DiRk VaN DeR MoORteL

**Mike** · #1 September 18th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
inertial observers. hahahahahaha

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3

Mike

**Sorcerer** · #2 September 18th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
| period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
| inertial observers. hahahahahaha
|
|
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3
|
| Mike
|
Cutting it down to size:

"at a LOGICAL level an accelerated system is at constant velocity in an
infinitesimal time period" -- "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again"

By the same ****in' intensified stupidity, a constantly moving system
is stationary in an infinitesimal time period.

And who says "Yep" with a silly grin ":-)"?
Our local village dog tord, of course.

Thus we see trains move by relativistic peristalsis:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
Androcles.

**Mike**

Sorcerer wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
| period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
| inertial observers. hahahahahaha
|
|
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3
|
| Mike
|
Cutting it down to size:

"at a LOGICAL level an accelerated system is at constant velocity in an
infinitesimal time period" -- "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again"

By the same ****in' intensified stupidity, a constantly moving system
is stationary in an infinitesimal time period.

And who says "Yep" with a silly grin ":-)"?
Our local village dog tord, of course.

Thus we see trains move by relativistic peristalsis:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
Androcles.

Those retards should be asked how small should the infinitesimal
interval be so that they can fix a local inertial frame on it.

I blame cheap education for this retarded behavior. Often in cheap
schools some teachers will use the infinitesimal method to try to
explain to a group of students whose highest IQ is below 100 how to
understand geometrically accelerated motion: Break down the path to
small infinitesimal intervals, then take the differences, divide by the
infinitasimal time and take the limit.

God forbit the retard of sci.groups thinks this is a method he can use
to incorporate accelerated motion in SR. This is because that is all he
knows. Consider a mass m in free fall near the earth surface to see
what he essentially does:

s = gt^2/2 (1)

let s --- s+ds t --- t+dt

(s+ds) = g (t+dt)^2/2

Expand and simplify. You get:

s+ds = g [ t^2 +2tdt+(dt)^2]/2 or given (1)

ds/dt = gt + dt/2

I am asking the retards now: how small they want the dt to have
constant velocity ds/dt?

He is such a retard that he cannot understand that even if he lets
ds---0, still ds/dt = gt, far from a constant unless the clock in his
stupid head stops ticking, which appears to be the case.

One exception: at Planck time level, the ds-- 0 can give rise to ds/dt
= constant between Planck intervals but of course you have HUP there
and you are not able to fix the local inertial FoR.

Mike

**Dirk Van de moortel** · #4 September 18th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Mike" wrote in message ups.com...

This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
inertial observers. hahahahahaha

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3

Thanks for the publicity :-)

Here's a less silly pointer:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...eleration.html
.... and you are specially mentioned on it.

Dirk Vdm

**Sorcerer**

"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Mike" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
| | period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
| | inertial observers. hahahahahaha
| |
| |
|
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3
| |
| | Mike
| |
| Cutting it down to size:
|
| "at a LOGICAL level an accelerated system is at constant velocity in an
| infinitesimal time period" -- "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again"
|
| By the same ****in' intensified stupidity, a constantly moving system
| is stationary in an infinitesimal time period.
|
| And who says "Yep" with a silly grin ":-)"?
| Our local village dog tord, of course.
|
| Thus we see trains move by relativistic peristalsis:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
| Androcles.
|
| Those retards should be asked how small should the infinitesimal
| interval be so that they can fix a local inertial frame on it.
|
| I blame cheap education for this retarded behavior. Often in cheap
| schools some teachers will use the infinitesimal method to try to
| explain to a group of students whose highest IQ is below 100 how to
| understand geometrically accelerated motion: Break down the path to
| small infinitesimal intervals, then take the differences, divide by the
| infinitasimal time and take the limit.
|
| God forbit the retard of sci.groups thinks this is a method he can use
| to incorporate accelerated motion in SR. This is because that is all he
| knows. Consider a mass m in free fall near the earth surface to see
| what he essentially does:
|
| s = gt^2/2 (1)
|
| let s --- s+ds t --- t+dt
|
| (s+ds) = g (t+dt)^2/2
|
| Expand and simplify. You get:
|
| s+ds = g [ t^2 +2tdt+(dt)^2]/2 or given (1)
|
| ds/dt = gt + dt/2
|
| I am asking the retards now: how small they want the dt to have
| constant velocity ds/dt?
|
| He is such a retard that he cannot understand that even if he lets
| ds---0, still ds/dt = gt, far from a constant unless the clock in his
| stupid head stops ticking, which appears to be the case.

In the words of Al Schwartz, himself an arrogant fool,
"ignorance is educable -- stupidity is forever".

