For Uncle Bonehead Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956 rednecked wetback hillbilly faggot of science.

Uncle Ben

2009-06-23 13:42:50 UTC

On Jun 23, 5:43 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

What's up, Bonehead? You've gone quiet, you are usually so vociferous.
Cat got your tongue, or did a logic missile hit you square between the
eyes and penetrate that depleted uranium armour-plated thick skull of
yours?
C'mon, Bonehead, tell us about closing speeds and Einstein length
dilations... oops, sorry, "Green hallucinated Lorentz contractions", I
need a good laugh. I enjoy farting on your church, Bonehead, but it's
no
fun if you don't try to have me excommunicated. C'mon, Bonehead, tell
the innocent congregation how evil I am for pointing out L =
L0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is an increase in length and how you are old enough
to be my father as if that was relevant.

But as showed the expression is
L' = gamma L
or
L = L'/gamma
or
L = L_0/gamma
or
L = L_0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is just the contrary that you write above.

Naughty old fart, lying as usual.
Lorentz says L = L_0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Einstein says xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Bonehead says "Everyone else is confused, what frame is the barn?
I'm old enough to be 80 next year, my birthday's in July, help me out
here Tom Roberts, I kiss your royal arse you know so much relativity.
Mental illness is no excuse, Androcles is right but he's such an
obnoxious fool I want to ridicule him even though I haven't read
Einstein's paper and he has, but everyone else calls it the Lorentz
transformation so I will too so that I can blend in with all the other
sheep, so there, nah na na nah nah, I love everyone."
Androcles, still waiting to be ridiculed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Androcles, for the first time ever, you have misquoted Einstein. He
didn't use any primed coordinates.
==============================================
Lying or just can't read, Bonehead?
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." -- Einstein.
Einstein DEFINED x' = x-vt.
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain" -- Einstein
xi = (x-vt) /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is the same as xi = x' * beta where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Confused Bonehead calls beta "gamma" because that's what all the sheep call
it
and Bonehead is a ewe.
x' is not a "primed coordinate" in Einstein's paper and never was, it's the
length of
the pole in the barn.
Androcles, still waiting to be ridiculed by an arrogant drooling fuckwitted
rednecked wetback hillbilly faggot that can't read algebra yet claims a
"Ph. D." (doctorate in phrenology).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Damn! Could it be that Androcles is correct and Einstein and I made a
mistake?

Einstein's SR paper of 1905 discusses the length of a moving object in
Section 4 of the paper. He describes a sphere of radius R in terms of
the usual R^2 = sum of squares of coordinates xi, eta, and zeta of the
rest frame in the familiar way.

Having derived the LT in the previous ection, he substitutes Lorentz's
formulas for the variables in terms of x, y, and z into the expression
for R^2, since x, y, and z are coordinates in a frame in which the
"sphere" is moving.

To see the shape of the object w.r.t. the moving coordinates, he sets
t=0 in the moving frame. The y and z coordinates are unaffected by
the transformation. So the only change is to the coordinate x in the
direction of motion.

For y=z=0, finds that x = R*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Notice, no primes in the formula.

You can check Einstein's work in Section 4 of the paper, which is
linked to so often that surely I do not have to repeat it here.

Now tell me class, does this imply a dilation or a contraction in the
object?

Uncle Ben