Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585001 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-09 11:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-05-15 06:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 148 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 11:02 -0700
Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 11:09 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 11:13 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 11:30 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 11:31 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 11:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 11:32 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan fails basic algebra and fellow crank Dick Hertz rushes to suck up to him "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 11:36 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:04 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:06 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 17:33 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 18:33 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 18:57 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 19:16 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 18:39 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 18:51 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 18:54 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 18:58 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 19:18 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 19:43 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 23:34 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 06:24 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 10:36 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 10:43 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 11:11 -0700
Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 12:01 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 18:20 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 18:27 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 18:37 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 18:56 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 19:14 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 20:28 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 06:39 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 09:13 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 10:00 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 10:10 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 10:18 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 11:09 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 11:43 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 12:02 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 12:24 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 12:26 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 22:30 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-12 12:53 +0200
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 04:24 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 06:22 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 06:37 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 07:05 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 09:17 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 09:30 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 20:30 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 17:37 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 17:47 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 17:47 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:18 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 18:30 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:35 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:39 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 18:41 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:56 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 19:11 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 19:36 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:45 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-15 19:07 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-16 13:35 +0200
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-16 14:17 +0000
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-16 14:19 +0000
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-16 21:57 +0200
Re: Lying piece of shit Pat Dolan cannot follow simple algebra Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-16 20:17 +0000
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 06:52 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 09:21 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 10:39 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 11:08 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 11:39 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 12:02 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 12:11 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 15:56 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 16:46 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 17:35 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 18:28 -0700
Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 18:43 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 18:47 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 18:55 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 18:58 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 19:17 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 19:21 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 09:33 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 09:40 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 10:31 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 10:46 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 11:32 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 12:29 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 13:43 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 14:06 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 17:49 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 18:12 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 18:42 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 18:21 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-12 18:34 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 19:15 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 19:30 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-13 05:30 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 06:26 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-13 09:17 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-13 11:21 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 11:56 -0700
Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 17:06 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 19:04 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 19:15 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 19:40 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-10 20:25 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 20:57 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-10 23:40 -0500
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 23:15 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 00:38 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 06:42 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-11 00:28 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-09 23:37 -0700
