"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1104254943.434087.102490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Androcles wrote:
>> > Do you accept all of these definitions and trivial
>> > observations?
>>
>> Well sure, you haven't said anything yet.
>> I thought you said you were going to derive SR.
>
> It's coming, step by step.
>
>> I don't see it. Where is the rest of it?
>
> It will come, step by step, as we agree on symbols
> along the way. I'm not going to jump to an equation
> containing symbols whose meaning we disagree on.
>
> Now, I'm making this effort in good faith. I have an
> annoying tendency to make typos. Will you in good faith
> allow me to correct the typos which you or I spot, or
> am I going to have to forever argue with you that I
> meant the typo version and not the corrected version?

I've already made comments that you have simply snipped and
ignored. I don't see much good faith in that. Seems to me
that you are more interested in browbeating and editorializing
than listening to reason, so I'm not prepared to make any
concessions to you at all.


>
> Do you in particular accept that I have so far only
> defined things which are measured by observation in the
> S frame? If you want a concrete example, the S frame is
> the frame of reference is of a road, with some origin
> painted at a particular spot. The M frame is attached
> to a truck which is moving on that road. The x axis for
> both points along the road in the direction of motion
> of the truck. The y axis is vertical in both frames.
> The z axis points to the right in both frames.

Can't you ever shut up and get on with it?

>
> The moving frame has a defined origin, a paint mark
> on the truck. At t=0 (according to a clock in the S
> frame) the origins coincide.
>
> The velocity of the truck (or in general of a point
> attached to frame M) is defined in terms of distance
> measurements made in S, and time measurements made in S.
> Everything so far is measured in S. The position of the
> moving truck at times > 0 is assigned a value (x,y,z),
> all measured in S, and the observation time is assigned
> a value t, measured by S.
>
> OK? Everything defined and measured by S. Can we agree
> on this, fix my previous typo, and move on?

Get on with it. You've been keeping this charade up for days,
never listening to reason, know-it-all, spout about the math and
only the math, bitch about editorialising and all I get from you
is snipping and bitching. If you've got a proof, give it. I know
you haven't, and I'm waiting to pounce on your error.
Androcles.