Re: Bile-wacky the Janitor.

Androcles wrote:
> "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1128542389.739409.152890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Androcles wrote:
>
> > As of right now we are at:
> > Einstein:
> > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> > ,
> >
> > which is (with McCullough's choice of values,
> > c = 5,
> > v = 3,
> > x' = 32,
> > in FACT)
> >
> > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0, 32/2+32/8)] = tau(32,0,0,32/2) , or
> >
> > ½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,20)] = tau(32,0,0,16).
> >
> > Bile-wacky:
> >
> > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(60,0,0,20)] = tau(80,0,0,16),
>
> | Both equations are correct - they simply involve different functions -
> | both of which you denoted by the same symbol "tau".
>
> ROFLMAO!
> You do struggle to be convincing, Bile-wacky!
> You are as crazy as Hammond, he's "proven" his god exists.

Both equations are correct - they simply involve different functions.
You used the same symbol "tau" for two different things:

THING NUMBER ONE: tau(x',y,z,t)

THING NUMBER TWO: tau(x,y,z,t)

The first equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,20)] = tau(32,0,0,16)

....refers to tau(x',y,z,t).

The second equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(60,0,0,20)] = tau(80,0,0,16)

....refers to tau(x,y,z,t).

> | Normally people don't use plugged-in numbers but general expressions
> of
> | the given variables so this type of purely notational confusion is
> | avoided.
>
> | (Incidentally, I had t=0 along with x=32, etc.)
>
> x = 32, eh? ROFLMAO!!!

My mistake, I meant to say just "I had t=0".

> Let you into a little secret, Bile-wacky. I often leave little clues
> like
> "½[tau(0,0,0,t)+... " instead of "½[tau(0,0,0,0)+" to see anyone will
> notice.

And the point of this curious little exercise is...?

> Go ahead, Bile-wacky! "Derive" the wacky transforms from
> the Bile-wacky tau equations, let's have more laughs.

Sure, very easy to type it in. But dinner first.

> The fuckwits mad moortel, Phuckwit Duck, Maniacal McCullough,
> McAnally the Insane and all the other incompetent silly bastards
> think x' is \xi,

No, in fact they have just posted specifically stating the opposite.
Also, they'd be organically unable to say anything like you suggest
because they understand the material.

> you think it is x.

Whatever gave you that idea? In fact I spent last several posts
(including this one) doing exactly the opposite: explaining the
difference between the two uses of tau (namely, tau(x',y,z,t) and
tau(x,y,z,t)), explaining the difference between the systems (x',y,z,t)
and (x,y,z,t), between the clocks they use, and so on. How all this can
be misconstrued to mean its total opposite ("you think [x'] is x")
remains a mystery. Any takers?

--
Jan Bielawski

.