Cretin Pat Dolan keeps trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 20:41 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 09:17 -0700
Imbecile Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 09:46 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 09:55 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 10:07 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 10:20 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 11:02 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:31 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 11:50 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 12:02 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 17:52 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 19:30 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 19:49 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 20:09 -0700
Re: How to Write a Transformation--Part One rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 06:20 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 10:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <8f05461a-d691-43a6-b840-2bdf0fca503en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585216 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:51:56 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:58:25 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:43:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:28:57 PM UTC-7, crank pat dolan trolled: > > > > > > From these wellformed strings of arithmetic: > > > > > > x' = g( v )[ x - vt ] > > > > > > t' = g( v )[ t - vx/c^2 ] > > > > > > x = g( v' )[ x' + v't' ] > > > > > > t = g( v' )[ t' + v'x'/c^2 ] > > > > > > derive this wellformed string of arithmetic: > > > > > > > > > > > > v = v' > > > > > > > > > > > > Go. > > > > > I did exactly that a few weeks ago, piece of shit. You couldn't follow the simple algebra. > > > > After elementary algebra, the 4 equations boil down to: > > > > > > Show all the steps > > > > (v-v')*(t'^2-x'^2/c^2)=0 > > That got you here. I dare you. > > > > > > > > with the only reasonable conclusion v'=v > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, from the above, any knowledgeable person derives that v'=v. > > > Only the Pat Dolan imbecile derives that x'/t'=c, i.e v'=c. > > > This is why Pat Dolan will die the way he was born: an idiot. > It is trivial algebra (not for you) from the 4 equations: > > x= g( v )[ x'+ vt' ] > x = g( v' )[ x' + v't' ] > t = g( v )[ t' +vx'/c^2 ] > t = g( v' )[ t' + v'x'/c^2 ] > Hint, you need to divide them in pairs in order to get rid of the g(v) and g(v') factors. Too difficult for an idiot like you. Then do it, dammit! Do it!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 10:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <a0a451eb-8736-48d6-a858-7e1fa9e3d522n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585219 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:51:56 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:58:25 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:43:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:28:57 PM UTC-7, crank pat dolan trolled: > > > > > > > From these wellformed strings of arithmetic: > > > > > > > x' = g( v )[ x - vt ] > > > > > > > t' = g( v )[ t - vx/c^2 ] > > > > > > > x = g( v' )[ x' + v't' ] > > > > > > > t = g( v' )[ t' + v'x'/c^2 ] > > > > > > > derive this wellformed string of arithmetic: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v = v' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go. > > > > > > I did exactly that a few weeks ago, piece of shit. You couldn't follow the simple algebra. > > > > > After elementary algebra, the 4 equations boil down to: > > > > > > > > Show all the steps > > > > > (v-v')*(t'^2-x'^2/c^2)=0 > > > That got you here. I dare you. > > > > > > > > > > with the only reasonable conclusion v'=v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, from the above, any knowledgeable person derives that v'=v. > > > > Only the Pat Dolan imbecile derives that x'/t'=c, i.e v'=c. > > > > This is why Pat Dolan will die the way he was born: an idiot. > > It is trivial algebra (not for you) from the 4 equations: > > > > x= g( v )[ x'+ vt' ] > > x = g( v' )[ x' + v't' ] > > t = g( v )[ t' +vx'/c^2 ] > > t = g( v' )[ t' + v'x'/c^2 ] > > Hint, you need to divide them in pairs in order to get rid of the g(v) and g(v') factors. Too difficult for an idiot like you. > Then do it, dammit! Do it!!!! Well rotchm? Well Stan? What does either of you have to say about being lured and trapped by someone with far more forethought and far more wisdom about all things scientific, philosophic, mathematical and logical than yourselves. Am I rushing you? Are you even off the phone with your therapists yet? I can wait awhile longer until you can form some words. Chump-ass(es)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 11:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <f5ac7a9b-e850-4b95-a5e7-6fc5a7b88d49n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585222 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 10:30:29 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > We start by observing that > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > for brevity Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong or unclear?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 12:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <de2163c5-1cff-4e82-b347-631b1b4e0873n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585223 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:32:51 AM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 10:30:29 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > We start by observing that > > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c > > As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you > call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems > x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object > at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and > an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion > dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > > for brevity > Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the > Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at > rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we > have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. > > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong > or unclear? Stan my boy, did you miss the post when I came around to your way of thinking then slaughtered the LTs based on your conclusions? Are you in shock and therefore catatonically arguing an argument that you have already won? Albeit at the cost of the mathematical integrity of the LTs. Should I call 911? And could someone near Montreal please check in on rotchm?