OT: Clave's obvious dishonesty: persistent? or reversible?
- From: "eleaticus" <eleaticus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:30:57 -0700
Clave presents a link to an ancient post in which a dishonest authority
figure commits intellectual fraud.
Clave presents it as if making a point against me but in fact evidences
Relativity Cult dishonesty.
And probably his own persistent dishonesty because there is no way he will
examine A's consequences under the A assumption, so to speak.
To wit:
On Aug 1 2009 3:06 AM, Clave wrote:
<Paul PooPoo stuff snipped; he;d be too incompetent to worry
about/consider even should he get honest.>
He's actually kinda famous:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS316US317&q=%2beleaticus+%2bkook
BTW, the two of you are also algebra-impaired, apparently.
There's no shame in that per se.
Give it a rest, Oren. I do algebra for much of my (very nice) living, and I
have the utmost respect for Uncle Al, even though he gave you *way* more
attention than you deserved. But since it's already out there, enjoy:
http://lists.meer.net/pipermail/junk-l/2004-November/000063.html
Thanks for that link. I didn't remember that post in particular although
I saw many like it, all refusing to examine Galilean Relativity under the
Galilean assumption.
It evidences two basic fraudulent positions of those limited few that
attempted to make detailed rebuttals in the Galilean Relativity discussion.
"Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of
multivariable calculus. He has no concept of the Chain Rule in
multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean Transformation goo and
dribble:
t' = t,
x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.
His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
variable springs from a massive emprical stupidity re space and time
are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four coordinates
"
A. In Newtonian-Galilean Relativity there is NO time transform. Time does
not differ from one observer/system to the other. As he virtually shouts
in his post, he insists that the Newtonian transformations be treated as
if its time were a cross-system variable, a Special Relativity assumption
that is contrary to the Galilean assumption in discussion.
That's like saying a Granny Smith apple is not a good Sugar Baby
watermelon.
It's particularly contemptible in view of the fact that v is treated as a
cross-system constant when in actuality one system's v' = -v.
By treating t=t as if there were a transformation, t'=t, and not a
constant under the Galilean assumption in discussion, subsequent
differentiation enforces extra terms in the resultant equations than is
honest.
Uncle Al and his nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie all follow the same rule:
do not discuss Galilean Relativity iin terms of Galilean Relativity.
So, insistence on the anti-Galilean t'=t implying a transformation (as
quoted above) and variable instead of a constant time, gives you these (as
Uncle Piggy says):
d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
d/dx' = d/dx,
d/dy' = d/dy,
d/dz' = d/dz.
The x, y, z differentials say "invariant" but the extra and dishonest
extra term in the time differential says "non-invariant". (Invariance was
the feature being discussed en re Galilean Relativity.)
The honest examination of Newtonian-Galilean relativity says:
x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.
Both v and t are constants; v per the usual not-quite-right convention,
and t under the Galilean assumption in question.
Thus, vt is a constant - call it a - and any d(a)/d* is zero.
Therefore, these properly differentiate to:
d/dx' = d/dx,
d/dy' = d/dy,
d/dz' = d/dz.
Invariance all the way across the board for Galilean Relativity under the
Galilean assumption, which is/was always the subject matter in question.
And you, Clave, have shown yourself to be incredibly dishonest.
Show your work.
Show how Galilean Relativity transforms are not invariant under the
Galilean assumption.
That was not Uncle Al's only contemptible dishonesty.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
.
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Socialism is not a failure
- Next by Date: OT: Einstein's BooBoos - B^1
- Previous by thread: POKER FREE MONEY NO DEPOSIT.FREE POKER BONUS CODES.POKER SIGN UP BONUSES NO DEPOSIT
- Next by thread: OT: Einstein's BooBoos - B^1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
