Re: Galilean transformation equations

rbwinn a écrit :
On Feb 13, 6:37�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, Robert it's time of judgement for your ability to understand
what it's all about here.

First, did you check every step of the sub-high school algebra I've
shown you about how a spherical light front in S remain a spherical
light front in S' according to LTE ?

Briefly, do you admit, as it is easy to show with basic algebra
that if a set of events represent the progation of a spherical
light front in S, LTE implies that the the SAME set of events
represent a spherical light front in S'?

[ ] yes [ ] no
if no: what step(s) did you miss : ________________________

So, do you retract these two idiocies of you:

Talking about the intersection of the same set of events as
considered from two distinct cartesian systems of coordinates
does not mean much:
[ ] yes [ ] no

YES or NO?

According to SR, in S (or S'), the light front is "obloid":
[ ] yes [ ] no

YES or NO?

If you didn't anwser yes/yes/no, you can give up here and phone
to your nearest psychiatrist hospital.

You're last proposal for n' (after t(1-v/c), you've supported for
more than ten years) is:

n'=sqrt[ (ct-vt)/c ]

Which is obviously wrong by dimensional analysis.

What do you want educated people on s.p.r do? Come in your home
and educate you?

so ?

Didn't you realize that you'll need to do a HUGE work on basic
algebra before even understanding the basis of galilean physics
which is the basis of Relativity? And, given how you've lied, cheated,
insulted people here, what you deserve is only a kick in the ass?

Well, YBM, I was thinking that maybe you could be used to do some
mathematics. I was thinking that if I just put something wrong in my
posts, you would want to correct what I said , so you might do some
mathematics.
I've done everything that could be done to educate you: I've shown
you, with detail, how you were wrong and why you cannot avoid LTE.
It's not my fault if you are too stuborn and too stupid to get the
point, it's yours.

I can see it will not work. �Actually, YBM, n' would be
derived like this:
� � (-vt)^2 + (ct)^2 +0^2 = c^2n'^2
� � � � (-vt)^2/c^2 + t^2/c = n'^2
� � � � �sqrt[(-vt)^2/c^2 + t^2/c] = n'
Oh, another n' again. Did you check if it is dimensionally correct? Did
you check if it will match with t(1-v/c) ? Can you even understand why
it has to match otherwise it is absurd?

so ?

Why where you so delighted, when you applied you mighty algebraic rule
that "a^2+b2=(a+b)^2", to find out n'=t(1-v/c) ? If you were so
delighted, wasn't it because YOU PERFECTLY KNOW that switching formula
(so value) for the same event according to what it is suppose to mean is
absurd ?

so ?

as usual, unrelated and absurd evading from Robert 'idiotic' Winn:

YBM, not to upset you, but in the Lorentz equations, t' for one of the
two events you asked me about is different from t' for the other
event. I already showed you this. So, notwithstanding any
mathematical errors that may have been made at some time or another by
whoever may have made them, why is it supposed to mean something if n'
for one of these events is different from n' for the other event?
Could you explain that, YBM?

As usual you ignored and even didn't read what has proven you absurd.
Don't ask me anything before you've adressed the point I've made above.

For the record: for any value of x,y,z,t, LTE (and GTE) provide a unique
value for x',y',z',t', this is just sanity: ONE event in ONE event, it
has a SINGLE coordinate set whatever frame you consider it.
Your "theory" is contradictory at the algebraic level since it gives to
a sigle event several coordinate sets in a single frame. You cannot
get the point because you're incompetent in basic geometry, and couldn't
see how absurd it is for a transformation of the euclidian plane to
associate a single point with several ones.

If you don't have an education about basic geometry and physics, why do
you lose you time on issues you cannot understand?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... did you check every step of the sub-high school algebra I've ... shown you about how a spherical light front in S remain a spherical ... light front in S' according to LTE? ... it has to match otherwise it is absurd? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... shown you about how a spherical light front in S remain a spherical ... light front in S' according to LTE? ... it has to match otherwise it is absurd? ... These two equations say that there is a light sphere in S with its ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... did you check every step of the sub-high school algebra I've ... shown you about how a spherical light front in S remain a spherical ... light front in S' according to LTE? ... it has to match otherwise it is absurd? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... did you check every step of the sub-high school algebra I've ... light front in S' according to LTE? ... Robert 'stinky weasel' Winn until he discovered it ruined his ... disproven the Lorentz equations, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... did you check every step of the sub-high school algebra I've ... shown you about how a spherical light front in S remain a spherical ... mathematics. ... I've done everything that could be done to educate you: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast