Dono.

2021-11-26 17:40:13 UTC

Reply

PermalinkDiscussion:

Add Reply

Dono.

2021-11-26 17:40:13 UTC

Reply

Permalink
Richard Hertz

2021-11-26 20:40:23 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge amount of shit that you carry along.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-26 20:54:00 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz

2021-11-26 22:04:30 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Wannabe physicist maybe? And fail miserably at it too.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-26 22:47:44 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

retire from it early and do what I do now out of choice.

But to your point, why would you then rant your denigrations of physicists

to people who aren’t that?

Nah, I don’t want to be a physicist. As I recall, you do. You think physics

should be left to people like you.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak

2021-11-27 07:39:22 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

retire from it early and do what I do now out of choice.

nor propositional calculus.

JanPB

2021-11-26 22:48:29 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

on sci.math their resident idiots consider the term "physicist" to be an insult.

Poor demented people.

--

Jan

Dono.

2021-11-26 22:54:19 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge

amount of shit that you carry along.

working history, which tolerated (if not actually promoted) unhealthy

relationships.

So your aim here is to vent a lot of pent up bile. By whatever methods

satisfy that need.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

on sci.math their resident idiots consider the term "physicist" to be an insult.

Poor demented people.

--

Jan

Python

2021-11-26 23:04:06 UTC

Reply

Permalink...

Funny thing on this NG idiots consider "mathematician" to be an insult while

on sci.math their resident idiots consider the term "physicist" to be an insult.

Poor demented people.

--

Jan

The most prominent resident idiot on sci.math is actually

a physicist (well... he has a degree in physics and published

a few articles) Wolfgang Mückenheim. The sad part of the

story is that he is actually "teaching" his nonsense about

set theory to be contradictory to students, at Hochschule

Augsburg.

Chason Aceta

2021-11-30 02:23:26 UTC

Reply

PermalinkPoor demented people. -- Jan

I need to have a look over at sci.math, this promises to be fun!PROF. SUCHARIT BHAKDI: THE COVID "VACCINES" WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL

https://www.brighteon.com/39255c9d-a5be-4fa2-a212-b0afd16a43e1

Chason Aceta

2021-11-28 20:59:39 UTC

Reply

PermalinkFunny thing on this NG idiots consider "mathematician" to be an insult

while on sci.math their resident idiots consider the term "physicist" to

be an insult. Poor demented people.

math as hobby, not understanding how the math is done in university and

research centers.

Dono.

2021-11-26 21:10:06 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Brain Hubbs

2021-11-26 21:33:05 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the

huge amount of shit that you carry along.

Loading Image...

Dono.

2021-11-26 21:25:18 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-26 21:38:42 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

task anyways, as demonstrated over many years). It is our charter to mock

them. Mercilessly.

In fact, they will claim they are here to educate others. About the only

recourse there is to point out in the simplest terms possible what a

foolish presumption that is. The problem is that’s it’s so foolish that it

skirts or even crosses the line into psychotic thinking, and there is no

way to convince someone online if their psychosis. Unless of course,

they’ve already been diagnosed and they’re already aware of it.

Mitch knows he’s mentally ill. Robert Winn knows it. Richard Hachel has

been with doctors, though he deflects by saying *he* is the psychiatrist

treating *them*.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

JanPB

2021-11-26 22:45:11 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

--

Jan

patdolan

2021-11-27 14:07:19 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only correct, it is the second postulate.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 14:17:52 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel

2021-11-27 15:03:08 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

That reminds me of Thomas Smith's immortal string of fumbles:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wrong.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotQuiteWithYou.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html

Dirk Vdm

Michael Moroney

2021-11-27 15:33:45 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wrong.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotQuiteWithYou.html

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html

Dirk Vdm

But I do recognize that keeping it current would be a full time job. :-)

Richard Hertz

2021-11-27 17:55:49 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

Yes. And I lost interest in gathering and maintaining them.

I usually block everything except for a rather short whitelist

of posters.

Look! That's a full time conceited idiot, now tired of filtering the idiocies written by himself and his "relativist friends".I usually block everything except for a rather short whitelist

of posters.

Now he sees that, after 15 years of biased stalking, that he wasted 2,800 hours of his pathetic life for nothing.

And, as he suffers so much by reading attacks against his credo, now lives within a cocoon (along his dearest Dono).

A list of your fumbles, plus Moroney's ones, would be 10 times bigger. But you have a blinded kind of judgment,

which is essential to prevent that idiots get the critical point of awakening to the truth. Zero memory is what nature

provides for retarded like you to survive.

Chason Aceta

2021-11-28 20:35:51 UTC

Reply

PermalinkA list of your fumbles, plus Moroney's ones, would be 10 times bigger.

But you have a blinded kind of judgment,

which is essential to prevent that idiots get the critical point of

awakening to the truth. Zero memory is what nature provides for retarded

like you to survive.

his middle name.

patdolan

2021-11-27 17:51:49 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world champion math idiots, after all.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 18:16:23 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-27 18:23:29 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or system of equations you want solved and why.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 18:28:30 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-27 18:38:40 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

Nabor Nave

2021-11-27 18:49:30 UTC

Reply

PermalinkYou dirty phony. Bodkin, I have never hated myself on account of

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity,

or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure cooker of

self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

death_vaxx and you are singing?? How stupid can you be. You have to enter

the building and take them out, arrest, judging and so on. Apply Nuremberg

1 and 2 to those traitors. Yesterday.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 19:05:08 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-27 20:22:12 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

patdolan

2021-11-27 20:58:31 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ | t-final minus t-initial | ]

Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

--velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel

2021-11-27 21:05:04 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [ | t-final minus t-initial | ]

Pat Dolan playing with a razor.

