Discussion:
Richard Hertz, Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Pat Dolan-the common traits of these stubborn imbeciles
Add Reply
Dono.
2021-11-26 17:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Richard Hertz
2021-11-26 20:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.

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
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
Richard Hertz
2021-11-26 22:04:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!

Wannabe physicist maybe? And fail miserably at it too.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 22:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!
Nonsense, I was very successful as a mathematician. So successful I could
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?
Post by Richard Hertz
Wannabe physicist maybe? And fail miserably at it too.
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
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-27 07:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!
Nonsense, I was very successful as a mathematician. So successful I could
retire from it early and do what I do now out of choice.
Stop fucking, Bod. You neither know Pythagorean theorem,
nor propositional calculus.
JanPB
2021-11-26 22:48:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!
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
Dono.
2021-11-26 22:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the huge
amount of shit that you carry along.
Well, as you’ve said, you carry a lot of baggage about physicists from your
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
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!
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
I need to have a look over at sci.math, this promises to be fun!
Python
2021-11-26 23:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dono. wrote:
...
Post by Dono.
Post by JanPB
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
I need to have a look over at sci.math, this promises to be fun!
Well, fortunately Jan is not quite right about this :-)

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
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Dono.
Poor demented people. -- Jan
I need to have a look over at sci.math, this promises to be fun!
Well, fortunately Jan is not quite right about this
you stupid frog troll, you're proved an imbecile everywhere.

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
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
But but you are not a physicist, neither Dono. Both are failed mathematicians!
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.
why bother, you are a PLC programmer, and none of the above. You took the
math as hobby, not understanding how the math is done in university and
research centers.
Dono.
2021-11-26 21:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
But you are not a good engineer, you are a very shitty one.
Brain Hubbs
2021-11-26 21:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Never, ever argue with a good engineer in technical stuff.
Any of them will make a new orifice on you, so you can discharge the
huge amount of shit that you carry along.
I don't even understand. I am shocked.
Loading Image...
Dono.
2021-11-26 21:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
It is not our charter to educate these imbeciles (this is an impossible task anyways, as demonstrated over many years). It is our charter to mock them. Mercilessly.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-26 21:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
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.
It is not our charter to educate these imbeciles (this is an impossible
task anyways, as demonstrated over many years). It is our charter to mock
them. Mercilessly.
Well, it’s complicated. As you say, they can’t be educated about physics.
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
JanPB
2021-11-26 22:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
The standard reference:


--
Jan
patdolan
2021-11-27 14:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Van de immoortel fumble:

"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
Permalink
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
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-11-27 15:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
And against it :-)

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
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
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.
And against it :-)
    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
I miss the Immortal Fumbles, new entries anyway.

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
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<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".

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
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
so true. The covid omicron variant spells actually *moronic*, which is
his middle name.
patdolan
2021-11-27 17:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-27 18:16:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2021-11-27 18:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-27 18:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
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
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Nabor Nave
2021-11-27 18:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
You 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?
stop mass-protesting and singing, you idiot. They want to kill you with
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
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?

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.
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 20:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.

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
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, 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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-11-27 21:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, 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 | ]
What's red and sits in a corner?
Pat Dolan playing with a razor.

Dirk Vdm
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-27 21:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
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
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic symbols any way you want to. Go.
patdolan
2021-11-27 22:33:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
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?
Richard Hertz
2021-11-27 22:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 7:33:37 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:

<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?
I'm sorry for meddling, but I think I have it:

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
Post by Richard Hertz
<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
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
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.
Why would you take the time to post that?
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2021-11-28 00:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<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
c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0
Crystal clear, isn't it?
Einstenianism at its highest.
Thank you Richard. Not meddling at all. I've never really taken the 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.
Richard Hertz
2021-11-28 01:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<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
c -v = c , but v = c - c ≠ 0
Crystal clear, isn't it?
Einstenianism at its highest.
Thank you Richard. Not meddling at all. I've never really taken the 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.
No, actually I'm kind of obsessive with original sources. Also, I'm a 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
2021-11-28 02:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Richard Hertz
<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
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
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.
Thank you Richard. Not meddling at all. I've never really taken the 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.
No, actually I'm kind of obsessive with original sources. Also, I'm a
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.
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
2021-11-28 03:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:18 PM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
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
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"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
Post by Paul Alsing
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"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...
Well, even extreme, that's my Anti-relativity Mr. Hyde in some cases. In most, the good open minded Dr. Jekyll appears.

