mooeypoo

ooba pooba looba.

That would make him malicious, wouldn't it? Also, how could anyone be blamed for "falling" for a godly coverup? Quite a convincing coverup, too.

blood_pardon, if "smart people" forgot to put god into the equation, you would not have religious scientists -- which you do. They exist. It's not that we forgot to put god into the equation, it's that the definition of god is that it's beyond space and time and is therefore irrelevant to a description of space and time, and therefore is irrelevant as a consideration in science. F=ma, for example, is a scientific law that describes reality, we can predict the behavior of physical items from it. Whether or not it just "is" or if some god made it is a philosophical question (or a theological one) and not a scientific relevancy. Same goes to relativity and the "Big Bang". If you say "god", you stop asking. It's not giving you an answer as to *how* things behave (if anything, perhaps as to their 'why'). Some people care about the why and believe in a god - that's fine. But it's not relevant to a scientific discussion about how things behave.

Why not? You claimed the transformation is faulty. Your explanation as to why is lacking. Either show us why it's faulty or go over the derivation to see that it isn't. Not when your claims are lacking in the basic principles. In that case, we must go over the basic principles first before we move on to the more complicated case. I don't know what "If I had game" means, but you are the one making the claim, and you seem to be unable to prove yourself. Either stop saying the math is faulty and start using the PROPER math, or show us where it's faulty using the math. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole, vuquta. You can't just decide you're using your own set of mathematical formulas because the original ones are flawed but not know to explain (and *prove*) where they're flawed. We can't go on without it, not when you insist on not using proper math. I'm not the one making the claim that I know better than what the theory states. Only if you agree to use proper math. Which you don't. So if you don't, you need to first prove your math concepts otherwise we can't move on. Really, it's that simple. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere, a good resource for you to go over: http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.pdf --> a derivation (with explanation) of Lorentz transform, with an explanation about the nature of inertial frames. ~moo

Page 17 already uses the Lorentz transform. What I meant is for you to derive the lorentz transform. You're the one claiming it is missing. I'm asking you to derive it so you show me which of the steps that are used to derive it is the faulty one. I'm waiting. And.. uhm... if it wasn't clear, I mean a MATHEMATICAL derivation. Not a word-explanation like pg 17 has, which is lacking mathematically.

Nope, it doesn't. Derive it. I did. I derived it. Did you? You should. The derivation itself shows you not only what the equation means, but where it came from. Good exercise, too. Not too hard. Okay, listen. what is velocity? v = dx/dt You *have* a treatment for 'distance' in there. In the form of a differential - the velocity. The formula doesn't ignore it. If you had derived it like you should do, you'd see it. Seriously, vuquta, your refusal to listen serves no good to the debate or to your own misconceptions. It's quite obvious your math is faulty, if you're so sure you're right, you should at least go over the way the original formula you're protesting was derived. Maybe you'll learn something, or at least show us better where it's wrong. As it is atm, you're making no sense. I'm not getting into your scenario when your fundamentals are wrong. I didn't say you're stupid, but your refusal to cooperate is not just annoying, it's counter productive. You don't know the math. That doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you not-knowledgeable of the math. Or confused. Either way, we don't need to guess it, you're showing it. Go ahead, then.

I'm sure. You didn't answer my question -- did you derive this equation, ever?

Absolutely no one calls their email address (collection of unplanned pregnancies and a liar. And new experiment up to us to those stupid "city personalities".

This is the Lorentz transformation factor, vuquta. It's the transition factor between reference frames. You use this to find the distance or time, relative to different frames. Have you even studied Special Relativity? If you have, did you not derive this?

I did.. look at the link. You said this: When in fact, you are the one who doesn't know why. I helped out by giving you the link to show why. You're welcome. You claimed that you are going to ignore the matrix because you don't know what it means. I gave you the page to explain to you what it means. Go read it. ~moo

vuquta, get yourself off your high horse. If you don't know the subject, the least you can do is go over its basics, and if you can't do that, the least you could do then is *not* blame others for having faulty math when you are the one who doesn't know it properly. As it turns out, even wikipedia can be an answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Matrix_form Read. Absorb. Learn. Stop whining about other people's math when yours is the one at fault here. ~moo

Yes, insane_alien, don't be a hypocrite. Every book is mythical, which is why crownedconquern has yet to have died from some mild infection -- it's the mythical power of medical books !!!!! IT IS!!!!!!!!!! and they STOOD THE TEST OF TIME!!!! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I can play that game too: Understand the examination of corona. The makers were huge. I transform the beer to its original color. Yellow rules the earth. Money should be yellow instead of green. How am I doing in this "Throw random words into a sentence" exercise? I'm still new at this.