Dirk Vdm

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 21:22:54 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

--velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-27 22:13:13 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

Well, this seems a little stupid. Since the coordinate systems are moving

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

x',x,t' and t are found/defined in the usual way using the LTs with some

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

--velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-27 22:33:36 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz

2021-11-27 22:42:49 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic symbols any way you want to. Go.

You can do it, right Bodkin? Render the second postulate in formula form? If you are having trouble maybe one of your chums can help you: Dirk, Jan, Tom Roberts, Sylvia, rotchm, Moroney, Townes, Prokary, Python, euroHenry, the Pauls, Mitch?2nd. conjecture of the retarded (he called postulate and, in the same page, increase it to a principle):

I declare, but valid only AFTER I contradict it in the next two pages, that:

c+v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 23:27:23 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic

symbols any way you want to. Go.

You can do it, right Bodkin? Render the second postulate in formulasymbols any way you want to. Go.

Dirk, Jan, Tom Roberts, Sylvia, rotchm, Moroney, Townes, Prokary,

Python, euroHenry, the Pauls, Mitch?

c+v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-28 00:21:50 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic symbols any way you want to. Go.

You can do it, right Bodkin? Render the second postulate in formula form? If you are having trouble maybe one of your chums can help you: Dirk, Jan, Tom Roberts, Sylvia, rotchm, Moroney, Townes, Prokary, Python, euroHenry, the Pauls, Mitch?c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 01:04:58 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

just to troll relativists here, paragraph per paragraph. It's, for me, a source of immense joy to read them to suffer, retort and call names.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 02:05:15 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

symbols any way you want to. Go.

Dirk, Jan, Tom Roberts, Sylvia, rotchm, Moroney, Townes, Prokary,

Python, euroHenry, the Pauls, Mitch?

c+v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

to study the 1905 paper. In fact, I don't recall every studying any

paper authored by a 26 year old. At that age scientist-in-the-making

just haven't developed the proper scientific circumspection to produce a

logically tight product. Relativity can be dismissed out of hand with a

momentary glance at it's most famous formulas and conclusions. No need

to recur to the original text. I'm sure this has been your experience too.

full fledged nerd. So, I've analyzed the original papers (even in german),

just to troll relativists here, paragraph per paragraph. It's, for me, a

source of immense joy to read them to suffer, retort and call names.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 03:59:44 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or "trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

For instance, the word "fringe" has been adopted by middle class youth, but using it with an entirely different meaning

than in English. Just read an article on a local newspaper few weeks ago.

The same thing may happen with my use of "shill", which has been extensively used in political forums for the last 5 years, here.

Please, enlighten me of what "trolling" other person(s) mean. For me, is to tease them, in the finest possible way.

To tease: to make an attempt to provoke (a person or animal) in a playful way, enjoying reactions.

Paul Alsing

2021-11-28 04:13:05 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or "trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

For instance, the word "fringe" has been adopted by middle class youth, but using it with an entirely different meaning

than in English. Just read an article on a local newspaper few weeks ago.

The same thing may happen with my use of "shill", which has been extensively used in political forums for the last 5 years, here.

Please, enlighten me of what "trolling" other person(s) mean. For me, is to tease them, in the finest possible way.

To tease: to make an attempt to provoke (a person or animal) in a playful way, enjoying reactions.

"In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive... extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses... or manipulating others' perception."

If you use the link, you might find a picture of *you* there, for it describes you perfectly, Richard...

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 04:30:48 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or "trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

For instance, the word "fringe" has been adopted by middle class youth, but using it with an entirely different meaning

than in English. Just read an article on a local newspaper few weeks ago.

The same thing may happen with my use of "shill", which has been extensively used in political forums for the last 5 years, here.

Please, enlighten me of what "trolling" other person(s) mean. For me, is to tease them, in the finest possible way.

To tease: to make an attempt to provoke (a person or animal) in a playful way, enjoying reactions.

"In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive... extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses... or manipulating others' perception."

If you use the link, you might find a picture of *you* there, for it describes you perfectly, Richard...

Now I'll try to find what is a Dr. Jekyll of a fucking relativist like you. Relativistic Mr. Hyde is quite evident. It just takes to read posts.

No matter how hard I try, I can't get a picture of what your and alike Dr. Jekylls are. The good Dr. Jekyll I mean.

No way. It's beyond my reason.

Paul Alsing

2021-11-28 06:33:25 UTC

Reply

PermalinkYou need a new pastime because this one is beyond your reason...

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 13:29:33 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or

"trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

false or misleading purely for the sake of inciting a vociferous response.

This is what you do. And you celebrate it. You find it recreational, even

though it is widely regarded on the internet as repulsive, boorish

behavior. You can look that up.

For instance, the word "fringe" has been adopted by middle class youth,

but using it with an entirely different meaning

than in English. Just read an article on a local newspaper few weeks ago.

The same thing may happen with my use of "shill", which has been

extensively used in political forums for the last 5 years, here.

Please, enlighten me of what "trolling" other person(s) mean. For me, is

to tease them, in the finest possible way.

To tease: to make an attempt to provoke (a person or animal) in a playful

way, enjoying reactions.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel

2021-11-28 14:12:34 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or

"trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

false or misleading purely for the sake of inciting a vociferous response.

