Re: The Present.
- From: "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:06:18 GMT
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151720760.980857.161560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151693223.592358.40050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151682459.180536.138660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151621786.053622.110780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorcerer wrote:
"Alex" <dralexgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151572565.855095.162940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Alex" <dralexgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1151498035.048666.171660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Relativity has a lot to say about the present moment. See:
| > |
| > | http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_relativity
| >
| > The derivation of the cuckoo transformations is given in
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >
| > which is explained at
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >
| > Notice the claim:
| > "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the
lying
| > garbage at
| > http://tinyurl.com/qc5o6 is NOT Einstein's SR.
|
|
| The equations are linear,
tau(0) = 0
tau(4) = 8
tau(10) = 8
tau(16) = 8
tau(20) = 16
No way is that linear.
| I assume you mean that linear equations are
| inappropriate.
You can assume all you want, I'm talking mathematics, not
assumptions.
The equations are not linear, no matter how much you assert they
are.
| In this derivation the assumption is that space is
| homogenous and isotropic, ie: it is assumed that space has a form
that
| can be described by the linear equations (Special Relativity).
Isotropic:
tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau_y = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau_z = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
You need three time axes to be isotropic. Spacetime is not
isotropic.
| There
| are no lies, the assumption is stated, obviously the equations
would
| need modifying if space were curved.
I've just modified them - obviously you need three wristwatches.
The lying garbage is either
tau_y = t
tau_z = t
eta = y
zeta= z
or
tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
It's kinda hard to say which since the idiots Einstein and Minkowski
use the Galilean transforms for the y- and z-axes. If people want to
play mathematical games they should at least be consistent or
they'll
be caught in a contradiction, aren't you? :-)
Androcles
Let me see if you understand what you are doing. You are arbitrarily
defining a set of equations which do not resemble the Lorentz
Transformation.
My equations are DERIVED, they are not arbitrary.
Who cares?
You do.
You're right. What you are doing looks like this:
P->Q
~Q
--------
~R
It really bugs me that you are doing that.
You are talking irrelevancies. The cuckoo transforms that you adore
are derived from the equation of Einstein I gave you that you so
carefully snipped to hide yourself away from, and when I derive the
same crap in the y- and z-axes
When?
You've forgotten when you snipped Einstein's equation, troll?
It was yesterday.
I'd feel sorry for someone with as poor a memory as you have,
but I rather suspect you are a lying troll that has no interest
in understanding Einstein's stupidity (which matches your own).
The derivation of the cuckoo transformations is given in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
which is explained at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
but alas, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
BTW, your own stupid movie has the light moving up the screen much
slower than it moves across, proving that you are an idiot with no
understanding
of vector addition, or even basic math for that matter, and you should check
out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
"Second postulate (invariance of c)
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Most current textbooks mistakenly include a major derived result, that the
speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, as part of the second
postulate. A careful reading of Einstein's 1905 paper on this subject shows
that, in fact, he made no such assumption." - straight from Wackypedia.
In fact, your derivation is Spookfood's relativity, not Einstein's
relativity,
and is a circular argument, you assume the result you derive which is
fundamentally stupid.
Of course, you have no mathematical competence to understand what
circularity is,
or even what "linear" means.
Androcles.
all you can say is "What?"
You are an illogical crank with your head up your arse.
Androcles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Present.
- From: Spoonfed
- Re: The Present.
- References:
- Re: The Present.
- From: Spoonfed
- Re: The Present.
- Prev by Date: Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- Next by Date: Re: PHOTON MASS -- NOT A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- FACT.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Present.
- Next by thread: Re: The Present.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
