Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

On Sep 19, 6:54*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Sep 12, 10:16*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

ha ****in' ha, you bloated egomaniac;
you the greatest, ever, because *drum machine,
please I say, that you say, So,
What?

whoever put Shakespeare's sigfile
into the KJV Bible, may not have been his worst fan,
although it could have been an act of remorse
by Ben Johnson.

anywaaay, mere prosaic accounts do not count,
anywhere in physics, except in a)
"mathless pop science a la *Nova* (PBS)" and b)
any where, alse, that you know of?

your Nobel prize will be a golden dustpan!

me and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: *Try as hard as many true egomaniacs will, none of them
can profess to have contributed even 1% of what my New Science has.
Try this, deep-thinker: Sentence by sentence write down why you think
what I have just explained is wrong. *Or easier, still, for you, take
just a single one of my predictions and explain why what I say is
wrong. *But realize: By the rules of fair debate, any theory once
challenged, can't be upheld simply by restating the challenged
theory. *Since your only 'defense' is the status quo, and those
screwed-up science history books, then, you have easily been bested
without your needing to say a word. *I will agree that I am super
confident of my many "predictions". *Try predicting anything yourself,
fellow, and without escaping into Shakespeare's times. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: *1tree is conspicuously absent, again. *I hope he hasn't been
eaten by another pod of 'sharks'. *Oh, I notice the usual fall-off in
readership associated with the start of college and pro football. *The
latter is, in my opinion, the most intellect intensive of the major
team sports. *I follow the Clemson Tigers and the Carolina Panthers.
However, when all is said and done, 1/2 of the teams will be losers
after the games. *I have written and polished a New Constitution of
the United States of America, which I hope will save the USA from its
"sports mentality" of group fighting group. *The latter is certainly
primal and gets the blood to circulating, but is nowhere near as
important to your children and grandchildren as having an efficient
and deferential to the People government. *The masses will be far more
willing to vote yea for my New Constitution if they realize that the
author, John A. Armistead, is the same NoEinstein who has quite easily
and thoroughly disproved Einstein's relativity theories and Newton's
supposed law of "universal" gravitation. *You would all be helping
your families by starting to tell others what I have done. *I'm not
seeking "YouTube" fame. *But the power of my words and super IQ won't
matter much unless the number of readers stay high. *Any help you can
give in that regard will be appreciated! *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alright 'Core Readers', stand up and be counted! If there is anything
about science that is more than just recreation for the readers,
certainly my messages, in what amounts to little essay 'replies',
needs to be as widely read as possible. '1tree', in his regressive
ways, often managed to pose questions that allowed me to explain my
New Science from slightly different perspectives each time. Is there
no other person among you who knows how to ask questions about the
many aspects of my regularly stated New Science? Am I only talking to
myself, here? There may be appeal to many to skim over the dozens of
+new posts put on sci.physics every single day. But as I've regularly
stated, "My contribution to science exceeds the combined contribution
of every single physicist who ever lived." And not a soul has offered
up a list those they suppose refutes my claim. My friend Androcles,
long ago convinced himself—as he must have tried to convince some
others—that there is 'no ether'. Yet, varying ether flow and density
easily explains every force and material observation in the Universe!
If I can only get the millions of status quo hang-ons to accept that
fact, and get even one or two "name" scientists who've not contributed
even 1% of what I have, to support me rather than to fight me, maybe,
just maybe, the God damned media will stop brown-nosing those in the
science GRAVES and can actually aid having the world become a better
place. Does one's sports thrills and science RECREATION exceed my
motivations to help the world? Then, if so, won't some of you timid
souls agree with me on anything, and ask questions if you don't? I
am, probably, THE most analytical-minded individual ever to live on
planet Earth. Turn me loose from these word games. I'm on the side
of humanity! — NoEinstein — AKA John A. Armistead, Author of 'The
Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity' and the resulting 'New
Constitution of the United States of America', or "NC" for short.
Check those out!

On Sep 23, 6:34*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 19, 6:54*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Sep 14, 7:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 12, 10:16*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

ha ****in' ha, you bloated egomaniac;
you the greatest, ever, because *drum machine,
please I say, that you say, So,
What?

whoever put Shakespeare's sigfile
into the KJV Bible, may not have been his worst fan,
although it could have been an act of remorse
by Ben Johnson.

anywaaay, mere prosaic accounts do not count,
anywhere in physics, except in a)
"mathless pop science a la *Nova* (PBS)" and b)
any where, alse, that you know of?

your Nobel prize will be a golden dustpan!

