Re: why lorentz transformation?

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> writes:

>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:dgj34b$eoe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> writes:
>|
>| >"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>| >news:dggv0n$2ma$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| >| "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>| >|
>| >| >Androcles wrote:
>| >| >>
>| >| >> Hey phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the *** up.
>|
>| >[snip non-math bull*** from McAnally]
>|

>[snip non math bull*** from McAnally AGAIN]

Isn't it nice to know that Androcles thinks that using abuse and obscenity
is mathematics. If he didn't think that it was mathematics, then his
leaving his usage of it here makes him a hypocrite (of course we already
knew that he was a hypocrite, but the assumption that he isn't one leads
to the conclusion that he thinks that "Hey *****wit! Deal with the math or
shut the **** up." is mathematics). If this is all he had learnt in
mathematics, then no wonder he is so incompetent at it.

I note that, although you are using a British ISP, you betray your true
origins by the fact that you are consistently using the Americanism of
"math", instead of the more usual "maths".

The fact that you use a pseudonym, so that you can't be identified,
demonstrates your utter craven cowardice.

>Note particularly that I said
>Hey phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the *** up.

You sound like a broken record. You only have the one response for
everything. You are on automatic without any reasoning going on between
your ears.

Why don't you wash your mouth out with soap. Your mother failed miserably
in her job of bringing you up as a human being. This is obviously the
cause of your subhuman behaviour. Obviously you will never grow up
emotionally.

>| >There are TWO (2) frames of reference; one (1) uses coordinates
>| >x,y,z,t and is called the "stationary" frame by Einstein, which
>| >sometimes
>| >appears in quotes, as in 'Let us take a system of co-ordinates in
>which
>| >the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render
>our
>| >presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of
>co-ordinates
>| >verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it
>the
>| >``stationary system.'' ' and sometimes not, as in "Thus with the help
>of
>| >certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be
>| >understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
>| >places", and the other (2), called the "moving" frame, uses the
>| >coordinates x',y,z,t as in
>| >'If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
>k
>| >must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.' and the
>| >THIRD (3) frame uses the coordinates xi, eta, zeta, tau.
>|
>| The above paragraph by you is completely irrelevant to the question
>that I
>| asked. You are just evading the question again, as you always do,
>since
>| you know that your usage of the symbols 0', 1', 2', etc, for the
>values
>| taken by x' is just plain stupid. And you must be really desperate to
>use
>| such an obvious diversion.

>Hey PHUCKWIT!! Deal with the math or shut the *** up, you stupid
>whining moron!

You posted something completely irrelevant to the question which you had
just been asked. It is my responsibility to point out your attempts at
diversion. You are just upset because you got caught out. What you wrote
had ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION with the question at hand. It is your own
personal delusion that it has.

>| Incidentally, we now use the notation x', y', z', t', to denote
>Einstein's
>| new coordinates xi, eta, zeta, tau, and no symbol is used to denote
>the
>| variable denoted by Einstein as x'.

>I don't give a *** what you change it to, I'm discussing Einstein's
>paper,
>not yours. Deal with the math or shut the *** up.

Obviously you do "give a ****", since the question of the change of
notation became important for you later in your posting. See below for
details.

>[snip more crap]

>|
>| We can count to three.

>PROVE IT.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

There. I've counted to ten.

As we are into asking people to do things, give me an exact definition of
the Poincare group. This is relevant to relativity because of the strong
connection between the Poincare group and special relativity.

>[snip more crap]
>|
>| Why not give it now?

>Because you continue to run insults

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. YOU give out MANY more
insults than almost anybody else here, and YOUR insults are of a much more
vile and offensive nature than anybody else's.

>amd I have to snip them without
>reading them to get to the math, you fucking stupid ***.

This is a point in case. I have never used terminology as offensive as
this when addressing you. My responses to you have been to do with
mathematics, or in frustration at the perversity of your mind as you
offensively reject the assistance of those who have far greater knowledge
and understanding of the subject than you could ever hope to achieve, and
who have given freely of their time in an attempt to educate you.

You want people to write to you with courtesy and respect, but you feel
free to pour offensive foul insults and vitriol upon them in return. Why
don't you start addressing people personally in the same way that you
address people in this newsgroup, or are you too much of a coward to do
so. You wouldn't last long if you started to do so.