This is what you do. And you celebrate it. You find it recreational, even

though it is widely regarded on the internet as repulsive, boorish

behavior. You can look that up.

get away with it, as we have seen here from the beginning.

Not so when they troll in person: they risk ending up with a

punch on the nose.

Trolls are just cowards.

Dirk vdm

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 17:49:15 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

On the internet widely regarded as repulsive, but they easily

get away with it, as we have seen here from the beginning.

Not so when they troll in person: they risk ending up with a

punch on the nose.

Trolls are just cowards.

That's new, even for a faggot dutch. I'd like that dreamed situation: You finishing not only mentally beaten but with a couple of teeth less. I always have been good at that. That's what alpha do: submit others mentally and physically, pussy. I'd really pay a lot of $ for such event.

It must be very frustrating for you to become a test dummy, fucking imbecile.

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 16:35:58 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or

"trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

false or misleading purely for the sake of inciting a vociferous response.

This is what you do. And you celebrate it. You find it recreational, even

though it is widely regarded on the internet as repulsive, boorish

behavior. You can look that up.

mostly used on different convictions, lame decisions or some flaws of character. It's a short and direct way

to use a metaphoric punch to display CLEARLY other people's IDIOCIES, even with an analogy.

To troll someone successfully, it's required to outwit the other in a game based on intelligence. It means superiority.

Abusing the concept embedded in trolling happens when the "troller" use other's physical or mental impairments, which

is cheap and mean.

This is not my case. I find pleasure in trolling those who believe that they are "the great thing", those who are vain, those

who make "downplaying people" a way of life, and similar stuff.

For instance, fucking imbeciles, I NEVER EVER addressed credences of people who innocently come here to tell about

their personal achievements, like Seto or Lake, or that have some problems in being coherent like Raemsch.

You are the pack of hyenas who go after the weak characters to make a fest with them. And this happens because most

of those involved are despicable human beings.

I troll the self-claimed "superior" here (Bodkin, Dono, Dirk, Python and similar pieces of shit). I don't troll Paul Andersen,

who I consider being A GOOD HUMAN BEING. I have excess with Moroney, but still I find him being A GOOD PERSON

in the end, only confused. I even have a weakness for JanPB candor, no matter how aggressive he can be with me sometimes.

But, with the true son of a bitch that are here (Dono, Bodkin, moortel and similar shit), I have no mercy in trolling them.

Because they are bad people, rotten to the core, and they show such Mr. Hyde side of them every time they can.

If you are the kind of asshole that I mentioned, then I will troll you EVERY TIME I can, and justice will be served.

Maybe, it's kind of some Lone Ranger Syndrome, but it's right because I address only the scumbag at this site.

This happens when I'm "trolling". Now, when I'm not doing that and post a sincere post, it's up to you to understand the intention.

I can't help with your cretinism and imbecility and try to guide you in the understanding of my post. If you are a retarded and don't

get it (which is usual with Dono, Bodkin, moortel, etc.), then fuck you. I don't care.

So, in the end, it's up to your intellectual level to understand the differences in two types of posting: trolling and being sincere.

But, as you don't have what's required and feel uneasy under my lines of thought, you prefer to reject every thing that I post.

I satisfy my objectives and you, apparently, satisfy yours (to keep being stupid persons).

It's OK with me. I didn't designed this world which we all inhabit: stupid people living together to mean people and together to

good and INTELLIGENT people (you are in the first two types).

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 20:13:15 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is a chance about that. In Argentina the words "troll" or

"trolling" are used as English words, but may have

a local difference here at Buenos Aires than in USA.

false or misleading purely for the sake of inciting a vociferous response.

This is what you do. And you celebrate it. You find it recreational, even

though it is widely regarded on the internet as repulsive, boorish

behavior. You can look that up.

tease someone using his/her weak spots,

mostly used on different convictions, lame decisions or some flaws of

character. It's a short and direct way

to use a metaphoric punch to display CLEARLY other people's IDIOCIES, even with an analogy.

To troll someone successfully, it's required to outwit the other in a

game based on intelligence. It means superiority.

Richard.

Abusing the concept embedded in trolling happens when the "troller" use

other's physical or mental impairments, which

is cheap and mean.

This is not my case. I find pleasure in trolling those who believe that

they are "the great thing", those who are vain, those

who make "downplaying people" a way of life, and similar stuff.

For instance, fucking imbeciles, I NEVER EVER addressed credences of

people who innocently come here to tell about

their personal achievements, like Seto or Lake, or that have some

problems in being coherent like Raemsch.

You are the pack of hyenas who go after the weak characters to make a

fest with them. And this happens because most

of those involved are despicable human beings.

I troll the self-claimed "superior" here (Bodkin, Dono, Dirk, Python and

similar pieces of shit). I don't troll Paul Andersen,

who I consider being A GOOD HUMAN BEING. I have excess with Moroney, but

still I find him being A GOOD PERSON

in the end, only confused. I even have a weakness for JanPB candor, no

matter how aggressive he can be with me sometimes.

But, with the true son of a bitch that are here (Dono, Bodkin, moortel

and similar shit), I have no mercy in trolling them.

Because they are bad people, rotten to the core, and they show such Mr.

Hyde side of them every time they can.

If you are the kind of asshole that I mentioned, then I will troll you

EVERY TIME I can, and justice will be served.

Maybe, it's kind of some Lone Ranger Syndrome, but it's right because I

address only the scumbag at this site.