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 12:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <b9858297-6a86-41b5-a07e-f7d9052512aan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585232 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:29:20 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > We start by observing that > > > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c > > > > As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you > > call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems > > x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object > > at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and > > an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion > > dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > > > > > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > > > for brevity > > > > Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the > > Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at > > rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we > > have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. > > > > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong > > or unclear? > > Stan my boy, did you miss the post when I ...slaughtered the LTs based on your > conclusions? That's the post that is debunked (for the second time) above (with units so c=1). Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong or unclear?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 13:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <58cecf36-22c6-4625-ad5c-65f94572322dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585234 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:34 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:29:20 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > We start by observing that > > > > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c > > > > > > As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you > > > call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems > > > x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object > > > at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and > > > an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion > > > dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > > > > for brevity > > > > > > Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the > > > Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at > > > rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we > > > have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong > > > or unclear? > > > > Stan my boy, did you miss the post when I ...slaughtered the LTs based on your > > conclusions? > > That's the post that is debunked (for the second time) above (with units so c=1). > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong or unclear? Yes Stan, c = 1 too. But that's the nature of ex falso quodlibet. From falsity anything follows. You can deduce that c or v is equal to pi or e. It doesn't matter when the entire logical structure is corrupt and rotten from within. Is there anything about the ex falso that remains unclear to you or that you still believe to be wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 14:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <c9266915-8578-4cdb-8dac-f7ac2aa37562n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585236 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:43:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > > We start by observing that > > > > > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c > > > > > > > > As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you > > > > call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems > > > > x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object > > > > at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and > > > > an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion > > > > dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > > > > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > > > > > for brevity > > > > > > > > Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the > > > > Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at > > > > rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we > > > > have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > > > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong > > > > or unclear? > > You can deduce that c or v is equal to pi or e. Well, c (like v) has dimensional units, so its numerical value can indeed be pi or e or anything else with a suitable choice of units. That is not physically significant. What matters are dimensionless ratios, such as v/c, which equals v if we choose units so c=1. > It doesn't matter when the entire logical structure is corrupt and rotten from within. Again, your attempt to find a contradiction has been debunked. You claimed to show that Lorentz invariance implies v=c, but that was just the result of silly misconceptions and trivial errors, as explained above. Is there anything about the debunking that you think is wrong or unclear?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 17:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <5eee8ed1-6f3f-4920-9188-f33c2be2162fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585237 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:06:09 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:43:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > We start by observing that > > > > > > v' = ∆x'/∆t' [1] .... so v=c > > > > > > > > > > As always, your reasoning is fallacious: You acknowledge that what you > > > > > call v' is v, so just call it v. Given two aligned inertial coordinate systems > > > > > x,t and x',t' related by Lorentz transformation with parameter v, an object > > > > > at rest in x',t' (meaning dx'/dt' = 0) has the equation of motion dx/dt = v, and > > > > > an object at rest in x,t (meaning dx/dt = 0) has the equation of motion > > > > > dx'/dt' = -v. This does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > > > > > > We now apply the LTs to the numerator and denominator...Deltas (∆) are omitted > > > > > > for brevity > > > > > > > > > > Your omission of the "deltas" leads you to error: The differential form of the > > > > > Lorentz transformation is dx'=(dx-vdt)g and dt'=(dt-vdx)g, so for any particle at > > > > > rest in x,t we have -v = (dx-vdt)/(dt-vdx), and since this particle is at rest in x,t we > > > > > have dx=0, so the equation reduces to -v = -v. Again, this does not imply that v=1. > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything about this debunking of your claim that you think is wrong > > > > > or unclear? > > > > You can deduce that c or v is equal to pi or e. > Well, c (like v) has dimensional units, so its numerical value can indeed be pi or e or > anything else with a suitable choice of units. That is not physically significant. What > matters are dimensionless ratios, such as v/c, which equals v if we choose units so c=1. > > It doesn't matter when the entire logical structure is corrupt and rotten from within. > Again, your attempt to find a contradiction has been debunked. You claimed to show > that Lorentz invariance implies v=c, but that was just the result of silly misconceptions > and trivial errors, as explained above. Is there anything about the debunking that you > think is wrong or unclear? Just who do you think you are gainsaying, Stan? Who do you think you are talking to? At least rotchm has the presence of mind to remain silent after he has been bested by The man who broke arithmetic The man who broke the spacetime interval The man who derived the Lorentz contraction velocity formula The man who discovered the conflict between Einstein One and Kepler Three There's one more I'm forgetting...does anyone remember? What have you ever done Stan?...