Re: classical / relativistic approximation


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gbdf14-mnd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:24:57 GMT
| <Zl61h.125712$3D1.121279@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:hqve14-pfc.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sean McIlroy
| > | <sean_mcilroy@xxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on 28 Oct 2006 23:09:22 -0700
| > | <1162102162.901291.136340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > hi all
| > | >
| > | > one often encounters a claim worded somewhat as follows:
| > | >
| > | > *) classical and lorentz transformations agree closely when speeds
are
| > | > small
| > | >
| > | > is there a precise, epsilon-delta style formulation of this claim?
| > | >
| > | > peace
| > | > stm
| > | >
| > |
| > | Newton:
| > |
| > | x' = x-vt
| > | t' = t
| > |
| > | SR:
| > |
| > | x' = g*(x-vt)
| > | t' = g*(t-vx/c^2)
| > |
| > | where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >
| > Which you cannot derive because you have your head up your arse,
| > maliciously spreading lies for the crimimal *** you are.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| I don't have to.

Nobody can force you, but you are still a lying *** and you can't manage
the derivation.
t = x'/(c+v) but there is no c+v in SR, it should be (c+v)/(1+v/c),
shithead.

[crap snipped]

Androcles.




.