This happens when I'm "trolling". Now, when I'm not doing that and post a

sincere post, it's up to you to understand the intention.

I can't help with your cretinism and imbecility and try to guide you in

the understanding of my post. If you are a retarded and don't

get it (which is usual with Dono, Bodkin, moortel, etc.), then fuck you. I don't care.

So, in the end, it's up to your intellectual level to understand the

differences in two types of posting: trolling and being sincere.

But, as you don't have what's required and feel uneasy under my lines of

thought, you prefer to reject every thing that I post.

I satisfy my objectives and you, apparently, satisfy yours (to keep being stupid persons).

stupid people living together to mean people and together to

good and INTELLIGENT people (you are in the first two types).

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 02:05:13 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

symbols any way you want to. Go.

Dirk, Jan, Tom Roberts, Sylvia, rotchm, Moroney, Townes, Prokary,

Python, euroHenry, the Pauls, Mitch?

c+v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Einstenianism at its highest.

time to study the 1905 paper.

In fact, I don't recall every studying any paper authored by a 26 year

old. At that age scientist-in-the-making just haven't developed the

proper scientific circumspection to produce a logically tight product.

Relativity can be dismissed out of hand with a momentary glance at it's

most famous formulas and conclusions. No need to recur to the original

text. I'm sure this has been your experience too.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-27 22:40:50 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

But since you asked for a formula, try this one:

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).

Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Paul Alsing

2021-11-27 23:02:36 UTC

Reply

Permalink...I remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

Isn't this pretty much what engineers do?splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

patdolan

2021-11-28 00:07:06 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).

Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 00:16:26 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).

Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?

your face, by your own account. Here, take this towel and dry your face

then tell us what specific spacetime events your formula is referring to.

understand that this stands for the difference in the x coordinates of two

specified events.

If you don’t know what formula to use when, because you don’t understand

the PHYSICS then what’s the point of doing the algebra?

May want to read a book. Might help.

synchronized clocks at specific points in spacetime? What kind of idiot

are you?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-28 00:24:16 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).

Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?

your face, by your own account. Here, take this towel and dry your face

then tell us what specific spacetime events your formula is referring to.

understand that this stands for the difference in the x coordinates of two

specified events.

patdolan

9:51 AM (7 hours ago)

to

Bodkin and Dirk,

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

If you don’t know what formula to use when, because you don’t understand

the PHYSICS then what’s the point of doing the algebra?

May want to read a book. Might help.

I see none! Just high school algebra. Where is the lattice of

synchronized clocks at specific points in spacetime? What kind of idiotare you?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 02:05:14 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).

Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?

your face, by your own account. Here, take this towel and dry your face

then tell us what specific spacetime events your formula is referring to.

understand that this stands for the difference in the x coordinates of two

specified events.

patdolan

9:51 AM (7 hours ago)

to

Bodkin and Dirk,

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative velocity

v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

in mind?

If you don’t know what formula to use when, because you don’t understand

the PHYSICS then what’s the point of doing the algebra?

May want to read a book. Might help.

I see none! Just high school algebra. Where is the lattice of

synchronized clocks at specific points in spacetime? What kind of idiotare you?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-28 16:07:58 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm 16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

or equivalently

x'/t' = x/t = v

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-28 16:39:59 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel

2021-11-28 17:14:08 UTC

Reply

PermalinkAnd again. So silly!

*Post by patdolan*

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

Note that a consequence of other postulates is not a postulate. You see a

problem here too, Pat?

I see not problems Bodkin. Spell it out for us. Spoon feed (as you like to put it) the entire world. Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity.Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

"critical relativity theory", you were actually intravenously

baxtered. Good grief, what a sub-twerp you have become :-|

Dirk Vdm

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 20:26:50 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity.

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-28 23:08:48 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity.

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-29 01:18:37 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity.

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-29 02:15:06 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

Now is your chance to be the world's greatest teacher of Relativity.

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-29 03:27:27 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOn Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8,

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Dono.*

One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin and Dirk,

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissingOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every

aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

not zero while v is.

Feel like an idiot yet?

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan

2021-11-29 05:27:08 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOn Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-8,

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Odd Bodkin*

*Post by patdolan*

*Post by Dono.*

One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

I request that Dirk Vdm be added to the cranks list based on this recent

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

That depends on what events these deltas are taken to be between.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin and Dirk,

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

Yes I do. You’re looking at ONE event so far.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

As I said, Pat, if you can’t be precise about your notation you’re pissingOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

"So when you write

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

16-Nov-2021

What an idiot. c is a velocity. ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = c is not only

correct, it is the second postulate.

If you can’t be precise about your notation, then you’re just pissing in a

gale.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You two immortal fumbling fools. Consider two FoRs with relative

velocity v whose origins coincide at t = t' = 0 and whose x and

x' axes coincide.

x’/t’ = [ γ( x - vt ) ] / [ γ( t - xv/c^2 ) ]

You know where this is going...or do you? You are a couple of world

champion math idiots, after all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself, you double

talking maker of fine Pinocchios. Better yet, write the equation or

system of equations you want solved and why.

upwind in a gale. So far you seem to be saying you can do junior high

algebra but you have no idea what the variables mean.

dishonesty. If you said the same, you would be dishonest. Is

relativity, or any other scientific theory, really worth the pressure

cooker of self-hate building in your's and Dirk's souls?

The question was simple.

