Bile awski the Janitor.

----- Original Message -----
From: "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: why lorentz transformation?


: Androcles wrote:
: >
: > Hey phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the *** up.
:
: Math? Since you know almost nothing about it, I find it odd that you
: should lecture people (or more like, INSULT) on that very subject.
:
: --
: Jan Bielawski

How come you ran away, Bielawski? Three posts you have not answered,
and all you can do is insult. Phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the
*** up.


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125371177.706460.169010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| >
| > "Francisco", I understand what you are trying to say, and you are
absolutely
| > right. But for many of these people relativity is a religion, and
you cannot
| > change their mind with any scientific argument.
|
| Where people get this stoopid idea I'll never know. Get real, please.
| Relativity is simply a theory derived from certain postulates.

Bollocks. It's based on a stoopid definition of time.



End of
| story, no religion.

Of course it's a religion, dumb***. You BELIEVE Einstein's
definition of time on FAITH, it's not science, it's religion.



|It's OK to object to those postulates on
| philosophical grounds, as I do for example. It is also true that this
| theory has an excellent experimental and predictive quantitative track
| record.

Irrelevant bull***, the function tau is not linear, the objection is on
mathematical grounds.


|
| In other words: it's fine to object against relativity (or any other
| theory) *honestly*.


So done. You are dishonest in denying your FAITH is a religion.


| What is dishonest is calling relativity "religion"
| just because someone defends the way it's derived from the postulates.
|
Bull***, it is derived from
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

and your BLIND FAITH in that is a religion.

Androcles.

| --
| Jan Bielawski
|


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125302090.663016.296530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| RP wrote:
| >
| > You'll lose the argument,
|
| Oh, I know very well that Androcles won't understand a word I'm
saying.

Bull***, I know you will attempt circularity.



| One always "loses" arguments on Usenet in that funny sense, I've done
| this before with many others as I'm always curious about limits of
| human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
| people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
| regarding themselves.

LOL! You are talking about yourself, phuckwit.


| In this case the guy would rather assume that 100 years and
generations
| of physicists "missed" an idiotic high-school-level "error" than admit
| to himself that he has no talent for that sort of thing and doesn't
| understand squat.

You are so ridiculous its incredible. I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.




| He would invent ridiculous Hollywoodesque plots
| involving Einstein and his supposed "intent" to "deceive" scientists -
| anything, *anything*, except the plain truth that Androcles has no
case
| and is wasting his life away on chimeras.

I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.


|
| > BTW, your first mistake that Andro
| > will tear to shreds is the fact that you can't derive something from
| > assumptions without arriving at yet further assumptions. That's just
| > simple logic. He'll be right on that point. Better try another
approach.

See, RP knows.
You on the other hand are too stupid to know that, which is why
you can't win. I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.



| The assumptions are all standard physics

What is "standard" physics? Vector addition of velocities?

| + Einstein's postulates.

He's only got one. Having trouble counting to one, are you?
The PoR is standard physics and Galileo's. Einstein's ONE
postulate is "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body. " No numerical value permitted in the proof
though. You can use a numerical value for explanation if need be.
I'm generously permitting you to use his definition of time,
although I do not accept it.



So
| unless Androcles insists on something exotic like the universe being
| non-isotropic or observers depending on their entire motion histories
| and the like, then he has no case


Quit bragging and start proving.


| since it's all just a mathematical
| derivation at that point. It would be interesting to find out what
sort
| of random assumption he brings up this time.

It'll be boring listening to you bragging and bringing up such total
irrelevancies as your argument, such as "would rather *assume*
that 100 years and generations of physicists "missed" an idiotic
high-school-level "error" than admit to himself that he has no talent
for that sort of thing and doesn't understand squat.

I dont assume, phuckwit, but you do, and that's why you have no
talent for this sort of thing and don't understand squat.



| I've seen one of them
| already - the idea that SR "ignores" the time it takes for light to
| reflect off a mirror!
| --
| Jan Bielawski

Are you claiming the mirror doesn't move, or that a photon
has no momentum? Which?
That's why you have no talent for this sort of thing and don't
understand squat.

Androcles.
"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125299145.132650.82630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1125257544.903304.215080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > | Specifically,
| > | you let x' tend to zero on one side of the equation but not on the
| > | other. When the result is 0=1 you complain loudly.
| >
| > The *** I do, but since you claimed to be able to derive
| > the cuckoo transformations without calculus, go ahead and do
| > it.
|
| Sure, no problem but I need to get some sleep first.
|
| > You are to use Einstein's light postulate, Galileo's relativity
| > exemplified by Einstein, "the reciprocal electrodynamic action
| > of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
| > depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet",
| > Einstein's definition of time "we establish by definition that the
| > "time"
| > required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
| > to travel from B to A", and NO assumptions.
| > You will not succeed, I shall rip your "proof" to shreds.
|
| You'll not be able to even touch it, let alone rip to shreads. I'll
| derive the Lorentz transform from the assumption of linearity of the
| transform, from the "tau" equation, and the usual postulates.

Circularity is not permitted.
You are to use Einstein's light postulate, Galileo's relativity,
Einstein's definition of time.
Androcles.

| --
| Jan Bielawski
|




.

Quantcast