Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Nov 2004 18:17:00 GMT
eleaticus:
>
>"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncq3l1h.2aj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> eleaticus:
>> Special relativity postulates that inertial frames are equivalent.
>> Length contraction and time dilation follow directly from the coordinate
>> transformation that leaves inertial frames inertial. If you understand why
>> rotating in the x-y plane about a point on the stick changes the lengths
>> of the x and y projections but leaves l^2 = l_x^2 + l_y^2, invariant, then
>> you have no excuse for not understanding why rotating the same stick in
>> the x-t plane (a boost) changes the the x and t projections but leaves
>> t^2 - x^2 invariant. It's as simple as that.
>
>Idiot. I understand that y'all have the convention in which you call t and x
>the same thing units wise,
It's the same convention those of us in physics land use with x, y,
and z, so that we don't have to write things like:
(a\tau)^2 = (ct)^2 - (bx)^2 - (ey)^2 - (fz)^2
If you were a bit more astute, you'd realize that it doesn't
make physical sense to measure distances in different directions
using different units.
>but it is an admission you can't support the corrupt idiocy of SR.
Say, that's quite an argument you've got there. That explains why
the people you've convinced consists of you and yourself.
>It is (ct)^2 - x^2. t^2-x^2 is idiocy.
Actually, it's an idiocy test. If you don't understand it after
having it explained to you more than a few dozen times, you qualify.
>Do physics, not schizoid math.
>
>You can rotate in the x-y plane because they are the same 'thing'.
Oh really? Then how come they point in different directions?
>
>To even imagine rotation in the x-ct plane is idiocy, one is a spatial
>dimension and the other is not a spatial dimension, it is the distance light
>travels in time t.
Your difficulties advancing beyond high school algebra are yours.
Lots of us manage to learn new concepts as we get older.
>I was pythagoreaning things decades before you were born (probably) and at
>least a half decade younger than you were when you first heard of pythagorus
>(no probably about it).
You probably forgot it since before I was born, too. What's your
point? That you never learned it well enough to apply it to some-
thing more advanced than a triangle in plane geometry?
- Next message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
