"Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
news:k204p1$181$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <September@2012.org> wrote in
>message news:8QJ0s.149232$0b5.48816@fx28.am4
>> "Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
>> news:k1vmcr$sa1$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> 
>>> "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <September@2012.org> wrote in
>>> message news:0rI0s.243985$g43.115387@fx21.am4
>>>> "Lee Parker"  wrote in message news:k1vcjb$4um$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> 
>>>>> Surprisingly to realize that Relativity is just a theory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, the stand-up, so called theoretical physicists,
>>>>> treat Relativity as a Law of Nature in papers, movies and TV!
>>>>> 
>>>>> It looks like even after 100 years, they still are not that
>>>>> sure ..
>>>> =====================================================
>>>> Theoretical physicists are failed mathematicians.
>>>> The media are expert sensationalists, their bread and butter is hype.
>>>> If you can understand 8th grade algebra and arithmetic then read
>>>> this.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InvertingTransformation.html
>>> and this:
>>> 
>>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IncorrectSyntax.html
>>> 
>>> Dork van de faggot
>> ==============================================================
>> Did you want me to continue, fuckwit?
>> x = (x' + vt')/g + v^2 x
>> x - v^2x = (x' + vt')/g    (subtract v^2x from both sides)
>> x(1 - v^2) = (x' + vt')/g (Factorise the LHS)
>> x = (x' + vt')/g(1-v^2)   (divide both sides by 1-v^2)

> and then note that
>    g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2)
================================================
Bwhahahahahaha!
Nothing to note, g is not stated in your scribble and in any event

g = sqrt( [c+v] * [c-v] /c^2 ) in the LORENTZ transform, fuckwit.

Perhaps you mean
"Indeed, writing ET and inverse:
   x' = g ( x - v t )      [1] where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2)
   t' = g ( t - v x )      [2]  in the Einstein transform"

then

x' =  g ( x - v t )      [1] where g = sqrt(1-v^2) aka length contraction
t' =  t                      [2]  in the Lorentz transform.

"It looks like even after 100 years, they still are not that
sure ..." -- Lee Parker.


The fumbling confused faggot, Dork Van de faggot, can't manage
simple schoolboy algebra, PROVEN by his own page!
ROFLMAO!
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> so
>    g(1-v^2) = 1/g
> and
>    (x' + vt')/g(1-v^2) = g (x'+vt')
> 
>> Hence
>> x <>  g ( x' + v t' ) as Dork Van de faggot claimed.
>> Hilarious!
> 
> Yes quite hilarious indeed :-)
> 
>> The fumbling fuckwit, Dork Van de faggot, can't manage
>> simple schoolboy algebra!
>> ROFLMAO!
> 
> Be careful, you'll lose it altogether.
> 
>> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> 
> Quite zero.
> 
> Dirk Vdm