Re: Math, The Friend of Relativity


"Jim Black" <tramspap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f939df1f-4ab2-414e-892a-7a46e4770de3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:
"Jim Black" <tramspap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:94da8fb1-5a85-45d7-8594-fe592feed75f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3725c013-9811-44d8-ad7e-eec0c4ae0692@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Don't be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero. But he won't tell us
what it is.

Uncle Ben
==================================================
I did tell you what it is: h.

Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the area of a circle of unit radius.
But
the
illogical fuckin' idiot won't tell us what it is.

Don't be reassured by the raving of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the base of the natural logarithm. But
the
illogical fuckin' cretin won't tell us what it is.

Don't be reassured by the bull*** of Uncle Bonehead, who believes
that
there is a complex number for the square root of minus one. But the
useless ignorant troll won't tell us what it is.

I have no quarrel with your point here. The problem is not that you
haven't defined h uniquely, but that h as you have defined it does not
exist. That is, your definition of h conflicts with the axioms that
define the real numbers.

Then you are faced with division-by-zero in
f'(x) = limit as h tends to zero of [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.

No, that's not how limits work.

Limits work like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Derivative.gif

I can't write mathematical notation here, but anyone that says that
is NOT how things work ought to say how they DO work or shut
the *** up.



Even the tin god Einstein said
"Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small"
to compute the inverse velocity dt/dx'
and he was no mathematician.

As if we would believe something just because Einstein said so.

Of course you do.

Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.


Einstein would not have written such a thing if he were a
mathematician.

Well, he did write it and you dorks accept his so-called "Lorentz"
malformations based on it.


Infintesimals can be made perfectly well-defined, but
Einstein didn't know this. This is not atypical for physicists; we
use reasoning that is less than rigorous mathematically, but is
justified instead by its empirical success.

This is empirical success:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls


We then wait for the
mathematicians to invent the math we would have needed to make the
argument rigorously.

Nothing wrong with Newton's math.


Special relativity, incidentally, is rather easy to put on a
mathematically rigorous footing, regardless of how Einstein might have
done it.

Bull***.



But back to infintesimals -- they're not real numbers (unless you use
internal set theory instead of the normal set axioms), and there's
certainly no such thing as the smallest infintesimal greater than
zero, either, by the same argument Uncle Ben gave for real numbers.

There is no such thing as the speed of light being c in all frames of
reference, inertial or otherwise, by the same argument given by the
grinning ape van lintel who pointed out Uncle Bonehead can't read
and used a conclusion as a postulate.



Hence 'h' exists.
Why should 'h' not being unique be a problem?

I hope you're not going to suggest that there are multiple smallest
real numbers greater than zero.

I haven't made any suggestions.
I hope you're not going to suggest you can divide by zero, but that's
not what I asked you. Why should 'h' not being unique be a problem?


Uncle Bonehead:
If proof by contradiction befuddles you, John,
==================================================
It doesn't, so
[snip]

If proof by Einstein-said-so befuddles you, "Dr." Bonehead, I'm not
sorry
to have taxed your brain, you obviously don't have one and would argue
trivialities.
The way it goes, you see, is as follows: One proves
something false by assuming it to be true and then showing that that
assumption leads to a contradiction, such as "light is always
propagated
in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state
of
motion of the emitting body" leading to "the speed of light is c in
all
inertial
frames" -- about which Uncle Bonehead says "Harry is right. And
Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more carefully than I
did." --bwhahahaha!

Of course, Uncle Bonehead is so smart he knew all along that Einstein
was disproving his own postulate by reductio-ad-absurdum, but Uncle
Bonehead is too stupid to realise Androcles has outsmarted him with
something as trivial as
Quote/
1. Assume that there exists a smallest number greater than zero: Call
it
h.
2. But h/2 is smaller than h [and is still greater than zero.]
/unquote -- Uncle Bonehead

Therefore line 2 is false, a proof by contradiction.

Which part do you think is false?

(a) h/2 exists
(b) h/2 is smaller than h

or the part of the line you omitted?

(c) h/2 is greater than zero

We need to know these sorts of details in order to reconstruct the
axioms of Androcles numbers!

Ask Bonehead, it's his implied statement that h/2 exists.
Bonehead will divide electrons in two if you let him. Don't blame me
for the axioms of Bonehead's numbers.
I did NOT claim h/2 exists, that was Bonehead's claim.

