----- Original Message -----
From: "JanPB"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:04 AM
Subject: why lorentz transformation?


: Androcles wrote:
:
: Hey phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the **** up.
:
: Math? Since you know almost nothing about it, I find it odd that you
: should lecture people (or more like, INSULT) on that very subject.
:
: --
: Jan Bielawski

How come you ran away, Bielawski? Three posts you have not answered,
and all you can do is insult. Phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the
**** up.


"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
|
| "Francisco", I understand what you are trying to say, and you are
absolutely
| right. But for many of these people relativity is a religion, and
you cannot
| change their mind with any scientific argument.
|
| Where people get this stoopid idea I'll never know. Get real, please.
| Relativity is simply a theory derived from certain postulates.

********. It's based on a stoopid definition of time.



End of
| story, no religion.

Of course it's a religion, dumb****. You BELIEVE Einstein's
definition of time on FAITH, it's not science, it's religion.



|It's OK to object to those postulates on
| philosophical grounds, as I do for example. It is also true that this
| theory has an excellent experimental and predictive quantitative track
| record.

Irrelevant bull****, the function tau is not linear, the objection is on
mathematical grounds.


|
| In other words: it's fine to object against relativity (or any other
| theory) *honestly*.


So done. You are dishonest in denying your FAITH is a religion.


| What is dishonest is calling relativity "religion"
| just because someone defends the way it's derived from the postulates.
|
Bull****, it is derived from
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

and your BLIND FAITH in that is a religion.

Androcles.

| --
| Jan Bielawski
|


"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
| RP wrote:
|
| You'll lose the argument,
|
| Oh, I know very well that Androcles won't understand a word I'm
saying.

Bull****, I know you will attempt circularity.



| One always "loses" arguments on Usenet in that funny sense, I've done
| this before with many others as I'm always curious about limits of
| human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
| people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
| regarding themselves.

LOL! You are talking about yourself, phuckwit.


| In this case the guy would rather assume that 100 years and
generations
| of physicists "missed" an idiotic high-school-level "error" than admit
| to himself that he has no talent for that sort of thing and doesn't
| understand squat.

You are so ridiculous its incredible. I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.




| He would invent ridiculous Hollywoodesque plots
| involving Einstein and his supposed "intent" to "deceive" scientists -
| anything, *anything*, except the plain truth that Androcles has no
case
| and is wasting his life away on chimeras.

I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.


|
| BTW, your first mistake that Andro
| will tear to shreds is the fact that you can't derive something from
| assumptions without arriving at yet further assumptions. That's just
| simple logic. He'll be right on that point. Better try another
approach.

See, RP knows.
You on the other hand are too stupid to know that, which is why
you can't win. I'm always bored by the limits of
human capacity for withstanding plain contradictions and the means
people use to protect themselves from certain inconvenient truths
regarding themselves.



| The assumptions are all standard physics

What is "standard" physics? Vector addition of velocities?

| + Einstein's postulates.

He's only got one. Having trouble counting to one, are you?
The PoR is standard physics and Galileo's. Einstein's ONE
postulate is "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body. " No numerical value permitted in the proof
though. You can use a numerical value for explanation if need be.
I'm generously permitting you to use his definition of time,
although I do not accept it.



So
| unless Androcles insists on something exotic like the universe being
| non-isotropic or observers depending on their entire motion histories
| and the like, then he has no case


Quit bragging and start proving.


| since it's all just a mathematical
| derivation at that point. It would be interesting to find out what
sort
| of random assumption he brings up this time.

It'll be boring listening to you bragging and bringing up such total
irrelevancies as your argument, such as "would rather *assume*
that 100 years and generations of physicists "missed" an idiotic
high-school-level "error" than admit to himself that he has no talent
for that sort of thing and doesn't understand squat.

I dont assume, phuckwit, but you do, and that's why you have no
talent for this sort of thing and don't understand squat.



| I've seen one of them
| already - the idea that SR "ignores" the time it takes for light to
| reflect off a mirror!
| --
| Jan Bielawski

Are you claiming the mirror doesn't move, or that a photon
has no momentum? Which?
That's why you have no talent for this sort of thing and don't
understand squat.

Androcles.
"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| "JanPB" wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | Specifically,
| | you let x' tend to zero on one side of the equation but not on the
| | other. When the result is 0=1 you complain loudly.
|
| The **** I do, but since you claimed to be able to derive
| the cuckoo transformations without calculus, go ahead and do
| it.
|
| Sure, no problem but I need to get some sleep first.
|
| You are to use Einstein's light postulate, Galileo's relativity
| exemplified by Einstein, "the reciprocal electrodynamic action
| of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here
| depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet",
| Einstein's definition of time "we establish by definition that the
| "time"
| required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
| to travel from B to A", and NO assumptions.
| You will not succeed, I shall rip your "proof" to shreds.
|
| You'll not be able to even touch it, let alone rip to shreads. I'll
| derive the Lorentz transform from the assumption of linearity of the
| transform, from the "tau" equation, and the usual postulates.

