Again: Relativity for Thought Experiments

McCoulloggh is attempting to create another cult as another spin to
the crap of SR. That most likely would not bode very well. SR takes
only 2 assumptions to derive the Lorentz transform while McCoullough’s
cult requires 5. The stupidity of Einstein Dingleberries never
diminish in time. shrug

Koobee Wublee wrote:
McCoulloggh is attempting to create another cult as another spin to
the crap of SR. That most likely would not bode very well. SR takes
only 2 assumptions to derive the Lorentz transform while McCoullough’s
cult requires 5. The stupidity of Einstein Dingleberries never
diminish in time. shrug

The most important assumption of SR was, and still is that the stuff
is not meant to be understood by kids, or by retired engineers who
somehow never learned to properly master the art of understanding
the meanings of the variables they feel to have to struggle with.
This sums it up a bit:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...planation.html

From his opening post Daryl never stood a chance, as was seen.
His thread was bound to be destroyed by imbeciles.
Communicating With Malicious Imbeciles Is Just Impossible.

Dirk Vdm

true, but a transformation *is* from one coordinates
to another. however, I can only use tripolars,
plus a "coordinate" for time, which is easily transformed
into quaternions (time is the "real" scalar;
space is the three "pure imaginaires" .-)

Communicating With Malicious Imbeciles Is Just Impossible.

thus:
I have repeatedly related the apparent fact that
both of the largest icesheets on Eaaarth have only risen in heighth,
since the recordings began. so far, all I've gotten is a bland
assertion,
that calving at the edges & receding glaciers are supposed *prima
facie* to mean that Antarctica and Greenland are melting,
which of course is true. won one for the Gipper!??

I am not, though, asserting that humans are not by-far the greatest
influence on the God-am weather. however,
many of the activities that *create* CO2 (and water vapor,
naturally) are mor important than the #2 glass house gas, itself,
such as deforestation at the bases of glaciers.

6. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com,
by far the best general interest science mag in English, although
not without many faults; after all,
there is a lot of original research, not just graphics-induced pablum
a la Scientific American. (you can find the INQUA article, there,
e.g. .-)

Daryl McCullough caught with pants down again and sobbed:
Koobee Wublee rubbed all over McCullough and wrote:

SR takes only 2 assumptions to derive the Lorentz transform while
McCoullough’s cult requires 5.

I wasn't deriving the Lorentz transform. That was the whole point of
my post, was that I wasn't going to say anything about transformations
between coordinate systems, and instead, I was going to focus on what
relativity predicts for a SINGLE coordinate system.

That is His whole point. McCullough is full of trash. shrug

Dirk Van de moortel, the sperm lover, wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

McCoulloggh is attempting to create another cult as another spin to
the crap of SR. That most likely would not bode very well. SR takes
only 2 assumptions to derive the Lorentz transform while McCoullough’s
cult requires 5. The stupidity of Einstein Dingleberries never
diminish in time. shrug

The most important assumption of SR was, and still is that the stuff
is not meant to be understood by kids, or by retired engineers who
somehow never learned to properly master the art of understanding
the meanings of the variables they feel to have to struggle with.
This sums it up a bit:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...PrivateLagrang....
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...PlausibleExpla....

The sperm lover who calls itself “Dirk Van de moortel” never
understood SR. shrug

From his opening post Daryl never stood a chance, as was seen.

That appears to be a fantasy of a sperm lover. shrug

His thread was bound to be destroyed by imbeciles.

The imbecile’s thread NEEDS to be destroyed. shrug

Communicating With Malicious Imbeciles Is Just Impossible.

Right as seen in the following self-portrait of the imbecile who calls
itself “Dirk Van de moortel” the sperm lover.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...oAndrocles.jpg

Daryl McCullough wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:25:53 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

That is His whole point. McCullough is full of trash. shrug

But interestingly, you are incompetent to show it. What you do,
instead, is (again and again and again) is to write down your OWN
equations, give your OWN interpretations of those equations, and then
shows that YOUR equations with YOUR interpretations lead to
nonsensical results. That's a proof that YOUR equations and
interpretations are nonsense.

To prove that someone ELSE's equations and interpretations are
nonsensical, you have to USE them, and derive a contradiction.
You can't insert your own stuff, because that only proves that
your stuff leads to a contradiction.

Here's an analogy: Suppose you are trying to show that a certain well
contains water that is unfit to drink. Urinating into the well
and THEN testing the water doesn't prove anything about what the
water was like BEFORE you urinated. That's what you're doing with
SR, essentially.

I showed him this once, a few years ago:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html .
He replied with the most stupid remark, so I didn't
even bother following up on it.
That is the best strategy to follow when facing this
kind of troll... just not to bother. Kick and turn your
back :-)

Dirk Vdm

well, he stole that idea from me, although
I did not bother to actually do the God-am math.

in other words, just use *your own* coordinates,
relative to yourself as the observer,
perhaps in some simplified domain, like ...
I don't know,
there really is nothing as simple as "free-fall
on the x-axis," a la Lorentz et al, and
perhaps that is a part of the problem.

deriving the Lorentz transform. That was the whole point of
my post, was that I wasn't going to say anything about transformations
between coordinate systems, and instead, I was going to focus on what
relativity predicts for a SINGLE coordinate system.

On Nov 15, 5:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

I showed him this once, a few years ago:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html.

Still wrong after all these years. shrug

Face it. There is no resolution to the twins’ paradox. shrug

Only fools among them Einstein Dingleberries believe in the nonsense.
shrug

These fools don’t understand how to properly apply the Lorentz
transform. These fools violate the essence of SR by preferring one
frame of reference over the other. These fools are Daryl McCullough,
Dirk Van de moortel, and Paul Andersen. It is interesting that Paul
Andersen remains silent. Does he realize his own mistake after
reading His posts? Why is PD silent? Does PD not endorse the **** of
Daryl McCullough and Dirk Van de moortel? Where is Tom? He knows Tom
is reading His posts. Hi, Tom. Do you agree with Daryl McCullough?
shrug

Yes, anything you write down can be used against you later on.
shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 5:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

I showed him this once, a few years ago:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html.

Still wrong after all these years. shrug

Face it. There is no resolution to the twins’ paradox. shrug

__________________________________________
There is no "paradox"; it's just counter-intuitive. And it is observed evert
day in particle accelerators around the world; muons in relative motion
decay more slowly than those at rest. You are about 100 years behind in your
knowledge of physics.

yeah; way beyond the half-life of Schroedinger's jokey cat.

he cannot give a qualitative explanation of the pedagogical "paradox,"
more or less akin to Zeno's paradox, except that
one really cannot get to the speed of light, c --
not its velocity!

perhaps he's got a patent for faster-than-all-known-phenomena.

You are about 100 years behind in your
knowledge of physics.