Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

On Oct 30, 9:04*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
your pancakes are totally bizarre. *anyway,
there was a technological aplication of polaraization
to cellphone towers & phones,
essentially showing that polarization is 3d,
not 2d as known by the usual terms of "circular,"
"right" and left polarization.

but, actually, light isn't particles,
in any measurable way; it is waves. *only
the photoelectric effect can possibly be interpreted
as teh result of "little )d rocks o'light,"
or pancakes, or what have you.

thus:
earthscientists do not know spehrical geometry,
as with the angle of total reflection off of water,
which is really quite something of a lacunum.

my other main point is that GRACE et al prove that
AnIS and GrIS have only risen,
since the beginning of measurement,
around the IGY ('57-9); from this,
it is easy to draw some conclusion,
as to what is actually occurring --
not "global" warming, which is merely a nonsequiter
from "glaas haus FX."

Dear 1tree: Light is composed of uniformly emitted photons. Photons
are massless, because all masses, by my King of the Science Hill
definition is: "Any tangle of energy capable of giving off at least 1
photon in response to being ‘impacted' by another photon." Since a
photon can't emit itself, then all photons are massless, except in the
gamma ray frequency. Repeating your own errant science ideas can
never shake my New Science. Except in FLUIDS like air and water,
waves have little effect on the laws of the Universe. Over usage of
the words wave and field don't stand the user in good intellectual
stead. Nor does your penchant for copying and pasting the errant
ideas of others. Nothing in science history can refute even one
sentence of my New Science, even though you often try. — NoEinstein —

On Oct 30, 9:10*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
your "explanation of the horrible wrongness
of Huyghens/Liebniz/Coriolis" is simply because,
you never learned fraction in middle school, and
thus how to keep account of units & dimensions.

maybe, though, you could see that
the "Coriolis effect" can also be a force,
something taht I have stated for years.

Two same size, but
different mass spheres that have the SAME kinetic energy upon
impacting soft clay will both embed in the clay identical amounts.

that doesn't make any sense, at all;
KE always includes the mass,
whether or not you believe that "momentum
equals force
equals kinetic energy etc.

Dear 1tree: On the Clemson graduate record exam, I scored the second
highest in my architecture class of about 19. And those 19, as a
group, scored higher on math and on English than those majoring in
math and English. I can assure you that I have never had any
difficulty doing math. My major was structural engineering (under
architecture rather than under CE). I did more real math on just my A-
graded thesis than most math graduates ever do in their entire lives.
What "fraction" are you, 1tree, 1/10^1000 power? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —

On Oct 30, 9:39*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
the question in the header relates
to the fact taht you two have "high-fived"
each-other for Einstein-bashing, but
you don't have the slightest clue,
what teh other is trying to say!

Dear 1tree: I've invited "Space" to comment in more detail. Most of
the readers know that the safest thing for their egos is never to let
it be known how little they actually know. That is one reason I
elucidate with such ease! — NE —

On Friday, November 2, 2012 5:10:35 PM UTC-7, NoEinstein wrote:

I can assure you that I have never had any

difficulty doing math... I did more real math on just my A-

graded thesis than most math graduates ever do in their entire lives...

Tell us again how *x squared* reaches infinity faster than *x*...

And you bought your degree from…?

ipso facto plus more; just say,
I am the greatest;
burn like a butterfly, crunch like a bee.

thus:
when ever I'm not watching s stupid Harry Potterism ...
then, I put them back on, ASAP.

when do I take-off my 3d glasses?

thus:
get rid of the phase-space of "timespace;"
use quaternions for combined inner & outer products;
the "real, scalar part is time, hereinat."

thus:
my source is from Westinghouse Research,
amalgamated by Exploratorium in a large poster.

thank you ... even though "the glass house metaphor" is really,
really bad.

going to answer the problem of the relative "glass housiness"
of dihyrdogen oxide, to dioxygen carbide?

thus query:
how can sea level, a constant caused by gravity, rise faster
in one local location than another, what has sea level risen, and
what is the percent increase that you claim. how
did you measure the base sea level in all these locations.

thus:
of the short record of AnIS and GrIS;
there is no dispute of that, viz GRACE.

thus:
I viewed you two as a tree ... but
you may not cause gravity.

"I haven't seen any defensible explanation
of any errors by Miskolczi, and neither have I."

because, there was no there, whereinat.

On Nov 6, 8:21*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
ipso facto plus more; just say,
I am the greatest;
burn like a butterfly, crunch like a bee.

thus:
when ever I'm not watching s stupid Harry Potterism ...
then, I put them back on, ASAP.

when do I take-off my 3d glasses?

thus:
get rid of the phase-space of "timespace;"
use quaternions for combined inner & outer products;
the "real, scalar part is time, hereinat."

thus:
my source is from Westinghouse Research,
amalgamated by Exploratorium in a large poster.

thank you ... even though "the glass house metaphor" is really,
really bad.

going to answer the problem of the relative "glass housiness"
of dihyrdogen oxide, to dioxygen carbide?

thus query:
how can sea level, a constant caused by gravity, rise faster
in one local location than another, what has sea level risen, and
what is the percent increase that you claim. how
did you measure the base sea level in all these locations.

thus:
of the short record of AnIS and GrIS;
there is no dispute of that, viz GRACE.

thus:
I viewed you two as a tree ... but
you may not cause gravity.

"I haven't seen any defensible explanation

of any errors by Miskolczi, and neither have I."

Dear 1tree: Sometimes it is hard to realize to whom you are talking.
Please do me a favor and try to get the nucleus of your reply within
two or three narrative style paragraphs. You make me feel like a kid
looking for the Easter eggs you've hidden. Try handing me an egg just
one at a time. Thanks. — NoEinstein —

On Nov 7, 1:29*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
because, there was no there, whereinat.

1tree: Or... "In the beginning there was *'nothing'; but be!" [*Or
rather, ether.] — NE —

you cannot answer a single question
for your *soi-dissant* theory of every thing.

thus:
I only found one thing, that relates the continuing rate
of supply of mel****er, compared to the recent *surge*;
"surge" is really the only applicable term, and
it could be because of "not the very first thing
that a French glacialologist thinks of."

there was a good survey article about this subject,
re Alaskan glaciers, in Eos, a few months ago;
totally non-extremist, Denierist or Confirmerist format.

thus quoth:
Because the amount of precipitation has not changed much over the
past
few decades, researchers blame rising temperatures for the glacial
retreat

On Nov 9, 8:05*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
you cannot answer a single question
for your *soi-dissant* theory of every thing.

thus:
I only found one thing, that relates the continuing rate
of supply of mel****er, compared to the recent *surge*;
"surge" is really the only applicable term, and
it could be because of "not the very first thing
that a French glacialologist thinks of."

there was a good survey article about this subject,
re Alaskan glaciers, in Eos, a few months ago;
totally non-extremist, Denierist or Confirmerist format.

thus quoth:
Because the amount of precipitation has not changed much over the
past
few decades, researchers blame rising temperatures for the glacial
retreat

Three-quarters of the Earth is ocean. If ocean temperatures are
rising- that should be a major red flag! That should be the canary in
a coal mine.