Circularity is not permitted.
You are to use Einstein's light postulate, Galileo's relativity,
Einstein's definition of time.
Androcles.

| --
| Jan Bielawski
|

Androcles says...

Androcles, you are an idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Androcles wrote:

How come you ran away, Bielawski? Three posts you have not answered,
and all you can do is insult. Phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut the
**** up.

I was busy preparing video editing work I had promised someone. This
bboard has always been a low-priority entertainment for me, sorry to
disappoint.

Another reason I didn't post the Lorentz transform derivation according
to Einstein is that you adopted a defensive attitude which is logically
untenable and leading nowhere. It goes something like this:

1. Let's say I post a detailed examination of Einstein's derivation of
the Lorentz transform from the tau-equation.

2. Your response is going to be: "I'm not interested in YOUR
derivation, I'm interested in EINSTEIN'S derivation!" In other words,
you are going to dismiss any argument explaining Einstein's work merely
on the basis of using different *English words*. For some reason the
difference between a THEORY and a mere DESCRIPTION of such escapes you.
Or perhaps it's an intentional debating tactics on your part.

What I find interesting, BTW, is that Einstein's derivation of the
Lorentz transform has several gaps in it (as well as one instance of
certain notational sloppiness) which were NEVER addressed by any of the
resident armchair relativity critics here. My guess is they never read
Einstein's paper with any sort of understanding and promptly get stuck
on some silly irrelevancy they trumpet on this bboard to high heaven.
If I post a detailed explanation of Einstein's derivation I shall
highlight those gaps (they are not important gaps, of course, as
Einstein was writing his paper for professionals, but they are worth
pointing out to students).

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| How come you ran away, Bielawski? Three posts you have not answered,
| and all you can do is insult. Phuckwit! Deal with the math or shut
the
| **** up.
|
| I was busy preparing video editing work I had promised someone. This
| bboard has always been a low-priority entertainment for me, sorry to
| disappoint.
|
| Another reason I didn't post the Lorentz transform derivation
according
| to Einstein is that you adopted a defensive attitude which is
logically
| untenable and leading nowhere. It goes something like this:
|
| 1. Let's say I post a detailed examination of Einstein's derivation of
| the Lorentz transform from the tau-equation.
|
| 2. Your response is going to be: "I'm not interested in YOUR
| derivation, I'm interested in EINSTEIN'S derivation!"


That is correct. I am not interested in your personal derivation, or
any other contributor to this newsgroup. Einstein's dervivation is
flawed
and hence yours must be as well.




In other words,
| you are going to dismiss any argument explaining Einstein's work
merely
| on the basis of using different *English words*.

Bull****, if you actually knew any mathematics instead of mere symbol
manipulation you would know what a definition was and you'd know
what a prooof was. You don't though.




For some reason the
| difference between a THEORY and a mere DESCRIPTION of such escapes
you.

Bull****. You don't know mathematics.


| Or perhaps it's an intentional debating tactics on your part.

Bull****.

| What I find interesting, BTW, is that Einstein's derivation of the
| Lorentz transform has several gaps in it (as well as one instance of
| certain notational sloppiness) which were NEVER addressed by any of
the
| resident armchair relativity critics here.

Bull****. Time is not a vector.


| My guess is they never read
| Einstein's paper with any sort of understanding and promptly get stuck
| on some silly irrelevancy they trumpet on this bboard to high heaven.

YOU have never read Einstein's paper with any understanding, and
central to that derivation is
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
the half coming from the defintion (in words)
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


| If I post a detailed explanation of Einstein's derivation I shall
| highlight those gaps (they are not important gaps, of course, as
| Einstein was writing his paper for professionals, but they are worth
| pointing out to students).

Go ahead, start proving.
Androcles

I've sent the edited DVDs out so I have more time now for a bit of fun.
So let me start by stating clearly my understanding of what it is I'm
supposed to do.

-------------------------------------------
I'll prove by *merely going over Einstein's own argument in more
detail* that the "tau-equation" together with the usual assumptions
(Einstein's two postulates, the clock synchronisation definition, etc.)
plus the assumption of transform linearity IMPLIES that the transform
is of the Lorentz type:

tau = phi(v)beta(v)(t - xv/c^2)
xi = phi(v)beta(v)(x - vt)
eta = phi(v)y
zeta = phi(v)z

....where phi(v) is a velocity-dependent constant still to be
determined, and:

beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
-------------------------------------------

Am I correct in assuming that this is your objection?

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
| I've sent the edited DVDs out so I have more time now for a bit of
fun.
| So let me start by stating clearly my understanding of what it is I'm
| supposed to do.
|
| -------------------------------------------
| I'll prove by *merely going over Einstein's own argument in more
| detail* that the "tau-equation" together with the usual assumptions
| (Einstein's two postulates, the clock synchronisation definition,
etc.)
| plus the assumption of transform linearity IMPLIES that the transform
| is of the Lorentz type:
|
| tau = phi(v)beta(v)(t - xv/c^2)
| xi = phi(v)beta(v)(x - vt)
| eta = phi(v)y
| zeta = phi(v)z
|
| ...where phi(v) is a velocity-dependent constant still to be
| determined, and:
|
| beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| -------------------------------------------
|
| Am I correct in assuming that this is your objection?