What are the pairs of events that you are using for ∆x’, ∆t’ and ∆x, ∆t

intervals? Surely you can talk about something physical going on and not

just do junior high algebra.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins

coincide.

is a flash of light from a small bulb that is the event.

and

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Event 2 located at spacetime point (x' = x, t' = t)

Do you further agree with me, and disagree with that immortal fumble-ass Dirk that

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c for all intervals [ | x-final minus x-initial | ] / [

| t-final minus t-initial | ]

light cone or the past light cone of event 1. Again, if you can’t precisely

specify the events….

Maybe it would be better if you just gave some numerical value for x and t

for event 2, and then we can try to see what x’ and t’ might be.

relative to each other, x will never equal x’ at any event other than the

one just mentioned. Same for t and t’. So THAT won’t work.

Again, if you cannot specify the pairs of events where these deltas are

going to be measured between….

velocity v which is specified as parallel to the x' and x axes, both of

which also coincide.

Do you agree to these terms Bodkin, before the combat begins?

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

symbols any way you want to. Go.

some confidence in doing algebra but don’t know what the variables mean. I

remember studying with physics study partners who would get frustrated and

splutter, “Just tell me what formula to use, and I’ll plug everything in.”

This just meant that they understood nothing, of course.

I think you should probably ease off on the breastplate-thumping and just

read a good book on the subject, rather than looking for an education in

the subject here.

Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.

When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.

May I pause a moment to declare how much I love, cherish and respect your

choice of the notation, v'.

Let's continue with your notation, this time substituting 0 for v.

v' = (0+u)/(1+0u/c^2)

which leads to

v' = u

u being the relative velocity between reference frames, so that

v' = u = v

And again. So silly!

Thank you bodkin for bringing us to yet another demonstration of the

third postulate by means of the velocity addition formula. This pretty

much cements the fact that the third postulate is baked into every

aspect of relativity.

problem here too, Pat?

to put it) the entire world.

I’ll do the first one for you, so you can feel a little sheepish about how

bad you are with this. Others here won’t have your problems.

v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), put in c for v

v’=(c+u)/(1+cu/c^2)=c(c+u)/[c(1+u/c)]=c(c+u)/(c+u)=c

Note that v’ is not 1.

not zero while v is.

v'=u

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t

Feel like an idiot yet?

You haven’t read the 1905 paper. You’ve not read ANY instructional books

about relativity. You cannot do 7th grade algebra. And yet you bluster and

puff about, like a runt rooster, making a great show of being a laughable

fool.

Now do you really need to have the other silliness rubbed on your nose, or

have you had enough?

That formula is directly derivable from the Lorentz transforms.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger

2021-11-28 06:53:30 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is

repeated is wrong.

Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so

often, rather then about what you believe.

But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because

you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority.

This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead

of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not

agree to what was brainwashed into your head.

TH

Richard Hertz

2021-11-28 07:00:47 UTC

Reply

PermalinkSo, then clearly Einstein's heirs are the Mr. Hyde of every single die hard relativist here and all over out there.

Crystal clear now.

One common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is

repeated is wrong.

Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so

often, rather then about what you believe.

But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because

you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority.

This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead

of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not

agree to what was brainwashed into your head.

TH

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 13:29:34 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is

repeated is wrong.

Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so

often, rather then about what you believe.

But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because

you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority.

This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead

of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not

agree to what was brainwashed into your head.

TH

EITHER indoctrination or education. Don’t muddle the two.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak

2021-11-28 15:55:36 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is

repeated is wrong.

Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so

often, rather then about what you believe.

But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because

you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority.

This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead

of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not

agree to what was brainwashed into your head.

TH

convinced an idiot woodworker.

Michael Moroney

2021-11-28 14:52:23 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people,

how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they

still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

others) really seems to be textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect at work. These

people all think they are more knowledgeable than they actually are.

I am surprised that the Dunning-Kruger paper is rather recent. I would

have expected it to have been characterized during the time of Freud or

so. On the other hand, saying someone "doesn't know what he doesn't

know" is a very old expression.

People telling others that they are wrong isn't voting on 'truth'. It is

simply telling them they are wrong.

Also the number of repetitions would make no difference, if what is

repeated is wrong.

Therefore we should discuss about the validity of what is repeated so

often, rather then about what you believe.

they linked?) would rather repeat their claims than learn or discuss

validity. Their Dunning-Kruger prevents them from realizing they need to

learn. And those who try to correct them think that they will learn if

corrected enough. Thus both "sides" repeat.

But that is actually your weak side, because you do not do that, because

you are indoctrinated not to question any forefather or any other authority.

no other reason than a Nobel awaits anyone truly overthrowing a past

great. They also know their own discovery must also explain everything

already observed, something cranks ignore. They also know that extreme

support of a theory means that attempts at disproving it are likely to fail.

This makes discussions with you essentially pointless, because instead

of an exchange of arguments, you spit out insults, if someone does not

agree to what was brainwashed into your head.

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

Maciej Wozniak

2021-11-28 15:57:53 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

Thomas Heger

2021-11-29 06:01:41 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'.

This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived.

So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which

I would recommend, but which these people had.

This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the

personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing.

So, why is that?

I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as

training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who

think for themselves or do not follow orders.

This training is unnecessarily complicated, because it is actually a

training.

The 'real deal' would be way too easy, hence true knowledge is strictly

forbidden (otherwise there would be no training effect and true

knowledge would come into 'wrong' hands).

This idea came too me, shortly after I had finished my 'book'.

(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

)

The trouble I had was this: I thaught it is mainly correct, but it was

way too easy.