<crickets>...I thought so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 18:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <4eeaf6a7-d096-44a8-b762-25d72d741e65n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585241 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:49:44 PM UTC-7, crank pat dolan wrote: > There's one more I'm forgetting...does anyone remember? > THE delusional idiot of the village.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 18:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <a9a33373-ebb3-485e-b4bd-b0916cc91650n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585241 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:49:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > Just who do you think you are gainsaying, Stan? Who do you think you are talking to? At least rotchm has the presence of mind to remain silent after he has been bested by > > The man who broke arithmetic > The man who broke the spacetime interval > The man who derived the Lorentz contraction velocity formula > The man who discovered the conflict between Einstein One and Kepler Three > There's one more I'm forgetting...does anyone remember? "Big egos are big shields for lots of empty space." - Diana Black
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 18:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <70b90d03-f2b2-4a3e-8bbb-31909c82bc1an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585222 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > Well rotchm? Well Stan? What does either of you have to say Well, I already answered you. You agreed that I was right in that you are wrong. That is all that matters in this thread. Now you are asking you question. For that , you must start a new thread. And I suggest you correct the many errors you made before you repost your question in a new thread. Yes of course I saw what you wrote and you have many many errors. This shows that you are very confused and that you are nil at math. Hence, you are no longer worthy of our time. You are just a loser seeking attention. You should try a new hobby like collect rocks or try to catch flies with your mouth. You will have more success with that then you have with basic algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 18:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <e1f64aa1-c364-45fd-915f-5cac3f301e7cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585244 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:21:23 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > Well rotchm? Well Stan? What does either of you have to say > Well, I already answered you. You agreed that I was right in that you are wrong. That is all that matters in this thread. > Now you are asking you question. For that , you must start a new thread. And I suggest you correct the many errors you made before you repost your question in a new thread. Yes of course I saw what you wrote and you have many many errors. This shows that you are very confused and that you are nil at math. Hence, you are no longer worthy of our time. You are just a loser seeking attention. You should try a new hobby like collect rocks or try to catch flies with your mouth. You will have more success with that then you have with basic algebra. x' = g(v)(x - vt) [A] t' = g(v)(t - vx/c^2) [B] ∆x'/∆t' = g(v)(∆x-v∆t)/g(v)(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [2] ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x-v∆t)/(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [3] ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x∆'t/∆t' [5] ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] ∆x'/∆t' = c [8] v' = c [9]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 19:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <1e37ad02-350a-4191-b6b4-f6fccd06580bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585245 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:34:02 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > x' = g(v)(x - vt) [A] > t' = g(v)(t - vx/c^2) [B] > > ∆x'/∆t' = g(v)(∆x-v∆t)/g(v)(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [2] > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x-v∆t)/(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [3] > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x∆'t/∆t' [5] > > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] > > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] > > ∆x'/∆t' = c [8] > > v' = c [9] Again, you made basic mistakes in there. But since You've shown yourself to be an idiot who can't even manage basic math, there is no point in discussing with you. You're just too "dumb". Go take a little high school math and then maybe a bit of college math and come back here in a year or so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-12 19:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <3c2b326e-4d7f-4daf-807d-171f57589746n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585245 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] Again, you are writing the relations for a particle at rest in x,t, which means dx/dt = 0 and d'x/dt' = -v, so the right side of the above equation is simply dx'/dt', which you have found is equal to dx'/dt'. Magnificent. > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x ∆'t/∆t' [5] Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so your equation is dx' dt/dt' = 0, which obviously does not follow rationally from anything. > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so this equation is 0 = 0. Magnificent. > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] Nope, the relation 0 = 0 does not imply that v = c. (Duh)^Duh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 05:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <d5daa34d-3be3-4901-b5d5-77f02bcad63bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585248 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:30:17 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > Again, you are writing the relations for a particle at rest in x,t, which means > dx/dt = 0 and d'x/dt' = -v, so the right side of the above equation is simply > dx'/dt', which you have found is equal to dx'/dt'. Magnificent. > > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x ∆'t/∆t' [5] > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so your equation is > dx' dt/dt' = 0, which obviously does not follow rationally from anything. > > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so this equation is > 0 = 0. Magnificent. > > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] > Nope, the relation 0 = 0 does not imply that v = c. (Duh)^Duh. Stan, you BSer. Have a look: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/einstein-velocity-addition/v/einstein-velocity-addition-formula-derivation Let me know if there is anything in this video that you don't understand or is unclear to a novice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 06:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <28f322fc-ae40-453f-8032-beb9cc793509n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585262 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > > Again, you are writing the relations for a particle at rest in x,t, which means > > dx/dt = 0 and d'x/dt' = -v, so the right side of the above equation is simply > > dx'/dt', which you have found is equal to dx'/dt'. Magnificent. > > > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x ∆'t/∆t' [5] > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so your equation is > > dx' dt/dt' = 0, which obviously does not follow rationally from anything. > > > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so this equation is > > 0 = 0. Magnificent. > > > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] > > Nope, the relation 0 = 0 does not imply that v = c. (Duh)^Duh. > > Have a look [at a youtube video]. Let me know if there is anything in this > video that you don't understand or is unclear to a novice. Again, your absurd claim that the Lorentz transformation implies v=c has been thoroughly debunked (see above). Your mistake was not realizing that the interval you are referring to has dx'/dt' = -v and dx/dt = 0. If you need more help understanding this, just ask. (Exhibiting infantile echoalia is not helping you learn.