Re: classical / relativistic approximation

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:16:55 GMT
<Xzp1h.84594$lT5.6681@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ufh14-obt.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:03:25 GMT
| <1th1h.126592$3D1.8355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:ifhg14-vsg.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:23:31 GMT
| > | <n%f1h.83343$lT5.40796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:2c0g14-scf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:09:43 GMT
| > | > | <HE91h.125864$3D1.8139@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "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.
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | You want a derivation?
| > | >
| > | > Yes.
| > | > | Fine.
| > | >
| > | > Do it then, dumb***
| > | >
| > | > | What axioms would you like me to use?
| > | >
| > | > This one:
| > | >
| > | > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured
| > in
| > | > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =
t" --
| > And
| > | > the ray moves relatively to the reflecting point of k, when measured
in
| > the
| > | > stationary system, with the velocity c+v, so that x'/(c+v) = t with
x'
| > | > infinitesimally small.
| > |
| > | OK. We already know that c = 0;
| >
| > No we don't. c = 0/0 and pantomimes an infinitely great velocity in your
| > theory.
| > Start over.
|
| c = 0/0 can be any value, including 0.

Ok, end of debate. The malformations are cuckoo and are not "Lorentz".
I never thought much of Lorentz's aether but he doesn't deserve to be
blamed for Einstein's ***-ups. Call them the Van de moortel malformations,
that shithead is welcome to them.


| >
| >
| > | Since a false antecedent implies any consequent, flying
| > | green elephants exist.
| > |
| > | Does that satisfy you?
| >
| > No.
| > Implication:
| > "If it is raining then I'll take my umbrella". - valid statement.
| > It is not raining. -- true statement.
| > The weather forecast is for rain later. --true statement.
| > Did I take my umbrella? -- antecedent undefined.
|
| Nice going. The umbrella is the *consequent*, and can be either
| truth-value.
|
| In any event, c=0 is the antecedent.
|
| >
| > Learn the difference between "valid" and "true", and between
| > "antecedent" and "consequent".
| > 1 or 1 has the consequent 1 (defined) and the antecedent cannot be 0.
| > 1 xor 1 has the consequent 0 (defined) and the antecedent cannot be 1.
| > xor does not imply OR.
|
| Doesn't it?
|
| (a xor b) => (a or b) is true in dual-value logic systems.
(a and b) => (~a or ~b) is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_Laws

You forgot something.




http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif



There
| might be issues in multi-value logic systems.

Dirk Van de moortel or Ghost In the Machine is a raving lunatic.

Ooooh. That smarts.



|
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > Get on with it.
| > | >
| > | > | What is the target result?
| > | > The cuckoo malformations you are lying about, fuckwit.
| > |
| > | Plus a lot of other things, such as sentient mosquitoes.
| >
| > Inappropriate sarcasm.
| > "I don't have to" is what I expect from a child that cannot do as he
| > claims, and you cannot derive your lies.
|
| You're right. I cannot derive the Lorentz. Therefore, it must be
| untrue and we should go back to Newtonianism, and we've established
| that science is a major fraud.
|
| Wow.

Totally childish and stupid. You are a lunatic like Roberts.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." - Roberts.

Exactly. We've proven Newtonianism. That's why all of those
experiments that purport to disprove Newtonianism are just
so...erm, help me out here guys...




|
| Maybe you should go to your Congress rep and demand an investigation.
| While you're at it, disprove evolution as well. I hear Kansas has some
| data... :-)
|

Maybe you should shut the *** up.

Oh, that's right; you're in Tony Blair territory and can't vote in our
elections. Such a pity.

Hmm... forget "maybe".

| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | What is the point?
| > | >
| > | > To have your lies exposed and embarrass you, arsehole.
| > |
| > | Fair enough. Consider me embarrassed.
| >
| > Then quit spreading childish lies, psychopath.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| OK. What is the truth, then? 220keV muons don't count.

The truth is you are a lying lunatic psychopath incapable of
logic or reason. - Proven.


Gee, that's nice. I'll make sure to frame this along with my collection
of sayings from nobody in particular.

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: No such file or directory

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.