🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 12, 8:53 am, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
> AKG...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 7:08 pm, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
> >> AKG...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> Einstein did not understand secondary school mathematics just like all
> >>> other Einsteinians.
> >> .. and the evidence for that statement is ?
>
> >>> Secondary school students learn that
> >>> (x^2-y^2)/(x-y)=x+y only under the restriction that x is not equal to -
> >>> y.
> >> .. so what?
> > Did you know it?
>
> Why do you bring up a triviality?

Because you and your god do not undertsand it. Many  mathematical
formulas carry restrictions due to the proof involved. Your bad habit
of reading things without considering the context is making you make
fool of your self here agin. This "triviality" is not understood by
Einstein as in the following phrase shows:

>
> > If you did why did you not see that c+c=c is not a
> > theorem of SR?

In the relativiistic addition of velocities, one cannot set v=c as LT
is undefined there. The formula of relativisitc addition of speed
comes from LT. So, it is not as trivial as you thought, Einstein did
not understand this basic secondary school mathematics.



> .>>> All results of SR which uses LT are under the speed limit restriction
> >>> that v<c. The relativistic addition of speed is under this
> >>> restriction. Yet Einstein set v=c to "deduce" a "revolutionary" result
> >>> c+c=c.
> >> Where did he do that?  You're advised to give a reference!
>
> > Ah, you did not know it! Read any elementary textt book on relativity
> > theory. It is advatised as a "revoultion" of Einstein!
>
> .
> I've read some text books on relativity, but none of them "deduce"
> c+c=c -- so you are either using faulty logic or lying.

You do not understand what deduction means. This is the problem with
you. One does not talk big on things which he does not understand.
Read some very basic SR book and look for the relativisation of speed.
Set v=v'=c, then you deduce c+c=c. O fcourse this is all wrong and
this nonsense comes from Einstein's violation of the restriction on v
imposed by LT which he used to derive this formula.

>
> >>> Einstein did not understand the difference between having a quantity
> >>> which is zero and not having a qunatity. For example a photon which
> >>> does not stop has not rest mass. But Einstein asserted that  it has a
> >>> rest mass which is zero. They are different things. For example, in
> >>> scondary school maths teaches that having no slope means the line is
> >>> vertical and having zero slope means that the line is horizontal. For
> >>> Mr. EDinstein, there was no difference between horizontal lines and
> >>> vertical lines.


> >> More unsupported statements. Apparently you just make up things.

Einstein thought that "photon which does not stop has rest mass and it
is zero". This is the same mistake as assuming that vertical line has
slope zero. Vertical lines have not slope because the run on vertical
line is zero. A line having slope zero is a different thing. They are
horizontal lines. Correct understanding of photon must be that it has
no rest mass and its speed is c.


>
> > Having no slope
> > and having slope which is zero are totally different things! The same
> > applies to having no rest mass and having restmass which is zero.
> > Einstein could not see this difference. As photon has no rest frame,
> > in SR, photon should not have rest mass. This is different from that
> > photon has rest mass and it is zero! Just clear thinking chap.
>

> .. "clear thinking", give me a break.

This is not a scientific response as most of your responses are. It
tells a lot about you. <G> After all many of prominet methamtical
logicians who worked with theoretical physicists complained that
theoretical physictsts do not undertsand logic and mathematics. Their
thinking is bizzare and obscure. They do not know what they are
talking about. Certainly the king of theoretical physics did not know
that his own formula for the relativisitc addition of speed was under
the restircition v must be less than c due to the LT. He did not
undertsnad that a particle which does  not stop cannot have rest mass,
even zero rest mass. Separaring these thwo concept of having not rest
mass and having zero rest mass requires clear thinking which your god
who did poorly in secondary school maths did not have.


>
> >>> It is this type of elementary errors Einstein made, ..
> >> .. no examples provided -- only rarified steamware

Read above. Try to understand veruy basic of SR and how the
relativisitc addition was deduced from SR's axioms. If you do not
understand logic, mathematics and SR, you are in the wrong place.


>
> > Why we need evidences. This is concerned about the theory SR itself.
> > It is known as meta theory of SR. You must learn the distinction
> > between empirical issues and metaptheoretical issues. You are not
> > ready for participating in a huigh powered discussion like this
>
> .. "a huigh powered discussion like this" -- that's a good one!
>
> >>> ... which are
> >>> consistent to his reputation as a secondary school maths student,
> >>> which makes us suspect the entire theory of SR.
> >> .. and these 'us'es are?
>
> Once again, who (besides you) share that opinion?
> Name them!

Read any biography on Einstein. it tells you this very well known
historic fact. In fact Einstein's cult used this
>
> > The standard of mathematical education now is way more ahead of
> > Einstein's time. Even a good undergarduate maths student is way more
> > advanced mathematically than Einstein or Minkowski.
>
> Apparently you are not fit to judge.

It is not up to you to make this judgement. You said nothing
scientific. Just try to learn some very basic science and mathematics.
Then we may have some meaningful discusssion. So far all what has been
made clear is that you do not understand what you are talking about.
No substance no nonsense. The forum deserves a little more than what
you have been offering.