The only possible explanation for me was, that its content was already

known for ages and what is taught in schools and universities is a mere

farce, used to train the new apprentises in 'scientific sorcery'.

The situation seemed to be very unfortunate for the 'insiders', who have

devoted their lives to such a system, because it is a very protected

system, which could perpetuate itself for ages and which required strict

obedience to secrecy and the ability to speak and write bullshit, which

sounds scientific.

TH

Thomas Heger

2021-11-30 06:07:54 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'.

This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived.

So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which

I would recommend, but which these people had.

This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the

personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing.

So, why is that?

I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as

training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who

think for themselves or do not follow orders.

silly things.

consistency and functions in agreement with observations.

For instance:

as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of

moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors,

that it is not even bunk.

It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science.

If so, then there could be more of the same kind.

And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow

forces (together with the real scientists).

Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is

educated.

It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to

memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time.

This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has

true knowledge about the real world.

This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult

to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do

not comply.

...

TH

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-30 13:15:46 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'.

This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived.

So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which

I would recommend, but which these people had.

This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the

personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing.

So, why is that?

I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as

training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who

think for themselves or do not follow orders.

silly things.

consistency and functions in agreement with observations.

as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of

moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors,

that it is not even bunk.

It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science.

If so, then there could be more of the same kind.

And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow

forces (together with the real scientists).

Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is

educated.

It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to

memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time.

This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has

true knowledge about the real world.

This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult

to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do

not comply.

...

TH

evidence. Even the lack of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. The

evidence is all covered up by agents of the conspiracy! It all make so much

sense!

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger

2021-12-01 08:03:40 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'.

This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived.

So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which

I would recommend, but which these people had.

This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the

personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing.

So, why is that?

I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as

training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who

think for themselves or do not follow orders.

silly things.

consistency and functions in agreement with observations.

as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of

moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors,

that it is not even bunk.

It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science.

If so, then there could be more of the same kind.

And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow

forces (together with the real scientists).

Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is

educated.

It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to

memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time.

This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has

true knowledge about the real world.

This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult

to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do

not comply.

...

TH

evidence. Even the lack of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. The

evidence is all covered up by agents of the conspiracy! It all make so much

sense!

'theory' was correct, but it was way too easy to develop it.

This made me think, that physicists know it already and all lie all the

time and mock the general public.

So I have started to analyze certain texts for hints.

Einstein's text was only one of several ones.

I have also analyzed the book 'My struggle', for instance, very

carefully. I found, that the text must be a German translation of a

text, which was origionally written in English.

The reasons are a bit difficult to explain, because it would require to

be fluent in German and English (what I am, while you are not), to

understand my arguments.

But I have also analyzed a book about big-bang theory and black-holes.

I found a certain pattern in many texts, where errors were made, which

seem to follow a certain agenda.

I call this 'the grand materialistic paradima', which is seemingly a

background program and which should be implemented into the brains of

the masses.

It has a certain anti-religious substream, which can also be found in

several events like e.g. 9/11.

The strangest thing actually is, that some 'patterns' suggest the

existence and use of kind of 'time travel'.

Time reversal would seemingly suggest a reversal of ethics, too, which

is commonly called 'satanism'.

But that is an error, because time reversal is usually not recognized,

while reversal of ethics is.

But instead of doing wrong, the 'bad guys' should rethink their agenda

and do good things with good means and time revert the instructions

received from hidden advisors.

Time travel is actually 'a piece of cake' for my own modell, but

seemingly non existent in physics.

So, why should I reject the idea of time-travel or other means to

manipulate time?

TH

Odd Bodkin

2021-12-01 13:40:53 UTC

Reply

Permalink"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider

standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".

standard scientific methodology; and that's because

they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.

I knew some physicists, who were in a way 'cranks'.

This was my oppinion not by what they wrote, but how they lived.

So: an untidy chaos in the own appartment is not the living-style, which

I would recommend, but which these people had.

This living-style is in fact a result from certain damages of the

personality and that in turn a result from brainwashing.

So, why is that?

I think, that education in physics is not meant seriously, but as

training for the needed scientists and as means to sort out those, who

think for themselves or do not follow orders.

silly things.

consistency and functions in agreement with observations.

as you know, I have analysed Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of

moving bodies' very carefully and think, it contains so many errors,

that it is not even bunk.

It is imho a mere farce, which spits into the face of science.

If so, then there could be more of the same kind.

And if so, then 'real science' could be actually surpressed by unknow

forces (together with the real scientists).

Then we need a really messy system, by which the next generation is

educated.

It should be extremely difficult nonsense, which the apprentice had to

memorize and had to repeat by heart every at any given time.

This functions as a 'gate-keeper' for a secret cult, which actually has

true knowledge about the real world.

This secret 'sect' builds then all the cool things, which allow the cult

to earn money, and all the advanced weapons, to surpress those, which do

not comply.

...

TH

evidence. Even the lack of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. The

evidence is all covered up by agents of the conspiracy! It all make so much

sense!

'theory' was correct, but it was way too easy to develop it.

This made me think, that physicists know it already and all lie all the

time and mock the general public.

One is that your “theory” is of the same kin as physicists’ theories, and

therefore in fact really easy to produce, and that physicists are covering

that up.

The other is that your “theory” bears no resemblance whatsoever to what a

real physics theory is, and that to produce a real physics theory requires

several orders of magnitude more work and skill than you put into yours,

and that physicists are covering up nothing.