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
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
No way. It's beyond my reason.
Yeah, I have witnessed that just about all of physics is beyond your reason.

You need a new pastime because this one is beyond your reason...
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 13:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
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.
On the internet in English, trolling means saying something you know to be
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.
Post by Richard Hertz
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
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-11-28 14:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Perhaps you don’t know what “troll” means
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.
On the internet in English, trolling means saying something you know to be
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.
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.

Dirk vdm
Richard Hertz
2021-11-28 17:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
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.
So, the european trash dreams to go physical?

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
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 10:29:36 AM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
On the internet in English, trolling means saying something you know to be
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.
Well, then there you have the difference: Here, to troll someone is to 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.

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
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
On the internet in English, trolling means saying something you know to be
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.
Well, then there you have the difference: Here, to troll someone is to
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.
Trolling is just trolling. Don’t enter a battle of wits while unarmed,
Richard.
Post by Richard Hertz
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
2021-11-28 02:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Richard Hertz
<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
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
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.
Thank you Richard. Not meddling at all. I've never really taken the
time to study the 1905 paper.
Nor anything else, it appears.
Post by patdolan
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
2021-11-27 22:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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
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?
patdolan
2021-11-28 00:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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’?
What do you get for v', Bodkin? You get your own urine blowing back in 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. I see none! Just high school algebra. Where is the lattice of synchronized clocks at specific points in spacetime? What kind of idiot are you?
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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’?
What do you get for v', Bodkin? You get your own urine blowing back in
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.
There is no delta-x in my formula. There was in yours. You didn’t seem 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.
Post by patdolan
I see none! Just high school algebra. Where is the lattice of
synchronized clocks at specific points in spacetime? What kind of idiot
are you?
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
patdolan
2021-11-28 00:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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’?
What do you get for v', Bodkin? You get your own urine blowing back in
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.
There is no delta-x in my formula. There was in yours. You didn’t seem to
understand that this stands for the difference in the x coordinates of two
specified events.
You foolhardy fumble-ass fumbler!


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 ) ]
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 idiot
are you?
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 02:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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’?
What do you get for v', Bodkin? You get your own urine blowing back in
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.
There is no delta-x in my formula. There was in yours. You didn’t seem to
understand that this stands for the difference in the x coordinates of two
specified events.
You foolhardy fumble-ass fumbler!
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 ) ]
And so again, x and t are coordinates of an event. What event did you have
in mind?
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 idiot
are you?
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
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2021-11-28 16:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
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
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-11-28 17:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Not only were you spoonfed already in my first reply to your
"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
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.

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?
Post by patdolan
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2021-11-28 23:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.
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.
Now put in 0 for v.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2021-11-29 01:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.
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.
Now put in 0 for v.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Are you stuck again Bodkin? No? Then make the substitution and calculate.
patdolan
2021-11-29 02:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.
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.
Now put in 0 for v.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Are you stuck again Bodkin? No? Then make the substitution and calculate.
Man-up Bodkin. Put the "About the Odd Bodkin" thread out of your mind. Let v = 0. Go.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-29 03:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
On 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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.
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.
Now put in 0 for v.
Yes indeed. Note that u is not 0. The result is that v’=u. But v’ is then
not zero while v is.