>[snip more crap]
>|
>| >In the meantime, tell me how fast x' approaches xi.
>|
>| The variables denoted by x' and xi in Einstein's paper are different
>| variables, and neither "approaches" the other. They are related by
>|
>| xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

>Ah... we get to math at last. It took you long enough.

That's what you think. I tried to educate you for ages, until I came to
the conclusion that you were completely ineducable.

>So.... xi is not x'.

But xi is now denoted by x', and what Einstein denoted by x' is not
denoted by anything. I pointed this fact out in the post to which you
have offensively responded.

>xi is related to x' by the equation you've just given, but now you want
>to change the name of xi to x',

That is the present standard notation.

>so that
>x' = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), is that correct?

That is wrong. I have already told you that the x' on the right (what
Einstein denoted by x') is not represented by any symbol in the present
day notation. I pointed this out in the very post to which you were
responding. But your only response to when I pointed it out was "I don't
give a **** what you change it to, I'm discussing Einstein's paper, not
yours. Deal with the math or shut the **** up." Obviously, you did "give
a ****" what we changed it to, since you made a special point of asking,
and then used the fact to make the claim here. Apparently my pointing out
the fact was much more relevant to your way of thinking than you had given
it credit for. It also demonstrates that YOU can't deal with the maths
since the relevance completely escaped you.

My guess is that the bit that you didn't "give a ****" about was my extra
comment that no symbol is used for the variable that Einstein denoted by
x', since that completely destroyed your fantasy that you could claim
that we were stating that "x' = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)".

In fact, that was the very reason why pointed I out that

"we now use the notation x', y', z', t', to denote Einstein's new
coordinates xi, eta, zeta, tau, and no symbol is used to denote
the variable denoted by Einstein as x'"

since I *knew* that you would resort to using the change in notation to
support your fantasy that we have stated that "x' = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)",
and I was trying to head you off before you proclaimed your fantasy.
Thank you for confirming that I was correct to judge you to be of such low
character.

>Is this so that you can avoid counting to three?

Irrelevant, since what you just wrote demonstrated YOUR OWN MATHEMATICAL
INCOMPETENCE.

>You see, I'm using two functions. One is the transformation
>from the stationary frame to the moving frame,
>call it g(x) = x-vt

That is not a function of x alone. It is a function of TWO real
variables, x and t. This means that the appropriate notation is g(x,t),
and not g(x), as you have it here.

>and the other is the transformation from the moving frame
>to the moving frame, call it f(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
>and
>f(g(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

WRONG! The CORRECT way to write this is:

f(g(x,t)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

>Now, when x =1, under my function g I have x' = 1',

This is not an acceptable notation. 1' does not mean the value of x'
evaluated at x = 1. x' does not mean a function on x. x' is a variable
in its own right whose notation is the composite symbol x'.

Also, just having x = 1 is insufficient information to evaluate g(x,t).
You need a value of t as well before you can make an evaluation.

>but when x = 2 I still have x' = 1' and so I want to make it clear
>that 1' is not equal to 1 or 2, because the frame is moving.

x' takes real values. x' is a variable. In Einstein's paper, x' is
introduced as variable whose values are given by x' = x-vt.

The following is part of what you cut out from my previous posting on the
subject:

:: x, y, z, and t are variables which take values in the real numbers
:: (such as 0, 1, 2, 3, 8.5, etc). x' is the symbol for ONE variable
:: (which is denoted by the entire string, x') which takes values in the
:: real numbers (such as 0, 1, 2, 3, 8.5, etc). 0', 1', 2', 3', 8.5', are
:: not known symbols for any numbers - they are just ordinary numbers with
:: primes attached to them for affectation. The equality x' = 1 means
:: something concrete (just as the equalities x = 1 and y = 1 mean
:: something concrete). The formula x' = 1' doesn't mean a thing since
:: nobody has ever told us what 1' represents. These considerations are
:: independent of anything that you could ever say about coordinate
:: systems.

There is mathematics in that paragraph, and only mathematics. In that
paragraph, I was making the point that I just had to make again, because
you were too obtuse to take it in, first time around. x' does NOT mean a
function of x. x' means a specific variable.

>You did say you could count to three, right?
>I don't want to get too far ahead of you.

Don't be so condescending. That manner is particularly offensive coming
from an ignoramus like you. That manner is not how you should treat your
betters, and I am certainly one of your betters.

