Conversation with a relativity critic

On Oct 30, 7:22 am, Daryl McCullough
wrote:
you talk about paradoxes, not me, paradoxes cannot
possibly be understood

The "paradoxes" of relativity are only paradoxes because one has made an error
in applying relativity at some point. If relativity is applied correctly, there
are no paradoxes.

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous. Please
allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100% in NOT
UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters actually
represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to the
twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1 observing 3
and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time transformations become
the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes either 1
and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to be
transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet of
mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries

And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

(This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet.

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

On Oct 30, 9:30*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:22 am, Daryl McCullough
wrote:

you talk about paradoxes, not me, paradoxes cannot
possibly be understood

The "paradoxes" of relativity are only paradoxes because one has made an error
in applying relativity at some point. If relativity is applied correctly, there
are no paradoxes.

Hahaha... *McCoullough is such a joker as usual. *Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous. *Please
allow Him to point out a very common mistake. *It has 100% in NOT
UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. *So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. *This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters actually
represent.

1) *dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) *dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** *1 = observer
** *2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** *3 = observer
** *[v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** *[v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** *v13^2 = v31^2
** *[s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** *[s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** ** = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to the
twins’ paradox. *In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1 observing 3
and 3 observing 1 instead. *Thus, these time transformations become
the following.

** *dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** *observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** *d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** *dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** *observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** *d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. *They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes either 1
and 3. *Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** *dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to be
transformed. *This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet of
mathemaGics.

** *dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** *d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries

And then mistakenly having

** *dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

(This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet.

** *[v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2


Poor McCullough and PD: they're trying to have a rational convo with
the shrugging antisemitic idiot...ts,ts,ts.

Tonio

Pd. If you can, please try not to spam this crap into sci.math. Thanx.

On Oct 30, 1:11 pm, Tonico wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous. Please
allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100% in NOT
UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters actually
represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to the
twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1 observing 3
and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time transformations become
the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes either 1
and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to be
transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet of
mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries

And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

(This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet.

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

He wishes to add that the relativistic Doppler effect was treated with
the same mathemaGics. In the case of longitudinal Doppler effect,
self-styled physicists would toss out the energy transformation, and
in the case of transverse Doppler effect, they would barf up the time
transformation to explain so. What a bunch of idiots in which
McCoullough and He had gone through that with McCoullough realizing
his embarrassing errors.

** E’ = (E + [v] * [p]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** All parameters are self-explanatory.

Poor McCullough and PD: they're trying to have a rational convo with
the shrugging antisemitic idiot...ts,ts,ts.

Is this the best you can contribute to the discussion? Dumb ass, anti-
Semitism has nothing to do with these discussions if you are still
****ing clueless. shrug

Pd. If you can, please try not to spam this crap into sci.math.

PD has to offer his bull**** to all the newsgroups included in His
choice of audiences, no? You are just a coward with no knowledge in
anything. It is a good thing that idiots are not reading His posts.
shrug

Tonico wrote in message

On Oct 30, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:22 am, Daryl McCullough
wrote:

you talk about paradoxes, not me, paradoxes cannot
possibly be understood

The "paradoxes" of relativity are only paradoxes because one
has made an error in applying relativity at some point. If
relativity is applied correctly, there are no paradoxes.

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous.
Please allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100%
in NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters
actually represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to
the twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1
observing 3 and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time
transformations become the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Of course they can coexist, provided d[s32] = d[s33] = dt1 = dt3 = 0,
which clearly is the case, since the first equation
dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)
is valid only for events satisfying
dx1 = 0
(*look* at the transformation!), and
dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2
is valid only for events satisfying
dx3 = 0
(look at the transformation -- *again*!).
So looking at the transformation equations (once *again*),
you clearly have concocted a situation where
dx1 = dx3 = dt1 = dt3 = 0,
and you are effectively squealling like a pig about the equations
0 = 0
and
0 = 0
not being able to coexist.
Is *that* how they used to train "Aerospace Engineers" to use variables
and equations to model the world? Imbecile.



Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes
either 1 and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

0 = 0


However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to
be transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up
applet of mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

0 = ( 0 + 0 )


Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries

0 = 0


And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

0 = 0


Where

(This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up applet.

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

0 = 0

Congratulations, Retired Koobee Wublee Aerospace Engineering
at its best :-)

Dirk Vdm

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

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous.
Please allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100%
in NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters
actually represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to
the twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1
observing 3 and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time
transformations become the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes
either 1 and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to
be transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up
applet of mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries
And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

Of course they can coexist, provided d[s32] = d[s33] = dt1 = dt3 = 0,
which clearly is the case, since the first equation
dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)
is valid only for events satisfying
dx1 = 0
(*look* at the transformation!), and
dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2
is valid only for events satisfying
dx3 = 0
(look at the transformation -- *again*!).
So looking at the transformation equations (once *again*),
you clearly have concocted a situation where
dx1 = dx3 = dt1 = dt3 = 0,

[enough of rotting garbage flushed]

After all these years, moortel remains a vegetable. Not only the
idiot cannot advance into GR, the moron is degenerating in SR.
shrug

Just how dumb can Einstein Dingleberries get? shrug

Better yet. Why don’t you haul this prized post into one of your
fumble lists? This way it would be much easier for Him to find this
post in the future.

Daryl McCullough whined and sobbed:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous.
Please allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100%
in NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters
actually represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to
the twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1
observing 3 and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time
transformations become the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes
either 1 and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to
be transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up
applet of mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries
And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

It seems that even you should realize how weird it
is to call something "the correct way" when it results
in nonsense.

Let's go back to your equations, but use more standard
notation:

[snipped mathemaGics]

shaking head

The application to the twins’ paradox requires two different Lorentz
transforms. After the mistake is pointed out, you continue to make
the same mistake. There is no other word to describe such a person
but the word IDIOT. shrug

On Oct 31, 1:24*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The application to the twins’ paradox requires two different Lorentz
transforms. *

No, pathological imbecile, it requires only the formula for computing
proper time as a function of coordinate time. You have been shown the
formula countless times.

Daryl McCullough whined and sobbed:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Hahaha... McCoullough is such a joker as usual. Mistakes made
whether deliberately or due to gross stupidity are ubiquitous.
Please allow Him to point out a very common mistake. It has 100%
in NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. So, here we go.

Let’s start out with the time transformation of the Lorentz
transform. This time HE is going to write them in a more expanded
version to keep everyone honest about what these parameters
actually represent.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

Now, let’s look at the correct way of applying the mathematics to
the twins’ paradox. In doing so, it is perfectly OK to have 1
observing 3 and 3 observing 1 instead. Thus, these time
transformations become the following.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

** dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since the above two equations cannot possibly coexist, the paradox
remains very real.

Now, let’s look at this common mistake done by Einstein
Dingleberries. They are grossly confused with how 2 becomes
either 1 and 3. Equation 1) is transformed properly.

** dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

However, the confusion comes from how equation 2) is supposed to
be transformed. This can be found in Paul Andersen’s ****ed up
applet of mathemaGics.

** dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s31] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s32] = d[s31], mistake by Einstein Dingleberries
And then mistakenly having

** dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v13] * d[s31] = - dt3 v13^2

It seems that even you should realize how weird it
is to call something "the correct way" when it results
in nonsense.

Let's go back to your equations, but use more standard
notation:

[snipped mathemaGics]

shaking head

The application to the twins’ paradox requires two different Lorentz
transforms. After the mistake is pointed out, you continue to make
the same mistake. There is no other word to describe such a person
but the word IDIOT. shrug

Also, He would like to point out further that Einstein Dingleberries
also do not understand the Galilean transform. In both the Galilean
and the Lorentz transforms, there are two observers and one observed.
shrug

In the case where each observer is observing the other observer which
means the observed becomes one of the observer itself, two such sets
of the Galilean or the Lorentz transform is required. The Einstein
Dingleberries continue to make the same mistake of solving the problem
with just one transform. That matheMagic endeavor caused a lot of
confusion among these dim witted. shrug

So, after Galilean came up with the Galilean transform, all physicists
understood it until the early part of the 20th century. From then on,
stupidity just took over. God damn it. This is one of the most basic
stuff in physics, and why are Einstein Dingleberries such inept in
understanding of the Galilean transform? Why? shrug

It is no wonder they talked about nonsense of worm holes and other
bull**** without even understanding the basic mathematics involved.
They are no scientists. PERIOD. shrug

isn't the physics supposed to be independent of a co-ordinates?

doesn't the propogation of lightwaves (electromagnetism),
nerely require electrons in various orbitals with nucleii
in free space, or a relative vacuum cf. refraction?

anyway, one absolute framework of coordinates is fine,
if both observers refer to it, although "Greenwich"
is probably not much help for relativistic stuff.

In the case where each observer is observing the other observer which
means the observed becomes one of the observer itself, two such sets
of the Galilean or the Lorentz transform is required.

So, after Galilean came up with the Galilean transform, all physicists
understood it until the early part of the 20th century.

I only know of two things that herr doktor-professor E. got wrong,
although both of them are generally accepted
in the "standard model;" otherwise, I'm a big fan,
if not the biggest dingleberry ... either you, or
HaHaHanson. so, if you want a horrifying, blow-by-blow lsting
of all of his excapades in "being a physics *racanteur*,"
see _Einstien's Mistakes_ by what's-his-name.

incidentally, the best coordination for SR, maybe GR,
is quaternions, becaues the "t" and the "xyz" are clearly different,
using all of Hamilton's coinages for "vector mechanics" --
the *original* vector mechanics.

last thing I knew, it was that Lanczos,
who showed a quaternionic analysis of SR,
was an assistant of E., not to mention, Jewish.

Why don’t you haul this prized post into one of your
fumble lists?