#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Maxwell equations are not time reversal invariant
The Maxwell equations in vacuum which govern classical electrodynamics are:
divB = 0
divE = 4πρ
rotE = - (1/c)∂B/∂t;
rotB = (4π/c)J + (1/c)∂E/∂t
If time is reversed according to transform t -> -t, the first 2 equations remain unchanged, but the last 2 equations become
rotE = + (1/c)∂B/∂t;
rotB = (4π/c)J - (1/c)∂E/∂t
True
Side Score: 98
|
 |
False
Side Score: 85
|
|
The Maxwell equations in vacuum which govern classical electrodynamics That is true, but what are these "British vacuums" you were speaking about? Running across you Internet geniuses are quite entertaining It's interesting that you find electrodynamics entertaining. First time I see something like this. Side: True
1
point
Do have the time reversal invariant to send to appliance businesses across America ? That just might prove to a genius move for you !! Obviously Outlaw and I have FAR superior intellect, because we recognise that F = qE + qv x B. Big Oats is literally so stupid that he doesn't even understand that the E and B fields can be replaced by the magnetic vector potential A and (scalar) electrostatic potential. I pity his neanderthal lack of understanding, and I am sure Outlaw feels the same way. Side: True
Obviously Outlaw and I have FAR superior intellect, because we recognise that F = qE + qv x B. Now tell me what vxB stands for and what are the coordinates of that vector. You have 1 minute, time is ticking. NO time for google. Big Oats is literally so stupid that he doesn't even understand that the E and B fields can be replaced by the magnetic vector potential A and (scalar) electrostatic potential That's bullshit you fucking idiot. E and B cannot be replaced by scalar and vector potential. They can be written in terms of scalar and vector potential E = -potential gradient - dA/dt B = rot A Side: False
1
point
Now tell me what vxB stands for You have this the wrong way around. I don't respond to the demands of utter morons who can't comprehend why t = -t1 is mathematically impossible. You tell me why you are still trying to defend this ruse of understanding maths when it has been proven ABUNDANTLY clearly that you do not have the faintest fucking idea what you are talking about. There is only one feasible answer to that question and I offered it to you this morning, mate. Mental illness. That's bullshit you fucking idiot. E and B cannot be replaced by scalar and vector potential So Wikipedia is wrong? Because that's where I copied the line from, idiot. The E and B fields can be replaced by the magnetic vector potential A and (scalar) electrostatic potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzforce#Lorentzforceintermsofpotentials Oooops. Looks like somebody is a moron. Side: True
You have this the wrong way around It was you who was trying to use the Lorenz force formula to prove that you "know" something about physics. But you know nothing and you have no idea what vector cross product means. who can't comprehend why t = -t1 is mathematically impossible. It is mathematically possible, and you know that t and t1 are different variables. It's mathematically near to impossible to find a retard putting on an Alzheimer clown act, like what you're doing now. Do go on, I think the APA might pay me for this material. So Wikipedia is wrong? Because that's where I copied the line from, idiot. It's reassuring to know that you admit your own idiocy. Yes, you are right indeed, copying it line to line from wikipedia was profoundly idiotic. "The E and B fields can be replaced by the magnetic vector potential A and (scalar) electrostatic potential" is a stupid inaccurate phrase and that article needs to be edited. Oooops. Looks like somebody is a moron. You are absolutely correct. Side: False
1
point
Is that who taught you t = -t1? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I learned variable substitution back in high school but nobody "learns" about specific substitutions unless they are really noteworthy, like for example the Chirghausen substitution in 5th order equations. Side: True
1
point
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Then permit me to translate it into dopey for you. The morons hail you as their king. I learned variable substitution back in high school Yet they apparently didn't teach you that a variable can't equal two different values simultaneously. If you change t to minus t then it no longer equals t you impossibly stupid rent-a-twit. Side: True
1
point
I never said that You literally expressed that exact claim in mathematical form you astonishingly stupid halfwit. t = -t1 gives t two different mathematical values. Why can't you just learn to shut your stupid face? Why do you have to go on and on and on? That only makes your look MORE stupid, not less. Side: True
t = -t1 gives t two different mathematical values. 1. It doesn't give t any specific value. 2. It says that t1 is a different variable and it's bound with t. In the same way as with spacial reflection we would write x = -x1 y = y1 z = z1 For a reflection over the plane x = 0. Not that a retard would understand. Side: False
1
point
That's an interesting turn. You hail me as your king? A simply pathetic attempt at wit. If I am a moron and hail you as my king, then obviously it is because I recognise that you are a far superior moron. Do you understand literally nothing? Jesus Christ it's like conversing with a five year old. Side: False
|
1
point
Bronto, you are honestly one of the biggest attention-seeking idiots I have ever encountered. Your cut and paste jobs quite clearly are going to fool nobody into believing that you understand what you are talking about. We argued about it for four hours just days ago and, in typical keeping with whichever mental illness it is that you have, everytime you wrote something stupid or which revealed you to be ignorant, you either attempted to ignore it, deflect it, or project it onto me. A simple analysis of basic common sense exposes you as an idiot, since you are cut and pasting complex physics equations into a public debating site in which nobody -- including you -- is or ever has been a physicist. You are very literally attempting to blind and confuse people instead of doing your best to explicate whatever argument it is you think you are making in its simplest possible terms. In sum, you are crying for attention like a 6 month old baby. Equations are invariant because that is what makes them equations. If you change X = Y into X = YT then that is no longer the same equation. One does not need to cut and paste squiggly gobbledegook onto the page to understand this. One just needs to have a shred of common sense. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
Equations are invariant because that is what makes them equations. If you change X = Y into X = YT then that is no longer the same equation. What are you arguing about, that is literally irrelevant to you believing time machines have been built. If you look up T-Symmetry, you'll find BigOats is quite correct. You seem to be obsessed about something else entirely. Side: True
