-ct, and x=vt, three pairs of absurd contradictions for any
t<>0, he also asserted x'=ct' and x'=-ct' which are also mutual exclusive
for the intended t'<>0.

Also, of course, for the x' and t' he ends up with, it is not true that
x'=ct', nor x'=-ct'. But what's a couple more absurdities to the SR-cult?

He ends up with x'=g(x-vt).

Let v=.866c approx, so g=2. Let x=100 and t=100.

x'=g(x-vt) = 2(100 - .866(100))= 2(13.4)= 26.8.

x'=ct = 1(100)=100.

Just a wee contradiction, wouldn't you say?

But what is a mountain of absurdity to the likes of Uncle assAl, Dirk the
Dim, Ghost, etc?

My little tale about Dirk The Dim and his relentless search for the truth of
2+3=5 and the pencil law shows another example of the Eisteinian/Dirkian
absurdity.

> Thank you for your reply

You are welcome.

> Andre

eleaticus

>
>