On 21 Mar 2007 04:01:44 -0700, "
wrote:

On Mar 14, 11:07 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
[snip]

Eric Gisse is an idiot.

****tard is a stalker.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

On 21 Mar 2007 04:01:21 -0700, "
wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:58 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
[...]


Eric Gisse is an idiot.

****tard is a stalker.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."

Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On Mar 21, 4:35 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
[...]

So when are you going to explain why anyone should care, shooby?

Modern SR is _already_ in axiomatic form and it contains no errors.
What is there to gain by switching to a contrived derivation of
something already known that doesn't even correspond to modern SR?

For Sale: One Non linear ruler. Scale is infinitely variable and does
not have to follow Quantum Laws. Neat eh Ow!

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."


Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf


When you were asked to produce a proof on a Math test, did you answer
that the information necessary to generate the proof is in the textbook?
You claimed you're able to prove a *specific* result, and you've been
called. If you think that something on your website is that specific
proof then *you* cut and paste it here, and represent it as your proof.

On Mar 22, 4:54 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."

Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

When you were asked to produce a proof on a Math test, did you answer
that the information necessary to generate the proof is in the textbook?
You claimed you're able to prove a *specific* result, and you've been
called. If you think that something on your website is that specific
proof then *you* cut and paste it here, and represent it as your proof.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think Scooby Doo-doo is not able to answer the criticisms. I am
starting to think that he's not the real author of the papers, he has
not managed to write one line of math in this forum. On the other
hand, he might be related to Ajay Sharma, the other autist that would
never admit to error.

On Mar 22, 5:54 am, jem wrote:
Shubee wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."

Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

When you were asked to produce a proof on a Math test, did you answer
that the information necessary to generate the proof is in the textbook?
You claimed you're able to prove a *specific* result, and you've been
called. If you think that something on your website is that specific
proof then *you* cut and paste it here, and represent it as your proof.

Does that mean that you'll be satisfied if I just copy section 4 of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf and then
just add the comment that the proof is that my nonlinear equation
obviously satisfies the two fundamental equations of the Xi_2
universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2)?

Shubee

On Mar 22, 3:33 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:54 am, jem wrote:



Shubee wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."

Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

When you were asked to produce a proof on a Math test, did you answer
that the information necessary to generate the proof is in the textbook?
You claimed you're able to prove a *specific* result, and you've been
called. If you think that something on your website is that specific
proof then *you* cut and paste it here, and represent it as your proof.

Does that mean that you'll be satisfied if I just copy section 4 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfand then
just add the comment that the proof is that my nonlinear equation
obviously satisfies the two fundamental equations of the Xi_2
universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2)?

Shubee



Scooby Doo-doo

Why do you feel compelled to repeat the same cretinisms. You convinced
us already, you are an authentic autistic cretin. No need to prove it
on a daily basis.

Shubee wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:54 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:03 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:39 am, jem wrote:

Shubee wrote:

I also said that these equations describe simple inertial motion.

Think so? Select two of your crazy-clock reference frames (CC1/CC2),
and specify the trajectory in CC1 of the origin of CC2. Unless the
clock offset function f is constant, that trajectory isn't going to
describe uniform motion, so at least one of those reference frames isn't
Inertial.

Eq. 3 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
explains very clearly the equation that describes uniform motion in
terms of proper velocity in my very general coordinates. If you insist
on chimpanzee relativity, then yes, setting x'=0 does give you a
confusing function of t in terms of x and f(x). But I am not confused;
You are. In general, f(x) isn't invertible or even continuous or
measurable so that the best that you can get in general for the point
x'=0 is a function that looks like t=h(x). The meaning of this
equation for the point x'=0 is that as the origin of CC2 moves through
each point x of CC1 as you call it, the local mathematical clock at x
will read time t. Naturally, I presuppose a minimal set of axioms in
my paper and therefore enjoy emphasizing my trivial law of physics
which says that the universe doesn't change physically when arbitrary
clock synchronization schemes are used.

The *description* of the universe changes, i.e. the physics changes.

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about
one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct
mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be
vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions,
then the two universes are essentially the same.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your goofy transformation
*doesn't* lead to the same predictions as SR.

As you admit below, no professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

In terms of the axiomatization of physics, I should have been more
precise: "Does my nonlinear group generate a universe that is
isomorphic to the Lorentz universe? The answer is an obvious yes.

To find something obvious, that you've repeatedly been shown is wrong,
is laughable.

Shown wrong by who? No professional physicist or mathematician has
ever proven that my claim is false.

Here's a fun exercise. In the goofy coordinates of my nonlinear group,
let a clock move away at "velocity v" then turn around at some
distance and then return at the same speed. Prove the usual time
dilation effect.

Considering that any clock that starts in one of your goofy reference
frames (i.e. where f isn't constant), and moves away from its starting
point at constant velocity v, is never at rest in any of the goofy
frames, why don't you have the fun of proving it, and then you can show
us your proof. Show it here though - nobody is interested in wading
through pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website.

Hint: you might want to use a symbol other than "v" for the velocity
since "v" also happens to be an indexing parameter used by the goofy
transformation.

Where's the proof, Shubert?

The proof is that my nonlinear equation satisfies the two fundamental
equations of the Xi_2 universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2) of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
The entirety of the Xi_2 universe is explained in a little more than 2
pages. See the bottom of p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5. To transform the
ordinary velocity v into proper velocity u, just use equation (40).

BTW, expect to see this question often until you deliver. And let me
make clear that I'm not claiming the result can't be proved, although I
do claim that it can't be proved by you.

:-)

Shubee

Where's the proof, Shubert?

Forget the toys and the universes and all the other mumbo-jumbo dredged
up to avoid having to admit that you don't have a clue where to begin.

Do you even know what a proof is?

And if you do happen to find someone who'll help you produce the proof,
remember what I told you:

"Show [the proof] here though - nobody is interested in wading through
pages of self-aggrandizing to find anything on your website."

Is a little more than 2 pages too much for you? There is no proof
without those two pages. Copy those pages yourself and paste them here
if you like. However, I prefer that you start a new thread at sci.math
to review the proof.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

When you were asked to produce a proof on a Math test, did you answer
that the information necessary to generate the proof is in the textbook?
You claimed you're able to prove a *specific* result, and you've been
called. If you think that something on your website is that specific
proof then *you* cut and paste it here, and represent it as your proof.


Does that mean that you'll be satisfied if I just copy section 4 of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf and then
just add the comment that the proof is that my nonlinear equation
obviously satisfies the two fundamental equations of the Xi_2
universe, i.e., eqs (1) and (2)?


It means you should post what you consider to be a *complete* proof.


Shubee