No, you are not correct.
My objection is to the half in

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

which comes from

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.

Androcles wrote:
"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
| I've sent the edited DVDs out so I have more time now for a bit of
fun.
| So let me start by stating clearly my understanding of what it is I'm
| supposed to do.
|
| -------------------------------------------
| I'll prove by *merely going over Einstein's own argument in more
| detail* that the "tau-equation" together with the usual assumptions
| (Einstein's two postulates, the clock synchronisation definition,
etc.)
| plus the assumption of transform linearity IMPLIES that the transform
| is of the Lorentz type:
|
| tau = phi(v)beta(v)(t - xv/c^2)
| xi = phi(v)beta(v)(x - vt)
| eta = phi(v)y
| zeta = phi(v)z
|
| ...where phi(v) is a velocity-dependent constant still to be
| determined, and:
|
| beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| -------------------------------------------
|
| Am I correct in assuming that this is your objection?

No, you are not correct.
My objection is to the half in

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

which comes from

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]

Well, it does come from it. So what is it you claim is incorrect then?
(You did claim before that the Lorentz transform could not be derived
from the tau-equation, that's why I assumed that's what your objection
was.)

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"JanPB" wrote in message
ups.com...
| I've sent the edited DVDs out so I have more time now for a bit of
fun.
| So let me start by stating clearly my understanding of what it is
I'm
| supposed to do.
|
| -------------------------------------------
| I'll prove by *merely going over Einstein's own argument in more
| detail* that the "tau-equation" together with the usual assumptions
| (Einstein's two postulates, the clock synchronisation definition,
etc.)
| plus the assumption of transform linearity IMPLIES that the
transform
| is of the Lorentz type:
|
| tau = phi(v)beta(v)(t - xv/c^2)
| xi = phi(v)beta(v)(x - vt)
| eta = phi(v)y
| zeta = phi(v)z
|
| ...where phi(v) is a velocity-dependent constant still to be
| determined, and:
|
| beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
| -------------------------------------------
|
| Am I correct in assuming that this is your objection?

No, you are not correct.
My objection is to the half in

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

which comes from

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]

Well, it does come from it. So what is it you claim is incorrect then?
(You did claim before that the Lorentz transform could not be derived
from the tau-equation, that's why I assumed that's what your objection
was.)

Above is the tau equation I refer to.
Consider:
Light (or a turtle, makes no difference) is emitted from the
caboose of a train, reflects at the engine and returns to the caboose.
Einstein's equation says it will travel the length of the train and back
again, and will reflect at the engine at tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

But now we do it this way.
Light is emitted from the engine, reflects at the caboose and
returns to the engine.
The time of reflection at the caboose is now tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c PLUS v))
Diagramatically,
(fixed font needed).

|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.

Distance between mirrors is x'

Einstein's equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

What it means in the diagram:

½[tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))

So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,
but it doesn't. Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.
Androcles

Androcles wrote:

But now we do it this way.
Light is emitted from the engine, reflects at the caboose and
returns to the engine.
The time of reflection at the caboose is now tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c PLUS v))
Diagramatically,
(fixed font needed).

|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.

Distance between mirrors is x'

Einstein's equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

What it means in the diagram:

½[tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))

Correct.

So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,

According to the clock sync of the moving system.

but it doesn't.

According to the clock sync of the stationary system. And your point
is?

Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.

Stop repeating childish crap. If you have trouble understanding
something - ask. Your belittling Einstein is just so dumb. And your
belief in a high-school-level mistake being undetected already by any
random 1905 physics grad student (let alone Einstein, let alone any old
Annalen der Physik reviewer) is just too dumb for words.

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Androcles wrote:

But now we do it this way.
Light is emitted from the engine, reflects at the caboose and
returns to the engine.
The time of reflection at the caboose is now tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c PLUS
v))
Diagramatically,
(fixed font needed).

|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.

Distance between mirrors is x'

Einstein's equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

What it means in the diagram:

½[tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))

Correct.

So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,

According to the clock sync of the moving system.

There is no "clock sync" of the moving system, fool!
Time in the moving system (tau) can *supposedly* be different to time
in the stationary system (t), but it can't be different to itself!
You've got tau, you've got t. That's it.

but it doesn't.

According to the clock sync of the stationary system.

There is no "clock sync" of the stationary system, you clown!
Time in the stationary system (t) can *supposedly* be different to time
in the moving system (tau), but it can't be different to itself!
You've got tau, you've got t. That's it.



And your point is?

And my point is you are an utterly useless incompetent phuckwit, a
clown, an idiot,
a moron, a ****ing joke, just like your idiot tin god Einstein!



Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.

Stop repeating childish crap. If you have trouble understanding
something - ask.

You pompous egotistical ****ing cretin! "clock sync" tau with tau!
Androcles.