Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

On Apr 30, 7:50*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
this is very well understood, classically,
viz constructive & destructive interference;
taht's what it *is*.

light has so few qualities,
that not using any one of them is fatal,
such as polarizability.



because they can deform around small objects or other photons in their
path.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1tree: Because light can be polarized so that none passes through
narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
diameter of the pancakes. — NE —

On Apr 30, 5:41*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:45*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

like, Oh-kay, dood.

"Angular" anything makes the problems harder.
Generalizing about those becomes an exercise in futility.

--Neinstein#999,999,999

Dear 1tree: *If you know how to be correct, my "handle" is NoEinstein,
NOT Neinstein. *It's NOEinstein, because I've wiped Einstein from the
ranks of intellectuals and put a well-deserved dunce cap on his head!
— NE —

http://tinyurl.com/87s6lc6

it's a joke; if "ein stein" is one mug o'beer,
nein stein is no mug o'what ever. how ever,
a lot of you have things in common,
hence the numeration.

as for angular momentum
you have got to be kidding!

as for Neil de waht's-his-name,
he is total Einsteinmaniacal bigbangology.

http://tinyurl.com/87s6lc6

you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.

Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.

there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.

incapable of traveling through the etherless Swiss cheese voids
between galaxies.

how would you possibly have shown this?

this is your problem:
you obviously cannot answer any predicative question
about physics, and more importantly,
cannot ask them.

Because light can be polarized so that none passes through
narrow diffusion grating slits, I know that photons are flat disk
shapes, like a stack of pancakes—perhaps about 1/4 as high as the
diameter of the pancakes.

thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.

Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.

there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.

why, or what do you believe of the shroud of Turin?

as far as I care, it's just as likely to be Da Vinci,
and that was meant as a joke -- sheesh.

Dear Don: Da ** yours;
thank you.

you're welcome, dood.

thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void sould conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000...;
air's is, like, 1.00000004.

Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.

there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.

On Apr 24, 1:04*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
this is very well knwon in electronics,
that the impulse of electricity is close
to teh speed of light, althoug the eelctrons are
going very much slower than that in the wires, but
I didn't actually get the two-year degree; so,
there.

1tree: What?! Did you flunk out in kindergarten? Ha, ha, HA! — NE
—

If you push in one additional ball, you "instantaneously“, get a ball on the other end kicked out. *The
electron put IN does NOT have to move to the end of the conductor for
this to happen. *That is why electrons in wires seem to be traveling
so fast. *—Don'tKnowNothinAboutEinstien,or

any other so-called God-am scientist, thank you #999999.

you don't have to answer a thing;
call your lawyer!

On Apr 28, 5:47*am, Tonico wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:10*am, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 27, 3:24*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

the whole problem with these Neinsteinians is,
they don't think about angular momentum.

the only angular (possibly) momentum of "photons,"
is that of polarizability; so,
what is actually polarized, when measuring polarization?

your car is made of, say, crabgrass;
like the Dodge Tumbleweed!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear 1tree: *"Angular" anything makes the problems harder.
Generalizing about those becomes an exercise in futility. *— NE —

Idiot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tonico: Just another cockroach coming out-of-the-woodwork wishing to
raise his non-existent status in science by belittling THE most
important scientist in the entire history of planet Earth! If you
suppose otherwise, please itemize, one-by-one, what an idiot like you
has ever done that could be called "scientific". Having read and
sided-with any of the status quo garbage that is out there doesn't
count. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —