Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 10 Sep 2005 14:38 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dfv7gu01pgp(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Thomas Smid says... > > >It is not my mistake. > > Yes, it is certainly your mistake. > > >I am exactly applying the same rules > >you applied in your post #36 (by date) > >when you reduced your equation > > No, you are not. You are *mimicking* my derivation > without taking the care that I took to make sure that > I kept things straight. In particular, you keep forgetting > what's an independent variable and what's not, what's a > function of what. You don't keep of what is a constant > and what is a variable. > > If you thought that *I* was making that sort of mistake, > confusing independent and dependent variables, then you > should point it out in something I wrote. It doesn't > make a bit of sense for you to write something erroneous > and then blame its mistakes on me. (Unless you were just > *copying* my derivation.) > > You are being very sloppy, and your sloppiness is resulting > in an inconsistency. And then you are blaming the inconsistency > not on yourself but on me or Einstein, who were much > *more* careful than you, and who *didn't* produce an > inconsistency. > > The way to prove that someone made an error is by > redoing their derivation *more* carefully than they > did. You are repeating derivations in a way that's > much *less* careful. That doesn't prove anything. Sometimes I think this guy is just playing a sordid little game. No one can be *that* stupid. Dirk Vdm
From: Daryl McCullough on 10 Sep 2005 14:21 Thomas Smid says... >My equations (1)-(6) are fully consistent with this and you are merely >interpreting something into them which is not there and which >contradicts your own procedure. I didn't disagree with your 1-6. I disagreed with your statement > >However from (3),(4),(7) it follows also that > > > >(9) ct'(x2,t)=ct'(-x1,t)=-(B+A)x1. Here are your 1-7 (1) ct'(x1,t)=Bx1+Act (2) ct'(x2,t)=Bx2+Act (3) x1=ct (4) x2=-ct (5) x1'(x1,t)=ct'(x1,t) (6) x2'(x2,t)=-ct'(x2,t). (7) ct'(x1,t)=(B+A)x1 Those are completely correct, except that you have to remember that in x1 and x2 are not independent variables, but are functions of t. So it is not correct to go from ct'(x1,t) = (B+A) x1 to ct'(-x1,t) = -(B+A)x1 You can't replace x1 by -x1, since x1 = ct. It doesn't make any sense to replace x1 by -x1. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 10 Sep 2005 14:58 Dirk Van de moortel says... >Sometimes I think this guy is just playing a sordid little game. That's doubtful. His mistakes aren't very *interesting* mistakes. His responses are not interesting responses in the sense of being over the top like Androcles. Thomas Smid has a website where he conveniently catalogues the subjects that he has trouble understanding http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/ Oh, by the way. I tried to send you email, and it seems to have never reached you. Perhaps it was interpreted as spam? -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: shuba on 10 Sep 2005 15:46 Dirk Vdm wrote: [re: Thomas Smid] > Sometimes I think this guy is just playing a sordid little game. > No one can be *that* stupid. Here's a link that ought to provoke your sense of humor. http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=590 ---Tim Shuba---
From: Daryl McCullough on 10 Sep 2005 15:36
Androcles says... >Phooey. McCullough can't do anything without "starting with the >cuckoo transformations" and has no idea how they were derived. You are an idiot and a liar. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |