Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

go to *a* balcony & look;
I give very few references,
as a general rule. I have been doing this
for longer than is really healthy, but
it certainly qualifies as "minimalist."

now, don't jump off; thank you.

I don't go looking for links to the words of
others.

I plowed through your ****, above,
til I got to where you insulted our host;
go fly a kite, see how far to Maui you get!

so, you "high-fived" Neinstein998" -- I've been
replying to his stuff for a while longer -- but
you really think heis even dumber than I am,
like one of your "loyalists."\\if none of your loyalists
can determine the upper bound
on the speed of wind, then you'll never know.

well, Okay.

without having to "monkey with" any of the animals. *— NE —

if you don't want to hear philosphical,
don't type the ****; in this specific case,
dog****.

talk science, you talk semantics. *Better that
than nothing, I suppose... *— NE —

you have all teh physics matter of a counting dog,
as in barkometry. seriously,
the other of the four subjects is geometry, and
if you hate that, I cannot help you.

Ha, ha.... *no I don't. *Will you explain your humor?

"1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote in message
...
go to *a* balcony & look;
I give very few references,

the first one yes

but not the little guys in the second

they're not a bush
it's "like a field of poppies"

On Apr 16, 12:59*am, (Syamu1 Hyd5) wrote:
hfjghj

Those who are afraid to discuss true science talk only in "code".
Care to explain? — NE —

On Apr 16, 12:52*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
go to *a* balcony & look;
I give very few references,
as a general rule. *I have been doing this
for longer than is really healthy, but
it certainly qualifies as "minimalist."

now, don't jump off; thank you.



I don't go looking for links to the words of
others.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1tree: To whom are you speaking? When I go to a balcony, I drop same-
size, different weight balls into soft clay. At the drop heights that
Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 'predicts' that the KE of both balls should
match, the penetration distances into soft clay don't match. I just
sent you a photograph of my $40.00 experiment after dropping the two
balls into a small flowerpot of clay. What do you do on a balcony,
spit? — NE —

On Apr 13, 6:56*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:30*pm, "ala" wrote:





"1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote in message

....

or, on your ass, but, if they will ever admit that
Hawking made a trivial error in nomenclature,
one that even a grammer-checker-maven, like you, could see
-- showing that you do indeed have a positive IQ, although
I wished I had noticed this trivial error, myself, since
sublimation & frosting is so important to "global" warming --
yes;
they will be sending your "thank you, dear coleague, note"
in the zipmail.

oops; how is "colleague," really spelled --
as in "midlle school, I got straight As?"

the Noble Committee is on your case.

Hawking corrected Leonard's error yesterday

http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_th...95/the-big-ban...

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear ala: If the "Nobel Commitee" was on my case, they would have to
RETURN rewards, not just give me one! *— NE —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction: Make that Committee.

On Apr 16, 1:00*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
I plowed through your ****, above,
til I got to where you insulted our host;
go fly a kite, see how far to Maui you get!

so, you "high-fived" Neinstein998" -- I've been
replying to his stuff for a while longer -- but
you really think heis even dumber than I am,
like one of your "loyalists."\\if none of your loyalists
can determine the upper bound
on the speed of wind, then you'll never know.

Are you hitting the sauce again, 1tree? — NE —