How have they stood the test of time if they're FALLING ? Anyhoo, this is a bit ridiculous. Seeing as you are a delusional troll who can't put up any evidence to the random sentences you put up (I don't even think I understand what it is you claim, dude), this thread only remains open as long as you are amusing, and you're getting low on the supply.

No they didn't.. they're falling apart, and are in dire need of restoration. It appears not only do you not know why, you don't know what you're talking about.

At the very least you should cite properly so we could at least consider if we want to read the books you post. Once again, with flair: what's the name of the book, the author, and, preferably, a link?

It's not foolish when you show us you don't know what you're talking about, and you insist on ignoring our resources. I know it's scary to test your blind faith, but if you are so certain it's true, it will hold strong even in light of a few measly evidence. You seem to be quite scared to test it, though, and then blame us for "assuming" you didn't study. We don't need to assume, you're giving us enough evidence for that assumption to hold true. It's time you start showing us evidence that you *do* know what you're talking about. We're waiting. We gave you a list of evidence. You are too scare to read them. Sisyphus is not doing what he condemned you for, you are just continuing to show you don't care to stop doing it. If I give you a link, will you read it? Short and sweet explanation for relativity: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/relativity.html And we know because we took 2 synchronized atomic clocks. We put one on a fast plane and one on the ground. We kept the plane moving for a bit, then we compared the clocks and we saw that one measured more time than the other. We did it again, with different clocks, and got the same result. We did it again later, with even different different clocks, and got the same result. We changed the experiment a tiny bit and did it with different clocks, and go the expected result. That's how we know. ~moo

I was.

Please show us with evidence rather than with pointless unclear pictures, crownedconquern. We're a science forum, not /b/. ~moo

LAST TIME, mv: your theory is speculative, and therefore is NOT a valid answer to another speculation. You have your own thread, use it to prove your case that the theory is valid. Until you prove that, the theory is not yet proven, and the evidence are lacking, therefore it is *NOT A VALID ANSWER*. If you don't intend on debating your own theory, rethink your membership here. Either way, you are to STOP spamming the forum with links to your site. Please don't have us tell you this again. ~moo

You still clearly haven't read the links we provided, since they put up some claims you might find interesting. Are you here to debate or lecture? Again, why do you refuse to read a link? What are you so afraid of in reading ... a link... ? it would be so much easier talking about specific evidence that you disagree with rather than trying to explain to you that what you describe as the theory is *NOT* what the theory is about.

If it wasn't clear, we're not debating the rules with you, we are giving you the benefit of the doubt before we delete any more post you put up to you speculative theory other than in your own thread. Your theory is speculative in the sense that it is not mainstream science; as a result, it has its own thread debating the efficacy of the evidence oyu are suggesting. When and if it becomes mainstream science, it might be more valid as an answer to questions and debates about mainstream science, or as answers to other speculative theories. You have an option to put up your evidence. In your own thread. Please take it. Read our rules, participate in a proper debate, and stop arguing a pointless argument. ~moo

Please avoid off-topic discussions, and stick to one theory at a time in each thread. Mv's theory is available in its own thread. Please discuss it there and keep this thread on topic. ~moo

It's not on topic because the current thread speaks of a COMPLETELY different theory, and you have a thread all to yourself discussing your theory. Stop mass-posting your theory everywhere, you were asked to stop three times already. Please stick to your thread. While we welcome you to the forum and would love to discuss your theory, a formal request from a moderator is not up for debate. Stick to your own thread and please feel free to go over our rules. Welcome to ScienceForums! ~moo

blood_pardon, consider this - what if I put up a claim to you "I disagree. God does not exist." How do you respond to that? Presumably, you would put forth the evidence you know of as for the existence of god so I can see them and either be convinced or ask you more directed questions. Why, then, are you refusing to relate to the evidence we put forth? The statement "I disagree with X" is moot when evidence was shown. Either tell us why you think the evidence is not sufficient (by relating to the actual evidence we posted to you, and not what you think is the general concept) or show us counter evidence that contradict the ones we give or, perhaps, be convinced (shriek!). Are you afraid to even try reading the sources? If you're so certain you are correct, then it doesn't make much sense not to read the sources so you can answer on-point and refute our claims outright, does it?

Fair enough. Some people do run their mouths against creationists, so I know what you mean. Judge the claims by the evidence and not by the person writing them. Isn't that fair? The question is, though, do you have the intellectual honesty to actually read what you oppose so you can criticize it, or are you just going to ignore the sources without even looking at them? We didn't ask you to sign a contract for life, we're just asking you take a look so you can criticize the claim. What, precisely, are you afraid of? ~moo