Feel like an idiot yet?
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
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
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
On 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 pissing
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
You 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?
Now, what does that bile produce?
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
First let's agree on the events. Then we can assign a physicality to them.
Event 1 located at spacetime point (t' = t = 0, x' = x =0) just as origins
coincide.
Alright. Let’s suppose just for the sake of something concrete that there
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 points (x', t') and/or (x, t)
Alright.
Post by patdolan
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 | ]
Heck no. You haven’t specified at all that event 2 is on either the future
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.
Post by patdolan
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….
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?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Have it your way, Bodkin. YOU write the second postulate in algebraic
symbols any way you want to. Go.
Well, Pat, I see you have gotten stuck. This is what happens when you have
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.
Thank you Bodkin for giving us the opportunity to look at mine and
Jimenez's thesis from the aspect of the velocity addition formula.
Post by Odd Bodkin
v’=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Put in c for v. What do you get for v’?
When you put in c you get v'=1, that is to say v'=c.
Oh dear. So the problem now is that you can’t do algebra either.
Post by patdolan
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
Oh dear. Again, silly boo boos.
Post by patdolan
or equivalently
x'/t' = x/t = v
And 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.
Pat, the only one here who can’t cut his own mathematical meat is you.
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.
Now put in 0 for v.
Yes indeed. Note that u is not 0. The result is that v’=u. But v’ is then
not zero while v is.
v'=u
(∆x'/∆v')(∆v'/∆t) = (∆x/∆u)(∆u/∆t)
∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t
Post by Odd Bodkin
Feel like an idiot yet?
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
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
Permalink
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.
The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions.
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
Permalink
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 3:53:31 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

So, then clearly Einstein's heirs are the Mr. Hyde of every single die hard relativist here and all over out there.

Crystal clear now.
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions.
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
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions.
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
Some things are worth questioning. Others are not. Conviction can come from
EITHER indoctrination or education. Don’t muddle the two.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-28 15:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions.
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
Some things are worth questioning. Others are not.
The Shit, of course, shouldn't be questioned, as it has
convinced an idiot woodworker.
Michael Moroney
2021-11-28 14:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
The common feature of the cranks in the subject (as well as many, many
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.
Post by Thomas Heger
The term 'truth' is not meant as being subject to democratic decisions.
People telling others that they are wrong isn't voting on 'truth'. It is
simply telling them they are wrong.
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
Yet the Dunning-Kruger people here (who also have significant NPD, are
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.
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
Wrong, true scientists question earlier discoveries all the time. If for
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.
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-28 15:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
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
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
standard scientific methodology; and that's because
they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm.

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
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
standard scientific methodology; and that's because
they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm.
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 is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty
silly things.
Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal
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
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
standard scientific methodology; and that's because
they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm.
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 is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty
silly things.
Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal
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
The wonderful thing about wild conspiracy theories is that they all fit the
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
Thomas Heger
2021-12-01 08:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
standard scientific methodology; and that's because
they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm.
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 is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty
silly things.
Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal
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
The wonderful thing about wild conspiracy theories is that they all fit the
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!
My appraoch to 'conspiracy theories' was, that I thought, that my own
'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
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
"Brainwashed". Now we are entering kook territory. Only kooks consider
standard scientific methodology to be "brainwashing".
Rather, only kooks consider the Popper's fartings as
standard scientific methodology; and that's because
they're brainwashed. Like you, stupid Mike.
I have also a 'theory' about scientific education in the phsyics realm.
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 is the silliest thing I’ve read in a week. And I’ve read some pretty
silly things.
Well, possibly my 'theory' is entirely wrong. But it has internal
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
The wonderful thing about wild conspiracy theories is that they all fit the
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!
My appraoch to 'conspiracy theories' was, that I thought, that my own
'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.
Well, there’s two possibilities here.

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.
Post by Thomas Heger
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
Michael Moroney
2021-12-01 17:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I(y) = 3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6
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.
Dono.
2021-12-01 17:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
I(y) = 3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6
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.
Nah, the Dick's imbecility curve is purely exponential:

I(y) = 3 e^(+y)
Odd Bodkin
2021-12-01 19:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Michael Moroney
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.
I(y) = 0.882 [3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6]
If you make a graph on Excel
It’s hysterical to me that you complain about people not wanting to do
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.
Post by Richard Hertz
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
Dono.
2021-12-02 00:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I 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 Hertz

