How would we know Herbert Dingle was right or wrong?

On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" the sperm lover wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:01 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
On 30.01.2012 20:44, Rafael Valls wrote:

What elementary algebra shows is that the inverse transform is NOT
equal to the direct one, because v is NOT equal to –v. You have no
right at all to change v by –v, either mathematically or physically.

[gross confusion among the Einstein Dingleberries snipped]

The velocity transformation of the most general form of Larmor’s
transform can be written as follows. How did He derive that? Ho!
Ho! Ho! shrug

** [B12] = (sqrt(1 – B01^2) [B02] – (1 – [B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B01^2))) [B01]) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])

And

** [B21] = (sqrt(1 – B02^2) [B01] – (1 – [B02] * [B01] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B02^2))) [B02]) / (1 – [B02] * [B01])


Where

** [B12] c = Velocity (vector) of #2 as observed by #1
** [B01] c = Absolute velocity of #1
** [B02] c = Absolute velocity of #2
** * = Dot product of two vectors

On a side note, if both #1 and #2 are moving in parallel, the result
is the velocity transformation for the Lorentz transform.

** dx12/dt1 = (B02 – B01 c) / (1 – B01 B02)
** dy12/dt1 = 0
** dz12/dt1 = 0

And

** dx21/dt2 = (B01 – B02 c) / (1 – B02 B01)
** dy21/dt2 = 0
** dz21/dt2 = 0

Where

** [B01] * [B02] = B01 B02
** [B01] c = dx01/dt0
** [B02] c = dx02/dt0

Clearly in the special case of Larmor’s transform (the Lorentz
transform),

** dx12/dt1 = - dx21/dt2

Or

** B12 = - B21

Now back to the more general case, clearly the following is true that
[B12] is not (– [B21]).

** [B12] != [B21]

However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
transforms are identical as described below.

** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2

The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. shrug

On Jan 31, 1:19*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" the sperm lover wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:01 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:

On 30.01.2012 20:44, Rafael Valls wrote:
What elementary algebra shows is that the inverse transform is NOT
equal to the direct one, because v is NOT equal to –v. You have no
right at all to change v by –v, either mathematically or physically..

[gross confusion among the Einstein Dingleberries snipped]

None at all

[snip irrelevance]

Nothing left

On Jan 30, 6:27 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The velocity transformation of the most general form of Larmor’s
transform can be written as follows. How did He derive that? Ho!
Ho! Ho! shrug

** [B12] = (sqrt(1 – B01^2) [B02] – (1 – [B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B01^2))) [B01]) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])

And

** [B21] = (sqrt(1 – B02^2) [B01] – (1 – [B02] * [B01] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B02^2))) [B02]) / (1 – [B02] * [B01])

Where

** [B12] c = Velocity (vector) of #2 as observed by #1
** [B01] c = Absolute velocity of #1
** [B02] c = Absolute velocity of #2
** * = Dot product of two vectors

On a side note, if both #1 and #2 are moving in parallel, the result
is the velocity transformation for the Lorentz transform.

** dx12/dt1 = (B02 – B01 c) / (1 – B01 B02)
** dy12/dt1 = 0
** dz12/dt1 = 0

And

** dx21/dt2 = (B01 – B02 c) / (1 – B02 B01)
** dy21/dt2 = 0
** dz21/dt2 = 0

Where

** [B01] * [B02] = B01 B02
** [B01] c = dx01/dt0
** [B02] c = dx02/dt0

Clearly in the special case of Larmor’s transform (the Lorentz
transform),

** dx12/dt1 = - dx21/dt2

Or

** B12 = - B21

Now back to the more general case, clearly the following is true that
[B12] is not (– [B21]).

** [B12] != [B21]

Koobee Wublee actually meant the following instead.

** [B12] != -[B21]

However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
transforms are identical as described below.

** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2

The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. shrug

None at all

[snip irrelevance]

Nothing left

Another Einstein Dingleberry and a prostitute who has no balls in
discussing the fallacy of relativity. What else is new? Fvcking sad
as usual. shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:27 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The velocity transformation of the most general form of Larmor’s
transform can be written as follows. How did He derive that? Ho!
Ho! Ho! shrug

** [B12] = (sqrt(1 – B01^2) [B02] – (1 – [B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B01^2))) [B01]) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])

And

** [B21] = (sqrt(1 – B02^2) [B01] – (1 – [B02] * [B01] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B02^2))) [B02]) / (1 – [B02] * [B01])

Where

** [B12] c = Velocity (vector) of #2 as observed by #1
** [B01] c = Absolute velocity of #1
** [B02] c = Absolute velocity of #2
** * = Dot product of two vectors

On a side note, if both #1 and #2 are moving in parallel, the result
is the velocity transformation for the Lorentz transform.

** dx12/dt1 = (B02 – B01 c) / (1 – B01 B02)
** dy12/dt1 = 0
** dz12/dt1 = 0

And

** dx21/dt2 = (B01 – B02 c) / (1 – B02 B01)
** dy21/dt2 = 0
** dz21/dt2 = 0

Where

** [B01] * [B02] = B01 B02
** [B01] c = dx01/dt0
** [B02] c = dx02/dt0

Clearly in the special case of Larmor’s transform (the Lorentz
transform),

** dx12/dt1 = - dx21/dt2

Or

** B12 = - B21

Now back to the more general case, clearly the following is true that
[B12] is not (– [B21]).

** [B12] != [B21]

Koobee Wublee actually meant the following instead.

** [B12] != -[B21]

However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
transforms are identical as described below.

** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2

The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. shrug

None at all

[snip irrelevance]

Nothing left

Another Einstein Dingleberry and a prostitute who has no balls in
discussing the fallacy of relativity. What else is new? Fvcking sad
as usual. shrug

________________________________________
So in the so called twins paradox, do you believe the travelling twin would
return younger, older or the same age as the stay at home twin?

On Jan 31, 5:03*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:27 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:









On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The velocity transformation of the most general form of Larmor’s
transform can be written as follows. *How did He derive that? *Ho!
Ho! *Ho! *shrug

** *[B12] = (sqrt(1 – B01^2) [B02] – (1 – [B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B01^2))) [B01]) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])

And

** *[B21] = (sqrt(1 – B02^2) [B01] – (1 – [B02] * [B01] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B02^2))) [B02]) / (1 – [B02] * [B01])

Where

** *[B12] c = Velocity (vector) of #2 as observed by #1
** *[B01] c = Absolute velocity of #1
** *[B02] c = Absolute velocity of #2
** ** = Dot product of two vectors

On a side note, if both #1 and #2 are moving in parallel, the result
is the velocity transformation for the Lorentz transform.

** *dx12/dt1 = (B02 – B01 c) / (1 – B01 B02)
** *dy12/dt1 = 0
** *dz12/dt1 = 0

And

** *dx21/dt2 = (B01 – B02 c) / (1 – B02 B01)
** *dy21/dt2 = 0
** *dz21/dt2 = 0

Where

** *[B01] * [B02] = B01 B02
** *[B01] c = dx01/dt0
** *[B02] c = dx02/dt0

Clearly in the special case of Larmor’s transform (the Lorentz
transform),

** *dx12/dt1 = - dx21/dt2

Or

** *B12 = - B21

Now back to the more general case, clearly the following is true that
[B12] is not (– [B21]).

** *[B12] != [B21]

Koobee Wublee actually meant the following instead.

** *[B12] != -[B21]

However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
transforms are identical as described below.

** *1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2

The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
general case. *Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. *shrug

None at all

[snip irrelevance]

Nothing left

Another Einstein Dingleberry and a prostitute who has no balls in
discussing the fallacy of relativity. *What else is new? *Fvcking sad
as usual. *shrug

you sure are a sad case shrug