"Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
news:ks1c8b$joj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway <lordandrocles@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
>> news:ks0ct0$nsk$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway <lordandrocles@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Androcles' struggle with two equations and two variables:
>>>  https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InvertingTransformation.html
>>>  https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
>>>  https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
> 
>>>> Wouldn't learning this and other basic skills be more interesting
>>>> than continuing down the path of ignorance you've chosen, you
>>>> fucking imbecile?
>>> 
>>> Wouldn't it.
>>> 
>>> Dirk Vdm

>> mapping from K to k
>>    x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>    t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> 
>> v = x/t
>> 
>> mapping from k to K,
>> v' = x'/t'
>> "No, imbecile, v' = 0" -- Dork van de faggot.
>> I quite like being called an imbecile by Dork and his fellow faggots.
>> He won't answer that, hes not ready to teach me v' = 0 only if x' = 0.

> What does an imbecile think happens when they combine
> the equation of motion of the origin of the moving frame,
=============================
(which is origin' in k, the primed origin in the primed frame)

>    v = x/t
> with the transformation equation
>    x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
> Imbecile?
===============================
(which is a mapping from K to k, the primed frame)

Tell us all, imbecile, what you think happens when you combine the origin' to x'
in the same primed frame k, since you are the imbecile proposing it.
My guess would be the length x' which equals  x' - origin'.

     addendum:
     origin' = origin - vt
     so x' - origin' = (x-vt) - (origin-vt) = x-origin = x,
     without any of Dork's g crap.

Why can't a stupid cunt like you understand mapping from k to K is the
inverse transformation, imbecile? Why should a dumbfuck like you use
the same transformation for k to K  as K to k, you fumbling fuckwitted
shithead?
x' - x-vt  so x = x'+v't'

     typo: x' - x-vt  so x = x'+v't' should read
     x' = x-vt  so x = x'+v't'

It is YOU that makes v <> v' because YOU make t<> t' and length x <> length x'

v' =  (x'-origin')/(t'2 - t'1), you crazy cunt.
"Did you ever had algebra?"

It’s my way or the highway, arsehole, this isn’t altergnostic you are babbling to.
If you don’t accept my definitions I won't teach you anymore!
Bwahahahahahaha!

You'll end up running away like a kicked puppy as you always do.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway