Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1127064079.760182.186680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >  news:1127045040.850185.326100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Curiously, sometimes Einstein correctly says "if this, then that", but
> > > > then derives "this" from "that" (the fallacy of affirming the
> > > > consequent) in an attempt to reinforce the intellectual development in
> > > > the zombie cult. For instance, in Appendix 1 in his "Relativity", he
> > > > has
> > > >
> > > > A) If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa.
> > > >
> > > > B) (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct)
> > > >
> > > > and the accompanying text is equivalent to "if B, then A" (which is
> > > > correct). However, in fact, Einsteins postulates A and obtains B, i.e.
> > > > acts in accordance with "if A, then B" (which is incorrect).
> > >
> > > Linearity of the transformation means that there are numbers
> > > P, Q, R, S such that the transformation can be written as
> > >     {  x' = P x + Q t
> > >     {  t' = R x + S t .
> >
> > Of course, bozzo, but that is not what Einstein said and the way he
> > grounded his physics.
>
> I always thought he grounded his physics in this little amateur paper:
>   http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>    | §3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
>    | from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion
>    | of Translation Relatively to the Former
>    |...
>    | In the first place it is clear that the equations must be
>    | linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we
>    | attribute to space and time.
> But of course, crackpots like you probably have different
> sources.

You know imbecile, nothing in physics is "clear" unless it is proven as
such by experiment. But of course, you have demonstrated here you are
not doing physics but plain dogma.