me and I alone,
determine what is truth in the physical (mechanical) sciences- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: *Try as hard as many true egomaniacs will, none of them
can profess to have contributed even 1% of what my New Science has.
Try this, deep-thinker: Sentence by sentence write down why you think
what I have just explained is wrong. *Or easier, still, for you, take
just a single one of my predictions and explain why what I say is
wrong. *But realize: By the rules of fair debate, any theory once
challenged, can't be upheld simply by restating the challenged
theory. *Since your only 'defense' is the status quo, and those
screwed-up science history books, then, you have easily been bested
without your needing to say a word. *I will agree that I am super
confident of my many "predictions". *Try predicting anything yourself,
fellow, and without escaping into Shakespeare's times. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: *1tree is conspicuously absent, again. *I hope he hasn't been
eaten by another pod of 'sharks'. *Oh, I notice the usual fall-off in
readership associated with the start of college and pro football. *The
latter is, in my opinion, the most intellect intensive of the major
team sports. *I follow the Clemson Tigers and the Carolina Panthers.
However, when all is said and done, 1/2 of the teams will be losers
after the games. *I have written and polished a New Constitution of
the United States of America, which I hope will save the USA from its
"sports mentality" of group fighting group. *The latter is certainly
primal and gets the blood to circulating, but is nowhere near as
important to your children and grandchildren as having an efficient
and deferential to the People government. *The masses will be far more
willing to vote yea for my New Constitution if they realize that the
author, John A. Armistead, is the same NoEinstein who has quite easily
and thoroughly disproved Einstein's relativity theories and Newton's
supposed law of "universal" gravitation. *You would all be helping
your families by starting to tell others what I have done. *I'm not
seeking "YouTube" fame. *But the power of my words and super IQ won't
matter much unless the number of readers stay high. *Any help you can
give in that regard will be appreciated! *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alright 'Core Readers', stand up and be counted! *If there is anything
about science that is more than just recreation for the readers,
certainly my messages, in what amounts to little essay 'replies',
needs to be as widely read as possible. *'1tree', in his regressive
ways, often managed to pose questions that allowed me to explain my
New Science from slightly different perspectives each time. *Is there
no other person among you who knows how to ask questions about the
many aspects of my regularly stated New Science? *Am I only talking to
myself, here? *There may be appeal to many to skim over the dozens of
+new posts put on sci.physics every single day. *But as I've regularly
stated, "My contribution to science exceeds the combined contribution
of every single physicist who ever lived." *And not a soul has offered
up a list those they suppose refutes my claim. *My friend Androcles,
long ago convinced himself—as he must have tried to convince some
others—that there is 'no ether'. *Yet, varying ether flow and density
easily explains every force and material observation in the Universe!
If I can only get the millions of status quo hang-ons to accept that
fact, and get even one or two "name" scientists who've not contributed
even 1% of what I have, to support me rather than to fight me, maybe,
just maybe, the God damned media will stop brown-nosing those in the
science GRAVES and can actually aid having the world become a better
place. *Does one's sports thrills and science RECREATION exceed my
motivations to help the world? *Then, if so, won't some of you timid
souls agree with me on anything, and ask questions if you don't? *I
am, probably, THE most analytical-minded individual ever to live on
planet Earth. *Turn me loose from these word games. *I'm on the side
of humanity! *— NoEinstein — *AKA John A. Armistead, Author of 'The
Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity' and the resulting 'New
Constitution of the United States of America', or "NC" for short.
Check those out!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: If, as I hope, 1tree returns from his fight with the sharks, I
will continue to reply, thoughtfully, here. Till then, I will "troll"
the recent sci.physics posts of others that need the clarification of
a deep-thinker like me. Thanks to those of you who continue to follow
what I write. Before long, I hope to have a business/personal website
up and running, that will include about 40% of my New Constitution of
the United States of America, or "NC" for short. Solving the world's
pressing problems, like global warming and fresh water dearth in too
many places, will be more likely to happen if the USA doesn't continue
going down the 'tubes' of socialism. Don't worry, insecure ones, the
resulting new government won't leave any of the truly needy out-in-the-
cold. New opportunities for jobs at fair pay will allow most to
support themselves and their families, when apt, without too much
sweat. Think positive; I am on the side of all good people! —
NoEinstein — who is AKA John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot.

your only core reader, back to report ... zzzzz.

you are a terrible correspondent!

no, your theory makes no quantifiable predictions,
whatsoever, at least none that you have stated;
you are merely supplying "ad hoc, post hoc fallacies"
of definitionless English verbiage.

your supposed coursework in "structural" wahtever,
seems to have been a matter of gaming the system.
somehow, since your fall-out with science
after middle school.

well, good luck with your old architectonic ****.

NB, as I stated in another item from alt.global-
warming, "global" warming is a horrible nonsequiter (or
misnomer, or oxymoron, depending upon context.

thus:
I just found another flat-earther artifact
in "global" warming theory,
that is really quite easy to state. please note,
however, that it should be enough,
simply to calculate the actual albedo
of open arctic waters, by using Snell's law
to find the angle of total reflection
off of water, mod waviness & turbulence etc.
(one can usually find this demonstrated
in any elementary text on optical physics .-)

stating the unvarnished truth is still legal in most cases.

and, before you shoot your wad,
like most of the folks in alt.global-warming, please,
look-up "angle of total reflection" of sunlight
off of water; it really does put a limit
on some of this silliness about Earth's most unstable ice,
floating in Arctica.