But it is your claim that "'For any real number h > 0, h/2 is smaller
than h' is false."

Don't attribute your assumptions to me, moron. h/2 can't exist by the
definition that h is the smallest number greater than zero.

Now you imply that "'For any real number h > 0, h/2 exists' is false,"
but stop short of claiming it.

I did not imply anything, that's all in your imagination.


The real numbers are defined to be a field.
Fields are defined to be closed under multiplication.
1/2 is a real number. Therefore, for any real number h, h/2 exists
and is a real number.

Then h isn't a real number by definition of real number and definition
of h. It is, however, a number. 1/2 isn't a real number, it is a rational
number. It would be irrational to multiply h by a rational number.
(Pun intended.)

Lemma: h is not divisible by any number greater than h.
Proof of lemma:
Suppose h were divisible by a number greater than h; then the
quotient would be less than h which is against the supposition
that h is the smallest number. There are no numbers less than h
which can divide h, but h can be divided by h to give a
quotient of one which is greater than h.

For another thread I didn't enter into, h = 1 - 0.9999...



The natural numbers (with or without zero) are also closed under
multiplication, but since 1/2 isn't a natural number, there's no
reason to believe that for any integer h, h/2 will also exist in the
natural numbers. In fact, the statement is false, as illustrated by
the cases of h = 1, 3, 5, etc.

Do you also need proof that if h is real and > 0, 0 < h/2 < h?

I've already proven h does NOT belong to the set of reals, but is a
number. See my lemma above.



If p, q are integers and sqrt(2) = p/q, then

That is true

Don't interrupt in mid-sentence, arsehole! It is NOT true.

vacuously, regardless of what comes after the "then."

at least one of p or q is
both odd and even as Bonehead claimed in alt.morons:

"Let x be a positive integer which is both even and odd. Androcles
must now believe that since I have defined it, it must exist. Ha, ha!

What a magical mathematician! " - Uncle Bonehead, who thinks
sqrt(2) doesn't exist.
- Androcles, who makes a fine art of missing the point.

The point is you can't have it both ways. Either p and q are integers
and sqrt(2) doesn't exist or one of [p, q] is not an integer; p, q are
not unique. Either h exists or you divide by zero.
If Bonehead wants to define a unique integer q that is both odd and
even then there exists a p such that p/q = sqrt(2).
The proof that sqrt(2) <> p/q is well known, but Uncle Bonehead
has inadvertently circumvented it in his pathetic attempt to ridicule me.
And in keeping with the thread title, we must mention that Einstein's
second postulate is incompatible with the first, despite his claims
to the contrary and appeals to schoolchildren to please believe
the moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm

The schoolchildren are perfectly capable of looking up the Lorentz
transformation, understanding it, and seeing that it preserves the
speed of light, even if you are not.

The "Lorentz" malformation doesn't exist, isn't real, isn't rational, isn't
ANYTHING mathematical and neither you nor anyone else can prove
otherwise, no matter who "looks it up".
We are still waiting for the mathematicians to invent the math we need
to make the argument rigorously.
The "Lorentz" malformation is a dumb assumption based on assumption
and any "result" you obtain from it includes assumption, even if you are
too fuckin' stooopid to see that.

?By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.? ? Galileo
Galilei
?Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.?? John Kenneth Galbraith


Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________

Other answers have been:

According to the illiterate crank "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Its two equations.
________________________________________________________

According to the novice mitch sperkins@xxxxxxxxx (or mitchs perkins)

because +v / -v cancel out?
________________________________________________________
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):

Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows

X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)

________________________________________________________
According to glird the tord:

Both x and x' are in the domain of the function x |-> x' such that x' =
x-vt
________________________________________________________

According to Idiot Ian Parker:

We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx

Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
________________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin Dork Bruere

I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Lying Little *** Matthew Johnson

And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.

Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.

A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".

According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:

"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Dolt "Spirit of Truth"

that math is correct but WRONG
________________________________________________________

Scene:
River.
Current, 4 m/s. Swimmers, 3 /ms and -3 m/s.
River bank.
3+4 = 7 is "not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything",
"it's a closing speed." -- Ben Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956
________________________________________________________


Note: some names may be the aliases of a crank or cranks unknown.






.

Loading