Quadibloc -- Fourth Attempt

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
....

On Jan 10, 7:13 pm, William Hamblen
wrote:

Good job, Androcles.

While I have broken down and responded to his posts on a few
occasions, you can see why, unlike Oriel, I regard him as beneath
contempt.

Back when I took science, one of the first things they taught us was
that you can't just plug physics equations together like building
blocks. Even if you obey the rules of algebra perfectly, that doesn't
help if the "v" in one equation doesn't stand for the same thing as
the "v" in the other equation you're trying to substitute in.
================================================== ===========
The speed of a point on a train passing the length of a station platform
from zero to x in time t is given by v = (x-zero)/t = x/t.
The speed of a point on a platform passing the length of a train from omega
to xi in time tau is given by = (x-omega)/tau = xi/tau.
Too bad that v does not equal upsilon in relativity because xi does not
equal x and tau does not equal t as much as you wish it to, but you are so
arrogantly stupid and unreasonable and don't have Oriel's excuse of autism
that you are totally contemptible.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On 2013-01-11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
m...

On 2013-01-10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
m...

On 2013-01-10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
============================================= ==
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of
some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.


Hint: where did the t go and where did the tau come from in the inverse
transform?

Bud
==========================================
Hint:
I want an answer from Quadiblockhead, not a ****ing hint from a ****head.
Hint:
Answer the question or shut the **** up.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

QED

Good job, Androcles.

Bud
========================================
Thanks. As you can see, the contemptible Savard behaves just as Kelleher
does, giving no explanation for his irrational beliefs.
Surely it is not to difficult to explain why he multiplies instead of
dividing?
Does he really believe that if half of 5-1 is 2, then half of 2+1 is 5?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.



Not only do you not understand algebra, you don't understand English. I was
complimenting you on your self-demonstration of complete crankery. Good job
indeed, Androcles.

Bud

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...

On 2013-01-11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
m...

On 2013-01-10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
m...

On 2013-01-10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
============================================= ==
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of
some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.


Hint: where did the t go and where did the tau come from in the inverse
transform?

Bud
==========================================
Hint:
I want an answer from Quadiblockhead, not a ****ing hint from a ****head.
Hint:
Answer the question or shut the **** up.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

QED

Good job, Androcles.

Bud
========================================
Thanks. As you can see, the contemptible Savard behaves just as Kelleher
does, giving no explanation for his irrational beliefs.
Surely it is not to difficult to explain why he multiplies instead of
dividing?
Does he really believe that if half of 5-1 is 2, then half of 2+1 is 5?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.



Not only do you not understand algebra, you don't understand English. I was
complimenting you on your self-demonstration of complete crankery. Good job
indeed, Androcles.

Bud
=============================================
I understand English and algebra very well, dumb****. You do understand I'm
using plain English in calling you "dumb****", I trust?
Try answering question, arsehole.
Does Savard (or you) really believe that if half of 5-1 is 2, then half of
2+1 is 5, you ****ing moron?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.