Re: Androcles's accusations of lying


"Jonathan Doolin" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c16c856f-9752-4bc1-8e20-a4e0a1bbb3ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

===============================================
D:
You can
talk your head off saying they don't make sense, or they don't work as
advertised, but the fact of the matter is, they DO exactly what they
DO, and no amount of rhetoric is going to stop a matrix from operating
on a vector.
===============================================
A:
Time is not a vector to be operated upon, it has no additive inverse.

[cos(phi), -sin(phi)] * [3 apples]
[sin (phi), cos(phi)] [2 oranges]

If phi = 45 degrees, how many straw apples and straw oranges do I get?



Sheesh!

It's not a rotation operation, it's a skew operation


[cosh(phi), -sinh(phi)] * ct
[-sinh (phi), cosh(phi)] x

where tanh(phi) = deltaV/c.
===============================================
A: There you are then, skewer me an apple until it becomes an orange
or an hour until it becomes a mile.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_enGB290GB290&q=Vector+space

14,800,000 hits for Vector space
Nobody has taught you formal mathematics, have they, sheesh?

Sheesh, its time they did, sheesh.

BTW, [ct, x] may not be a vector if ct has the same direction as x,
in which case you cannot skew it. If ct has the same direction as x then
ct is scalar multiple of x, otherwise it may already be squewed or stewed.

You do realise ct is speed * time = distance, right?

I shouldn't have to respond to that kind of triviality, I should just
tell you to go and play in your sand box. If you want to discuss
mathematics, at least know the basics.

Oh wait... it's theoretical physics you talk about, a different subject
entirely.


.

Quantcast