So it’s interesting that you have opted for the first possibility.

I think the rest of the psychotic-break material in the following is just

more of the same from what you just did above.

So I have started to analyze certain texts for hints.

Einstein's text was only one of several ones.

I have also analyzed the book 'My struggle', for instance, very

carefully. I found, that the text must be a German translation of a

text, which was origionally written in English.

The reasons are a bit difficult to explain, because it would require to

be fluent in German and English (what I am, while you are not), to

understand my arguments.

But I have also analyzed a book about big-bang theory and black-holes.

I found a certain pattern in many texts, where errors were made, which

seem to follow a certain agenda.

I call this 'the grand materialistic paradima', which is seemingly a

background program and which should be implemented into the brains of

the masses.

It has a certain anti-religious substream, which can also be found in

several events like e.g. 9/11.

The strangest thing actually is, that some 'patterns' suggest the

existence and use of kind of 'time travel'.

Time reversal would seemingly suggest a reversal of ethics, too, which

is commonly called 'satanism'.

But that is an error, because time reversal is usually not recognized,

while reversal of ethics is.

But instead of doing wrong, the 'bad guys' should rethink their agenda

and do good things with good means and time revert the instructions

received from hidden advisors.

Time travel is actually 'a piece of cake' for my own modell, but

seemingly non existent in physics.

So, why should I reject the idea of time-travel or other means to

manipulate time?

TH

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Michael Moroney

2021-12-01 17:14:23 UTC

Reply

PermalinkI(y) = 3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6

I find it quite amusing that you are able to plot your own idiocy as amathematical function of time.

Part of your idiocy, of course, is thinking it is someone else's idiocy,

not your own.

Dono.

2021-12-01 17:42:46 UTC

Reply

PermalinkI(y) = 3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6

I find it quite amusing that you are able to plot your own idiocy as amathematical function of time.

Part of your idiocy, of course, is thinking it is someone else's idiocy,

not your own.

I(y) = 3 e^(+y)

Odd Bodkin

2021-12-01 19:22:46 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

I find it quite amusing that you are able to plot your own idiocy as a

mathematical function of time.

Part of your idiocy, of course, is thinking it is someone else's idiocy, not your own.

If you make a graph on Excel

mathematical typography on an ancient ascii-based medium, and yet you do

your mathematics with a spreadsheet. You should be able to sketch this plot

freehand, and if you can’t, you could at least Google up a free graphing

calculator like desmos.com/calculator.

The irony of you crying “hubris!” is beyond the pale.

for y (years) between 0 and 25, you'll find (as JanPB and other retarded here

that you peaked at 100% IDIOCY LEVEL in 1996. By the summer of 1999, and

after 2.5 years of life beating the crap

out of you, you became humble and reasonable.

But, as a born IDIOT is a DIE HARD IDIOT, since your low almost 22 years

ago, your HUBRIS started to raise again,

slowly but steadily.

Now you, a mature person, are only at 70% level of IDIOCY, compared to

the peak of the young Moroney.

Congratulations, Moroney. You are less IDIOT than 25 years ago but

BEWARE, because IDIOCY never gives up.

So, it's still increasing. In 25 years more, you'll have the same IDIOCY

LEVEL than when you were young.

Only that nature took it's toll, so probably 80% of your IDIOCY be due to

senility when you be around 75.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dono.

2021-12-02 00:41:03 UTC

Reply

PermalinkI also used recently Excel to numerically solve an integral with the sum of 30,000 parts, given the known decomposition for each

interval, and OBSERVE results in a graph.

Dear Incurable Imbecile Dick Hertzinterval, and OBSERVE results in a graph.

What makes you so entertaining is that you have absolutely no clue. You will never get the two integrals correctly because no have absolutely no clue about singularities. Even after I showed you the link to "Integrals with singularities (improper integrals", you still do not get it. Keep up entertaining us, dumbestfuck!

Dono.

2021-12-02 02:17:18 UTC

Reply

PermalinkI also used recently Excel to numerically solve an integral with the sum of 30,000 parts, given the known decomposition for each

interval, and OBSERVE results in a graph.

Dear Incurable Imbecile Dick Hertzinterval, and OBSERVE results in a graph.

What makes you so entertaining is that you have absolutely no clue. You will never get the two integrals correctly because no have absolutely no clue about singularities. Even after I showed you the link to "Integrals with singularities (improper integrals", you still do not get it. Keep up entertaining us, dumbestfuck!

Richard Hertz

2021-12-02 04:07:55 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne more thing, you don't even need to split the integral into two. If you knew what you were doing, you could have calculated it in one step , one integral. But you don't and you never will. You will forever agonize in your imbecility, never being able to get the correct result. On the other hand , people who know calculus (like Einstein) could get the result with ease. You were born an imbecile and your onl;y consolation is that you will die an imbecile.

Dono.

2021-12-02 04:47:58 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne more thing, you don't even need to split the integral into two. If you knew what you were doing, you could have calculated it in one step , one integral. But you don't and you never will. You will forever agonize in your imbecility, never being able to get the correct result. On the other hand , people who know calculus (like Einstein) could get the result with ease. You were born an imbecile and your onl;y consolation is that you will die an imbecile.

Michael Moroney

2021-12-02 06:11:28 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

I find it quite amusing that you are able to plot your own idiocy as a

mathematical function of time.

Part of your idiocy, of course, is thinking it is someone else's idiocy, not your own.