Dork and Hobbit have no mathematical training or ability,
they wish to bask in what they see as glory while adding
nothing to science. They see themselves as infallible,
anyone that agrees with them is ok, but they can only
change the subject and/or ridicule those that do not.
Essentially they are bullies and like all bullies cannot
stand to be proven wrong.
Einstein defined c to have two values, c and -c.
He had no mathematical ability either.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF

As each domino falls, Dork and Hobbit rush around trying
to stand it up again.
Ghost even tries to uphold the first domino by arguing that
"Geschwindigkeit" translates to both speed and velocity, but
fails since words have little use in mathematics, equations rule.
http://tinyurl.com/kxb8x
He complains the LHC has a "low" operating frequency of
11.245 kHz for it's 27km ring, and sarcastically suggests that
it was not designed on Newtonian calculations. He imagines
it should be in the MHz rnge for some strange reason.
However, 27000 * 11245 = 303,615,000 m/s and so
a hadron in sync with the ring is moving faster than
299,792,456.2 m/s, the alleged speed of light.

Pointing this out, he then confuses himself and attempts
to sidetrack into the mass of the particle with relativistic
calculations.
I suspect the real ring diameter is 8.492 kilometres,
26,678 km circumference and the operating frequency is adjustable.

I'm sure the engineers that designed the thing are tongue-in-cheek.

|
| One exception: at Planck time level, the ds-- 0 can give rise to ds/dt
| = constant between Planck intervals but of course you have HUP there
| and you are not able to fix the local inertial FoR.
|
| Mike
|

**Dirk Van de moortel**

"Mike" wrote in message ups.com...

[snip]

Those retards should be asked how small should the infinitesimal
interval be so that they can fix a local inertial frame on it.

I blame cheap education for this retarded behavior. Often in cheap
schools some teachers will use the infinitesimal method to try to
explain to a group of students whose highest IQ is below 100 how to
understand geometrically accelerated motion: Break down the path to
small infinitesimal intervals, then take the differences, divide by the
infinitasimal time and take the limit.

God forbit the retard of sci.groups thinks this is a method he can use
to incorporate accelerated motion in SR. This is because that is all he
knows. Consider a mass m in free fall near the earth surface to see
what he essentially does:

s = gt^2/2 (1)

let s --- s+ds t --- t+dt

(s+ds) = g (t+dt)^2/2

Expand and simplify. You get:

s+ds = g [ t^2 +2tdt+(dt)^2]/2 or given (1)

ds/dt = gt + dt/2

I am asking the retards now: how small they want the dt to have
constant velocity ds/dt?

He is such a retard that he cannot understand that even if he lets
ds---0, still ds/dt = gt, far from a constant unless the clock in his
stupid head stops ticking, which appears to be the case.

One exception: at Planck time level, the ds-- 0 can give rise to ds/dt
= constant between Planck intervals but of course you have HUP there
and you are not able to fix the local inertial FoR.

Mike

"I blame cheap education for this retarded behavior"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Education.html
A stunning beauty :-)

Dirk Vdm

**Dirk Van de moortel**

**Sorcerer**

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| "Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| [snip]

gladly

**Sorcerer**

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
k...
|
| [snip]

gladly

**Phil** · #10 September 20th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Mike wrote:
This is his new hairstyle. Locally inertial at an infinitesimal time
period of an accelerated motion this is how he looks to a globally
inertial observers. hahahahahaha

It is certainly true that an infinitesimal time period, no doubt, would
not eliminate an infinitesimal acceleration contribution. If it did,
then it would not be possible to time integrate acceleration. The sum
of an infinite number of zeros is zero. The infinitesimal, though
approaching zero, is not zero, which is why it is called an
infinetisemal, instead of say, (tounge in cheek), "zero".

Relativists can correct me if I am incorrect on this next statement. I
don't think they neglect the effect of curvature altogether.
Basically, they acknowledge a tangent space in which SR is valid,
THEN, the effects of curvature are integrated to give the final result.

PHil

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DiRk VaN DeR MoORteL	Mike	Physics - General Discussion	8	September 23rd 06 04:41 PM
Letter to Dirk Van de moortel	César Sirvent	The Theory of Relativity	54	March 17th 05 01:20 AM
Bill Hobba aka Dirk van der moortel	Androcles	The Theory of Relativity	40	January 12th 05 03:37 PM
to Dirk Van de moortel	beda pietanza	The Theory of Relativity	4	January 7th 05 02:30 AM
Dirk Van de moortel contribution to physics....................................................	Mathew Orman	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 22nd 03 10:38 PM