>| >[snip rest of crap, ask again when you can count to three]
>|

>[snip more crap]

>Deal with the math or shut the *** up.

You should set a good example as far as this is concerned. When YOU see
some maths that you don't like, then you ignore it and cut it out, and you
refuse point blank to actually deal with it. Your constantly writing the
above makes you a hypocrite since you don't deal with the maths yourself,
if you find it inconvenient. Let's see you deal with the maths in that
paragraph first. Deal with the maths in that paragraph or "shut the ****
up".

>So far you've shown you can only count to two
>so that you can confuse x' with xi.

No, that's you. You tried to use x' simultaneously to denote the variable
that Einstein used the notation for, and the variable that we now use the
notation for (what Einstein denoted by xi). In this, you deliberately
disregarded where I had explicitly pointed out that there is no current
notation for Einstein's variable x', since that would spoil all your fun.
If you had learnt ANY proper mathematics, you would know that you do not
simultaneously use the same symbol for two distinct quantities. That you
*do* simultaneously use the same symbol for two different quantities shows
how mathematically incompetent YOU are. It is also enlightening to note
that the concept of a change of notation is beyond you.

>Try it with me. One..... two..... (what comes next?)
>YES! It's three!

Nice to see you talking at the level of your OWN mathematical competence,
Can you add two two-digit numbers yet, or do you learn that next week?

As I see it, the reason why you claim that people can't count to three is
because the change of notation is beyond your comprehension, and your mind
can't cope with the reduction from three sets of coordinates ((x,y,z,t),
(x',y,z,t), (xi,eta,zeta,tau), in Einstein's notation) to two sets of
coordinates ((x,y,z,t), (x',y',z',t'), in the present notation), and your
mind can't cope with the change of notation from (xi,eta,zeta,tau) to
(x',y',z',t'), or with the fact that we use x' to denote a completely
different variable to that which Einstein denoted by x', or with the fact
that we use no notation for the variable which Einstein denoted by x'.

In other words, all your Pavlovian knee-jerk venom is as a direct result
of the fact that your mind cannot cope with the changes wrought by the
last hundred years. For the usage of the word "Pavlovian", look up
Pavlov's dogs - since you exhibit Pavlovian conditioning.

>Well done.

> Now see if you can do it alone
>without your fingers, we've several years to go before you can
>understand
>what a frame or a function is.

This is a bit rich, coming from somebody who obviously thinks that a
two-argument function can just be expressed as a function of x alone.

A function is a set of ordered pairs in which no two distinct ordered
pairs have the same first component (i.e. a function f is a set of
ordered pairs such that for all x, y, z, if (x,y) and (x,z) are both
elements of f, then y = z; for any x in the domain of f (i.e. any x
which occurs in the first component of one of the elements of f), f(x) is
uniquely defined by the requirement that (x,f(x)) is an element of f).

I have a very strong suspicion that your mathematical education did not go
far enough for you to have ever came across this specific definition of
"function", so perhaps you should look up the definition in an online
encyclopedia before you start engaging your automatic Pavlovian knee-jerk
reaction of spewing venom, since that will only confirm our suspicions of
your complete ignorance of the matter.

You seem to want to believe that every function is from R to R (i.e. that
for every function, the domain [the set of the first components of its
elements] is R, and the range [the set of the second components of its
elements] is a subset of R). In deriving the Lorentz Transformation, we
need four functions from R^4 to R (i.e. functions for which the domain is
R^4 (so that they have four arguments) and the range is a subset of R).
Alternatively, we need one invertible function from R^4 to R^4, that is, a
four-component object, each component of which is a real-valued function
of four arguments, i.e. a one-to-one function whose domain is R^4, and
whose range is R^4.

An inertial frame (in special relativity) is a coordinate system in which
inertial motion is represented by a linear relationship between the
coordinates.

Morally, intellectually, emotionally, and ethically, you are the dregs of
society, among the worst that humanity has to offer. It is degrading to
continue to interact with you, so I will stop doing so. There is nothing
to be gained from trying to converse with you, since you are unreceptive
of any attempts to help you, and your ingratitude is great. I had not
needed to kill-file you before, since you lied about having kill-filed me.
But now your lie has been exposed. I do not intend to ever read your
garbage or disgusting abuse again. Good-bye.

*PLONK!*

-----
.