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 09:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <4d91330a-73c1-4d49-ae55-15dd11aab57bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585264 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:26:36 AM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > > > Again, you are writing the relations for a particle at rest in x,t, which means > > > dx/dt = 0 and d'x/dt' = -v, so the right side of the above equation is simply > > > dx'/dt', which you have found is equal to dx'/dt'. Magnificent. > > > > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x ∆'t/∆t' [5] > > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so your equation is > > > dx' dt/dt' = 0, which obviously does not follow rationally from anything. > > > > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] > > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so this equation is > > > 0 = 0. Magnificent. > > > > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] > > > Nope, the relation 0 = 0 does not imply that v = c. (Duh)^Duh. > > > > Have a look [at a youtube video]. Let me know if there is anything in this > > video that you don't understand or is unclear to a novice. > Again, your absurd claim that the Lorentz transformation implies v=c has > been thoroughly debunked (see above). Your mistake was not realizing that > the interval you are referring to has dx'/dt' = -v and dx/dt = 0. If you need > more help understanding this, just ask. (Exhibiting infantile echoalia is > not helping you learn.) Slippery Stan, why are you responding to me again instead of Khan's video? Instruct this forum how Khan's derivation is different from mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 11:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <5b716801-6887-46ae-a379-f022146365d5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585270 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:17:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > > > > Again, you are writing the relations for a particle at rest in x,t, which means > > > > dx/dt = 0 and d'x/dt' = -v, so the right side of the above equation is simply > > > > dx'/dt', which you have found is equal to dx'/dt'. Magnificent. > > > > > ∆x'∆t/∆t' + ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x + ∆x ∆'t/∆t' [5] > > > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so your equation is > > > > dx' dt/dt' = 0, which obviously does not follow rationally from anything. > > > > > ∆x∆x'^2/c^2∆t'^2 = ∆x [6] > > > > Again, for the interval you are describing, dx=0, so this equation is > > > > 0 = 0. Magnificent. > > > > > ∆x'^2 = c^2∆t'^2 [7] > > > > Nope, the relation 0 = 0 does not imply that v = c. (Duh)^Duh. > > ...how [is youtube] derivation [of velocity addition formula] different from mine? You have not presented a derivation of the velocity addition formula, you have presented a childishly absurd pseudo-derivation of the ridiculous claim that the Lorentz transformation implies v=c. Your fallacious pseudo-reasoning was debunked above. If you see anything that you think is wrong or unclear in the debunking, go ahead and point it out. Keep in mind that for the interval you are considering, ∆x'/∆t' = -v and ∆x = 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 10:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <3d555bdf-d412-4aad-bba4-5219caa6ce88n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585245 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:21:23 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Well rotchm? Well Stan? What does either of you have to say > > Well, I already answered you. You agreed that I was right in that you are wrong. That is all that matters in this thread. > > Now you are asking you question. For that , you must start a new thread. And I suggest you correct the many errors you made before you repost your question in a new thread. Yes of course I saw what you wrote and you have many many errors. This shows that you are very confused and that you are nil at math. Hence, you are no longer worthy of our time. You are just a loser seeking attention. You should try a new hobby like collect rocks or try to catch flies with your mouth. You will have more success with that then you have with basic algebra. > x' = g(v)(x - vt) [A] > t' = g(v)(t - vx/c^2) [B] > > ∆x'/∆t' = g(v)(∆x-v∆t)/g(v)(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [2] > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x-v∆t)/(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [3] This is ok > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > This is wrong since, like the idiot you are, you are taking v' to be equal to ∆x'/∆t' Face it, Pattycakes, you are inept. > v' = c [9] No. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 11:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Pat Dolan keeps on trolling |
| Message-ID | <b499eae8-e8b2-4eee-991e-e5d90b9ca4a7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585273 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:21:23 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > Well rotchm? Well Stan? What does either of you have to say > > > Well, I already answered you. You agreed that I was right in that you are wrong. That is all that matters in this thread. > > > Now you are asking you question. For that , you must start a new thread. And I suggest you correct the many errors you made before you repost your question in a new thread. Yes of course I saw what you wrote and you have many many errors. This shows that you are very confused and that you are nil at math. Hence, you are no longer worthy of our time. You are just a loser seeking attention. You should try a new hobby like collect rocks or try to catch flies with your mouth. You will have more success with that then you have with basic algebra. > > x' = g(v)(x - vt) [A] > > t' = g(v)(t - vx/c^2) [B] > > > > ∆x'/∆t' = g(v)(∆x-v∆t)/g(v)(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [2] > > > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x-v∆t)/(∆t-v∆x/c^2) [3] > This is ok > > ∆x'/∆t' = (∆x+[∆x'∆t/∆t'])/(∆t+∆x∆x'/∆t'c^2) [4] > > > This is wrong since, like the idiot you are, you are taking v' to be equal to ∆x'/∆t' > > Face it, Pattycakes, you are inept. > > > > > v' = c [9] > > No. Idiot. Dono, if you were going to represent v' in coordinate space and time, how would YOU do it? Just plain v ? If so, then how would YOU represent v ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web