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
Permalink
Post by Dono.
I 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 Hertz
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!
One 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.
Richard Hertz
2021-12-02 04:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
One 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.
I explicitly separated the newtonian part from the relativistic part, scumbag.
Dono.
2021-12-02 04:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Dono.
One 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.
I explicitly separated the newtonian part from the relativistic part,
This is fine, you flunked calculating both integrals. You will never be able to calculate them because of your ignorance of basic calculus. On the positive side, this will keep you busy for the rest of your life, you will keep getting it wrong until you die, Thanks for the never ending entertainment.
Michael Moroney
2021-12-02 06:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Michael Moroney
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.
I(y) = 0.882 [3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6]
What is the range we should be plotting your idiocy from and to?
Post by Richard Hertz
If you make a graph on Excel for y (years) between 0 and 25,
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
Permalink
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.
Moron, you are assuming that what you know about physics is correct......you failed to realize that your physicist is obsolete so naturally we reject your faulty knowledge.
Chason Aceta
2021-11-29 23:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Moron, you are assuming that what you know about physics is
correct......you failed to realize that your physicist is obsolete so
naturally we reject your faulty knowledge.
you are not even correct grammatically. Obsolete doesn't mean it's wrong,
but rather surpassed. *Deprecated* stands for wrong. You thief.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-28 20:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
There’s nothing faulty about it. Your complaint is only that it’s not your
idea.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-11-30 15:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
There’s nothing faulty about it. Your complaint is only that it’s not your
idea.
Our complaints are that SR/GR is wrong and yet your complain is that we don’t accept you faulty knowledge.
"Our"? What did you name your pet cockroach, Ken?
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-30 16:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
There’s nothing faulty about it. Your complaint is only that it’s not your
idea.
Our complaints are that SR/GR is wrong
Not one bit of evidence for that.

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
Ken Seto
2021-11-30 21:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
There’s nothing faulty about it. Your complaint is only that it’s not your
idea.
Our complaints are that SR/GR is wrong
Not one bit of evidence for that.
For example: OWLS is not c if tested directly. Also incoming speed of light is not c.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 7:21:18 PM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<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 PHOTONS
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
Post by Richard Hertz
<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 PHOTONS
at c (1 +/- ε), being 0 <= ε <= unknown upper limit?
Has nothing to do with the Hubble. Has a lot to do with sources that are
known to be in changing motion.
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.

And you call yourself an engineer.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
2021-12-01 00:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:13:42 PM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.
And you call yourself an engineer.
If you call weak gravity any Earthly place where you are radially 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.

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
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.
And you call yourself an engineer.
If you call weak gravity any Earthly place where you are radially 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.
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.
Whether gravity is weak enough depends on the situation. Tom R. has
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
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.
And you call yourself an engineer.
If you call weak gravity any Earthly place where you are radially 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.
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.
Whether gravity is weak enough depends on the situation. Tom R. has
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.
In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
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
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.
And you call yourself an engineer.
If you call weak gravity any Earthly place where you are radially
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.
Well, it’s not the gravity that caused the damage. You feel no pain on the
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….
Post by Richard Hertz
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
Maciej Wozniak
2021-12-01 07:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hertz
<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 PHOTONS
at c (1 +/- ε), being 0 <= ε <= unknown upper limit?
Has nothing to do with the Hubble. Has a lot to do with sources that are
known to be in changing motion.
Post by Richard Hertz
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.
Nonsense. SR works fine in situations where there is gravity, as long as
it’s weak enough.
In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
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
Permalink
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
"We", Stupid Ken? You and who else? You have a pet cockroach in your
pocket or something?
Michael Moroney
2021-11-30 15:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
"We", Stupid Ken? You and who else? You have a pet cockroach in your
pocket or something?
Moron, I and all the people disagree with SR/GR. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you name is moron_y
Why do you assume any of your fellow crackpots agree with you? It seems
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
Permalink
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.
Why should we accept you obsolete and faulty knowledge?
"We", Stupid Ken? You and who else? You have a pet cockroach in your
pocket or something?
Moron, I and all the people disagree with SR/GR. Gee you are so fucking
stupid. No wonder you name is moron_y
All the people? Which other people?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Loading...