Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?

Dono wrote:

On Jul 24, 5:27 am, jem <x...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Dono wrote:

On Jul 23, 5:50 am, jem <x...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

4. The falsification of LET's Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction

There is absolutely nothing I can do for you if you refuse to
understand this subject.You insist on arguing subjects that you
haven't read any of the references, there is nothing I can do for you
<SHRUG>

You: 1+1=2 is falsified by the experimental evidence in my references.

Me: 1+1=2 is a logical proposition; it can't be falsified by experiment.

You: You insist on arguing subjects that you haven't read any of the
references, there is nothing I can do for you <SHRUG>

I am still waiting for you to show the transitivity of the Shobo-jem
transforms. You answered with two consecutive days of ranting and
raving, no math, I take that you are unable to produce the math.If you
were able, you would have produced it long ago. I even showed you the
SR model that you need to parallel in order to prove that your Shobo-
jem transforms are valid and you still can't do it. Tsk, tsk.

You: What's 2+2?

Me: 4

You: Spare me your BS, that's nonsense. Show me how you got 4.

Me: OK, but if you think 4 is wrong, tell me what you think is right.

You: I showed you that 1+1=2.

Me. I know 1+1=2, Jethro, but either support your claim that 2+2=4 is
wrong by saying what you think is right, or admit that you can't
handle the the addition of such big numbers. And then I'll show you
how to do it. And then you'll be able to pat yourself on the back for
having worked it out for yourself.

Still no math, jem?

I just told to you where the math was, Junior, and in little boy language too, but if some of the words I used were too big for you, ask your Mommy to help you with them, OK?

Just the rantting and raving as one would expect
from Seto or Shobo. If you had a mathematical proof, you would have
shown it by now, instead ofthat you keep posting what is obvious to be
a ....Seto/Shobo type of runaround. The more you post, the more you
look like them.


So, after all this time you still didn't take the time to read the
experiments that falsify the Lorentz paper of 1904. That's cool, u
lost that argument.

Since you couldn't accept loosing the original thread argument you
introduced a couple of diversions :
-the Seto asymmetry of time dilation (you won that one,
congratulations)

-the validity of the Shobo-jem transforms (you can't show
transitivity, so you lost that one).

It's pretty silly, Junior, to think that arguments are won or lost on the basis of whether or not a child finds them convincing. :) Maybe you'll come to realize why that is, should you ever grow up.


So, never, ever admit that you are wrong, jem. It is the standard
crank trait. Thanks for the laughs, I will stop reading your posts.
Unless you post some math in the defense of the Shobo-jem transforms.
Did you notice how quiet Shobo has been? He didn't even answer your
request to post the link to his transforms. He would have come to your
rescue but I think he left you holding the bag. The math, jerk, the
math. Err, the math, jem, the math. Show the math or hold your trap
shut.

There you go getting all frustrated again. Time for another nap. A nice long one.

Oh, and when you wake up, Junior, listen very carefully to what your Mommy tells you about how to find "the math" - you wouldn't want to miss out on one of those "happy learning experiences", now would you?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... 1+1=2 is falsified by the experimental evidence in my references. ... jem transforms are valid and you still can't do it. ... Still no math, jem? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What kinds of maths courses should a control research has to take?
    ... courses and get transferred to the maths department to get a B.S ... I cannot bear so much math notations and theroems. ... Then understanding how to use Laplace ... But you don't need to know how the transforms are derived ...
    (sci.engr.control)
  • Re: Question about relativity
    ... I am figuring for closing speeds and what other frames ... so you need to apply the appropriate transforms. ... Show that with your math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... that only shows the math is correct. ... transforms the Lorentz transforms), then these two ... interpretations are physical interpretations, and SR ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Potential Energy
    ... The approximations involved are essential. ... Without math, physics is BS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast