Lorentz Jr

How would you "contract" the EM field vector, and how do you think that would shrink space? Reducing the magnitude of a field vector means making the field weaker, and that's not going to do anything.

I'm pretty sure (P XOR ~P) is a fundamental axiom of binary logic, and your proposition contradicts it.

You can see from page 1 of that thread that my method of discussion is polite, courteous, and carefully researched. Even friendly sometimes. 😋 I only get rude after a poster has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's a troll, and at that point it's the responsibility of moderators to ban the troll. As for reflecting on my methods, I've been perfecting them for twenty years now, and they're very effective at shutting down trolls as long as the forum doesn't support the trolls.

I didn't say anything about your efforts, studiot. I've used bbcode before, sup and sub are very easy. Thanks for helping, except I don't know why you said MathML works. Apparently only LaTeX does.

It won't matter if I get banned for arguing with an established user. I have no idea how to use Charmap, and sup/sub is trivial.

Good. I've been tired of your attitude since page 2. PS: What the hell does "methodology" have to do with definitions?

Great! Show me how it works, Professor! 😄 Oh my! It says some frames are inertial! Good job, Professor! You've demonstrated the faulty generalization fallacy! Some doesn't imply all! Nobody slings baloney like you do, Professor! 😋 Tragically, that's not officially allowed on this forum, Professor! You're still spewing nonsensical hogwash! 😲 Great lecture, Professor! Irritating indeed! It has nothing to do with this thread or any comments I've made, but I'm sure it'll impress lots of readers who don't realize it's all fake! 😆

I already read the textbooks, Professor. You have no idea what you're talking about. The reference frame of a spaceship with its rockets blasting isn't an inertial frame of reference. The astronauts can tell that because they feel like they're being pushed into their seats. The reference frame of Earth's surface isn't an inertial frame of reference in general relativity. You can tell that because you feel like you're being pushed down onto the ground or your chair or whatever you're resting on. The reference frame of a merry-go-round or the edge of a spinning space station isn't an inertial frame of reference. People can tell that because they feel like they're being flung away from the center. You have no business posting on a real physics forum, Professor. You're a shameless, ignorant troll, and you're not fooling anyone except the most casual or uninformed readers. The part where it says "think", Professor. Speaking of kindergarten-level vocabulary terms, do you understand that thinking means having thoughts? You said you "directly answered this question and answered it correctly", and my question was about another poster's thoughts. Am I going too fast for you, Professor? Okay, great. Keep responding with more baloney, Professor, and I'll tell you what I think of it. 🙂

What?? Are you feeling okay, Professor? What part of "md65536 said:" do you not understand? PS: You might want to try doing that yourself for a change. 😉 About another person's thoughts? That's quite a feat, Professor. 🙂

I said "What do you think", meaning md65536. You directly and correctly answered the kind of question a stupid beginner might ask, which was completely different from the question I asked md65536. This is one of your favorite trolling tactics, Mordy. You ignore the question the person actually asked, and then you insult the person's intelligence by fabricating your own little fantasy question that involves the person not knowing basic things like definitions of vocabulary terms. And then you make your own retarded comments, like these: "all reference frames are inertial" "Equal free fall it is not the equivalent to a rest frame". "A reference frame is an inertial frame of reference." Not to mention mangled gibberish like "The above propertime that clock on the worldline". And you try to intimidate people by gratuitously throwing around advanced technical terms and citing your "Resident Expert" status in the forum. Go ahead, Professor. Keep replying to my comments. Or not. However you see fit.

Lecturing people about waves not going faster than c is not the forum topic.

Still waiting for an explanation of this comment, which is just as nonsensical as anything Professor Morty has said.

Sure, buddy. Stick to your story no matter how retarded it is. 😉

Okay, that's good. Although even a rail gun would have to propel each car according to the same schedule. The main differences would be the clocks in the rail gun are in the ground frame instead of in the cars, and the different points on the gun have to keep changing from one car's schedule to the next one. And it would have be a very long rail gun. 😄 And if you continue to insult my intelligence with elementary dictionary definitions and freshman-level factoids, I'll continue to tell you what you can do with yourself.

I know that, Professor. I was asking md65536 what she thinks, because what she posted is inconsistent. Please either learn how to read or stay out of other people's conversations.

What kind of real wave do you think travels faster than c, and how do you think a simulated wave going faster than c could be implemented without local engines?

Still not working. Okay, thanks. It doesn't display in the preview, but whatever. This is good enough. [math] Fe{\left( {OH} \right)_3} \Leftrightarrow F{e^{3 + }} + 3{\left( {OH} \right)^ - } [/math] EDIT: In the Show Math As menu, I selected TeX Commands. What's the purpose of selecting MathML Code? To use a MathML editor and then export to LaTeX? This is what I was told earlier:

What does RMB mean, and where is the Show Math As menu?

Okay. I was told that MathML is supported. Apparently someone needs to get their facts straight. What math formats are supported? Anything else? d3nxd3npρ(x,p) Copied from your post and then pasted as rich text.

I was able to copy and paste the math that you posted, so MathML appears to be supported. I want to display it in my posts. <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <msup> <mi>d</mi> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mn>3</mn> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msup> <mi>x</mi> <msup> <mi>d</mi> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mn>3</mn> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msup> <mi>p</mi> <mi>&#x03C1;<!-- ρ --></mi> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>p</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </math>

I want to use MathML.

I already displayed the math in an online editor. I want to display the math in an SFN post. <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <msup> <mi>d</mi> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mn>3</mn> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msup> <mi>x</mi> <msup> <mi>d</mi> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mn>3</mn> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msup> <mi>p</mi> <mi>&#x03C1;<!-- ρ --></mi> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>p</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </math>

And then the science enthusiast has to deal with trolls who are already established as "Resident Experts" on this board...

I'm trying to display math using MathML.

Okay, well, I and our medieval friend here are obviously not getting along. That's too bad. Not really unexpected, but disappointing. Good night, Mordy. Maybe we'll chat again some other time.