NB, a hundred may not be a perfect score, but
it is certainly a sign of reasonable intelligence ...
even if the scores may have gone "up,"
hisotrically.

just don't tell us,
that your theory doesn't suck, because "JAA said, So!"

so, What?

please note, from the header
that I wrote for you,
that I am somewhat critical
of E & N ... not that they were
as proudly ignorant as yourself!

and, when you finally have undertaken
to learn "how to do fractions,
including using the units of mensurement properly,
as in 'dimensional analysis,'" go ahead and
make our day, complete.

as proudly ignorant as yourself!

but, seriously, it would be better
to make a direct, hands-on (lab) study
of the four subjects of mathematica,
starting perhaps with constructive geometry
-- I know the very best text for that,
much of it pioneered by the author.

thus:
what made you think, that I thought, that?

Einstein was okay; at least,
he wasn't an old fraud, like Newton. however,
both of them promoted the same stupid idea,
that you support, of "little, massless rocks
of light," Newton's old, fake "corpuscular theory,"
possibly just that of Descartes from his flakey "proof
of Snell's law," with no reference to Snell.

never even got a college degree. Do you think texts and history books
are religious icons?

thus:
are the Fermat primes characterizable,
if and only if they be Gaussian,
in the sense of their being nonskware factors
of the number of sides of compass-constructible polygona?

thus far, the only known factors are powers of two,
and 3, 5, 17, 257, and 65,537 (or some thing; yes,
it is easy to prove that all of the Fermat numbers
end in a 7 in base-ten .-)

thus:
I just found another flat-earther artifact
in "global" warming theory,
that is really quite easy to state. please note,
however, that it should be enough,
simply to calculate the actual albedo
of open arctic waters, by using Snell's law
to find the angle of total reflection
off of water, mod waviness & turbulence etc.
in the land of the midwinter twilight.

yeah, science is not about you, yourself & JAA;
it is about Universe ... unless you believe
in the Solopsists' "many u's" foolishness,
in which case "it's all U, dood!"

please, learn fractions;
use some new-agey "manipulables," if you must
-- just do it!

thus:
he wasn't an old fraud, like Newton. however,
both of them promoted the same stupid idea,
that you support, of "little, massless rocks
of light," Newton's old, fake "corpuscular theory,"
possibly just that of Descartes from his flakey "proof
of Snell's law," with no reference to Snell.



never even got a college degree. Do you think texts and history books
are religious icons?

thus:
are the Fermat primes characterizable,
if and only if they be Gaussian,
in the sense of their being nonskware factors
of the number of sides of compass-constructible polygona?

thus far, the only known factors are powers of two,
and 3, 5, 17, 257, and 65,537 (or some thing; yes,
it is easy to prove that all of the Fermat numbers
end in a 7 in base-ten;
they are numbers of the form,
2^(2^h) + 1, and those first five
are the only ones that are known to be prime .-)

thus:
I just found another flat-earther artifact
in "global" warming theory,
that is really quite easy to state. please note,
however, that it should be enough,
simply to calculate the actual albedo
of open arctic waters, by using Snell's law
to find the angle of total reflection
off of water, mod waviness & turbulence etc.
in the land of the midwinter twilight.

On Sep 28, 8:02*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
your only core reader, back to report ... zzzzz.

you are a terrible correspondent!

no, your theory makes no quantifiable predictions,
whatsoever, at least none that you have stated;
you are merely supplying "ad hoc, post hoc fallacies"
of definitionless English verbiage.

your supposed coursework in "structural" wahtever,
seems to have been a matter of gaming the system.
somehow, since your fall-out with science
after middle school.

well, good luck with your old architectonic ****.

1tree: Since the advent of the scientific calculator, nothing beyond
middle school math is required of any SANE person interested in
science. Sam Wormley found a link to the 10 top rated equations of
all time. Amazingly, the author of that link never bothered to
explain what the constants and variables of each equation stand for
and what the "word" version of those equations is trying to say.
Conspicuously missing was your favorite, Newton’s F = ma, which, as
I've explained repeatedly, isn't even an equation. As most would
suspect, Einstein, the MORON’S E = mc^2 is still right up there in the
number 1 spot. His equation was credited with “creating” (sic!)
atomic energy. But there is no quantitative energy calculation, other
than to conjecture that more massive objects have some unknown
‘exponential’ quantity of energy with increasing mass. Instead of just
constantly asking me to quantify things to satisfy your armchair,
college-dropout “standard” that science can predict things, I suggest
you, and the other core readers, go back in this thread a month or so
to see the EXHAUSTIVE predictions the I have made, and which
constitute my New Science. You are largely unteachable. If you don’t
understand what I explain, why not ask questions? Or is that
offensive to the “Shakespeare” in you? — NoEinstein —