Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / August 2005

Meaning that you have put your reply at the top of the text
you are referring to, that's all. It's not a god damned sin, just bad
form.

Are you Bill Hobba? I think you are.

LOL! That idiot is a relativist. He'd have never have written this:

On the court docket, Science v Einstein.

Judge:
"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"

Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."

Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.

Please reference:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,

x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t

You have to agree with that, Einstein states:

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.

"Objection! cries defense counsel.

"Yes?" asks the judge.

"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defense counsel,
"my client has already named the moving system 'k'."

"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.

Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta, tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.

"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.

Prosecution continues.

Applying the Galilean function g(),

For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t)  = g(x,y,z,t).

It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.

There can be no function f such that x' = f(t), the judge's bench
will be the same length tomorrow as it is today. Hence there can
be no inverse function t = f^-1(x').

"Objection" cries the defense council.

"Shut up...err...overruled", says the judge, "I've heard this before in
another case. Don't make me hold you in contempt of Mathematics"

Defense council sits, looking sheepish.

Prosecution continues:

We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.

Now we come to the defendant's transformation. Not Lorentz's,
not Galileo's, but Einstein's own.

For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)

We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.

Einstein would have you believe that

tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))

is called the "Lorentz transformation".

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his signed statement: "But the ray moves
relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary
system,
with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."

"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."

"How say you to that?", asks the judge of the prosecutor.

I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship
has been stipulated to by both parties.

"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I  shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.

============Lunch break=============

The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.

"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".

Thank you, your honour. As  I was saying:

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t".

The only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,

"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."

Thus it cannot be that x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v).

As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.

As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.

"Objection!" screams the defense, prosecuting counsel is attempting
to prejudice the jury with the use of the word "cuckoo"!

"Sustained", says the judge, " the term 'cuckoo' will be stricken from
the record and the jury is instructed to disregard it."

Sidebar conference is requested by the prosecutor, jury is removed
from the court.

Prosecutor:
Your honour,
Einstein read "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells as a teenager, it was a
current best seller at the time.  He became a clerk in the Swiss Patent
Office, saw many patent applications for cuckoo clocks, the main
industry of Switzerland in 1900-1905.
Not too many patents for chocolate or cheese were needed.
He got a hard-on... err... erection for time. The rest of us prefer
women, time is a fetish.

"I'm  sustaining the objection",says the judge, "that is conjecture".

As the court pleases. (Prosecutor bows before the judge)

Jury is brought back, prosecution continues:

Here is that proof:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)

Juror passes a note to the judge via the bailiff. The note reads
"I don't understand this stuff, that equation is too long."

Judge: "The court should recess for 10 minutes."

==========ten minute recess =======

Prosecution continues:

Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:

tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+

tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

There is no relative motion between k' and kappa, the coordinate x'
is independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or
any other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is n...

"Objection to 'fuckup' ", says defense counsel,  "it's not nice"

"Overruled".

As I was saying, there is no relative motion between k' and kappa,
the coordinate x' is independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut
or x' = x'+ut or any other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's
sake, there is no u, v, w or velocity between system k' and system
kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between stationary and movng frames, this is the
moving frame only, the stationary frame K is simmering on the back
burner.

Hence:

tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)),
the coordinate x' has no effect upon the time and is independent
of time, the time is independent of the coordinate. Were it not so,
the time at the front of the moving train, an example the defendant
uses in another document, would differ from the back of th...."

"Objection!", interjects defense counsel, "that document is not
in evidence before the court".

"I can produce it if necessary", says the prosecutor, but I'll withdraw
the statement".

"Objection sustained, the reference to a train will be stricken from
the record", orders the judge. "Continue with the mathemetics,
trains are physical and you rested on that."

My apology to the court. Let me reiterate, time is independent of
the coordinate. I have NOT stated that time was independent of velocity,
that is for the jury to decide.

Removing the superfluous coordinates:

tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))

Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity:

tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)

Renaming tau as f,

f(a+b) = 2f(a) or

½f(a+b) = f(a)

Chosing a > b, we have an example

½f(1+0) = f(1)

"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." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.

In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.

In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.

In the fourth place you've been had!

I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.

Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

I now rest my case as a mathematician also.

Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague,
"I'd enter him an insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".

Counsel for the defense has the floor.

Androcles