0 to 25? Your function is broken, log(y) goes to negative infinity at

0. You can't even plot your own idiocy!

Ken Seto

2021-11-28 16:29:57 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

Chason Aceta

2021-11-29 23:59:28 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

correct......you failed to realize that your physicist is obsolete so

naturally we reject your faulty knowledge.

but rather surpassed. *Deprecated* stands for wrong. You thief.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-28 20:13:19 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

idea.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Michael Moroney

2021-11-30 15:45:42 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

idea.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-30 16:17:52 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

idea.

You being unconvinced does not mean it’s wrong. It just means there’s too

much you don’t understand, and you say that anything you don’t understand

must be wrong, and that’s just insanity talking.

and yet your complain is that we don’t accept you faulty knowledge.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto

2021-11-30 21:59:48 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how

many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still

persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

idea.

You being unconvinced does not mean it’s wrong. It just means there’s too

much you don’t understand, and you say that anything you don’t understand

must be wrong, and that’s just insanity talking.

and yet your complain is that we don’t accept you faulty knowledge.

--Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz

2021-11-30 23:57:06 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is also NO experimental evidence that incoming speed of light is not

c. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

HOW, tell me HOW do you know that Hubble Telescope or equivalent are NOT RECEIVING PHOTONSc. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

at c (1 +/- ε), being 0 <= ε <= unknown upper limit?

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

Odd Bodkin

2021-12-01 00:13:36 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is also NO experimental evidence that incoming speed of light is not

c. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

HOW, tell me HOW do you know that Hubble Telescope or equivalent are NOT RECEIVING PHOTONSc. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

at c (1 +/- ε), being 0 <= ε <= unknown upper limit?

known to be in changing motion.

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz

2021-12-01 00:26:59 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.

about 10 m/s², then I invite you to jump to ground from a 4 stories building, while reading about SR.

Send me a Tweet just before you reach the ground, and then after such event.

Oh, wait! You wont be able to, because you'd be like a giant tomato splashed all over.

But try anyway, from the other world.

Michael Moroney

2021-12-01 03:51:48 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.

about 10 m/s², then I invite you to jump to ground from a 4 stories building, while reading about SR.

Send me a Tweet just before you reach the ground, and then after such event.

Oh, wait! You wont be able to, because you'd be like a giant tomato splashed all over.

But try anyway, from the other world.

posted how he can use SR in muon beamline calculations or something

because the difference between zero gravity and Earth's gravity on the

beam is smaller than the margins of error involved.

And you call yourself an engineer!

(sorry Odd for borrowing that, but VERY appropriate!)

Maciej Wozniak

2021-12-01 07:18:32 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.

about 10 m/s², then I invite you to jump to ground from a 4 stories building, while reading about SR.

Send me a Tweet just before you reach the ground, and then after such event.

Oh, wait! You wont be able to, because you'd be like a giant tomato splashed all over.

But try anyway, from the other world.

posted how he can use SR in muon beamline calculations or something

because the difference between zero gravity and Earth's gravity on the

beam is smaller than the margins of error involved.

moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just

like all serious clocks always did.

Odd Bodkin

2021-12-01 13:40:52 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.

accelerated to the center of Earth at

about 10 m/s², then I invite you to jump to ground from a 4 stories

building, while reading about SR.

Send me a Tweet just before you reach the ground, and then after such event.

way down. It’s the deceleration from 35 mph to zero in less than four

inches (for the center of the brain) that causes the problem. You’d suffer

the same problem running into a wall horizontally at 35 mph, demonstrating

that gravity has nothing to do with the damage.

For a relativistic application, you could consider the LHC, a 27 km ring

that circulates protons at about 11 kHz in a beam pipe of a few

centimeters. So how far does a proton fall due to gravity after one turn at

the LHC before getting booted in the ass again in the RF chambers? I’m sure

you can work that out and see if gravity should be considered strong here.

And you call yourself an engineer….

Oh, wait! You wont be able to, because you'd be like a giant tomato splashed all over.

But try anyway, from the other world.

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak

2021-12-01 07:18:04 UTC

Reply

Permalink<snip>

There is also NO experimental evidence that incoming speed of light is not

c. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

HOW, tell me HOW do you know that Hubble Telescope or equivalent are NOT RECEIVING PHOTONSc. All existing evidence is completely compatible with it being c. You try

to make the case that the evidence is ALSO compatible with it being not c,

but that isn’t the same as the evidence being incompatible with it being c.

at c (1 +/- ε), being 0 <= ε <= unknown upper limit?

known to be in changing motion.

There is no evidence that SR is wrong.

In theoretical works, of course. It's called coverup.In the REAL LIFE, SR is NOT APPLICABLE, because it violates the terms of

applicability by which it was written.

And such terms are: IT ONLY WORKS IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD, BECAUSE IT'S A

DERIVATION OF A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. NO GRAVITY.

it’s weak enough.

moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just

like all serious clocks always did.

Michael Moroney

2021-11-29 01:29:58 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

pocket or something?

Michael Moroney

2021-11-30 15:42:01 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people, how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

pocket or something?

that if you have 10 cranks, you'll have 11 "theories" to "replace"

relativity among them. All of which disagree with each other.

Odd Bodkin

2021-11-30 16:17:49 UTC

Reply

PermalinkOne common trait is that no matter how many times, how many people,

how many different ways one tries to set these cranks straight, they

still persist in their imbecilities , they never learn.

pocket or something?

stupid. No wonder you name is moron_y

--

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Loading...