1
point
I don't think he's actually ever seen a mathematical formula before. So that's your argument why t1 does not equal t? Because you don't think I've ever seen a mathematical formula before? My, that's a strong one. c^2 Obviously false, since:- A1 = {3, 4, 5, 6} ∧ A2 = {7, 8, 9, 10} c and the 2 are "high fiving" each other? Maybe you should explain why you squared the speed of light. Side: True
Obviously false, since:- A1 = {3, 4, 5, 6} ∧ A2 = {7, 8, 9, 10} You just copied that from a site and you don't even know what it means. Why are you so retarded? you don't think I've ever seen a mathematical formula before? You may have seen them but you don't have any clue what they mean. Side: True
1
point
That's quite amusing given that you've literally gone from pasting complex physics It's pretty much basic electrodynamics. If I started writing about non-local symmetries of Maxwell equations and their impact on the relativity principle, that would be complex physics. Side: False
1
point
It's pretty much basic electrodynamics. It's a bunch of incomprehensible algebra you've spammed onto the page to use as a gambit to make people believe you are intelligent. The irony is that you are trying to misrepresent what you wrote the day before last, when you specifically referred to "invariant equations", and I in turn showed you that there are no references to "invariant equations" on the entire internet database. You do not have an argument. You have a bunch of algebra and a mental health problem. Side: True
1
point
Equations are invariant because that is what makes them equations Learn to read you retarded narco idiot. Nobody was saying that these equations are "invariant". That's an idiotic thing to say and means absolutely nothing, so it's no wonder that's how it registered in your stupid head. The title says "Maxwell equations are not TIME REVERSAL invariant'. Invariance doesn't mean anything unless you specify the transformation. And in this case its t -> -t which stands for TIME REVERSAL, which you would be have been able to see in the debate description were it not for your drug addiction. If you change X = Y into X = YT then that is no longer the same equation. First of all that's not a legit transformation because you're introducing 3 variables instead of 2. Your equation is not invariant under that particular transformation. So fucking what? It is invariant under the tranformation X -> -X; Y -> -Y Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
LOL, so you keep ignoring what I wrote about equtaion symmetry. Even a child could have understood my explanation of equation symmetry by now, which I gave a few posts ago. But you seem to be mortally afraid of reading it. Looks like the typical behaviour of a mentally ill person. Side: True
1
point
It's also funny that you would suggest I need to learn to read, given that we discussed this precise topic for four hours the night before last, and you made yourself look like such an incomprehensibly stupid fool, that you are attempting to resurrect it two days later to try to "get your own back". Not only is this sad, but it clearly expresses the fact that you have the mind of a child. You became so emotionally invested in the conversation that you simply cannot let it go. What you actually need to understand is that you are not going to come out on top. Ever. I literally -- LITERALLY -- had to explain to you that t1 means exactly the same thing as t. That's how devoid of intellect you are. You are simply a rambling moron who wants to feel intelligent without actually BEING intelligent. I wish you the best of luck with that. Side: False
Dude, you probably have some experience writing essays, but math, physics and even basic logic is clearly not your thing. I literally -- LITERALLY -- had to explain to you that t1 means exactly the same thing as t. This might not be an ethical thing to do, but I am now going to start my collection of your COMPLETELY retarded quotes so people on here can have a laugh in their spare time. Side: True
1
point
Dude, you probably have some experience writing essays I have written work published in academia. I don't make it general knowledge because that isn't how genuine intellectuals behave. They don't jump onto the internet and cram the page with stories of how intelligent they are. That's the way imbecilic liars behave. I am now going to start my collection of your COMPLETELY retarded quotes Or you could just explain why you wrote t1 instead of t. Changing the subject is probably gonna be easier for you though, so if I were you I'd probs stick with that. Side: False
They don't jump onto the internet and cram the page with stories of how intelligent they are. So you decided to jump onto the internet and cram the page with your aggressive ignorance and idiocy. Or you could just explain why you wrote t1 instead of t. Because t1 is the name of a new variable. There are no lower indexes possible here but only an idiot would fail to understand what I meant. Side: True
1
point
But you don't understand that t1 = t?* 1 is an index, so t1 denotes a new variable. Like I've already said, there are no lower index fonts easily available. In physics when a numeric constant is multiplied by a variable it's always put before the variable. Like 4x. Nobody ever writes x4 meaning x multiplied by 4. If you're confused about this see the debate in the link below Side: True
1
point
1
point
In physics when a nymeric constant is multiplied by a variable it's always put before the variable. The number one is not a "nymeric constant". It's simply the number one. Do you have even the slightest inkling of the embarrassment you are making of yourself? Not only does t1 = t, but obviously 1t also = t. Side: False
1
point
No, but I can see how I'm making an embarassment of you. No, you are writing complete gibberish when I ask you why you have been making mistakes which most small children would not make. I mean, literally. I challenge you to find me any child over the age of eight who does not know that t1 = t. Side: False
1
point
Dude, just see the debate in the link and shut the fuck up already. That person understood me perfectly because Ahahaha! Allow me to offer up a couple of theories:- A) That person was you (likely). B) That person was another pseudo-intellectual who gets his kicks from pseudo-intellectual circle jerks (even more likely). You may not be familiar with him, but once upon a time there was a man called Albert Einstein, and he said something along the lines of, "If you can't explain what you are talking about simply it is because you do not understand it". Wise man was Albert. Side: False
1
point
But you don't understand that t1 = t?* Nope, t1 can be considered a coordinate in a 4 dimensional matrix, often substracting T0 to track an object moving through space where t0 is the starting point. It can help to find out the velocity or acceleration of the object. Perhaps, BigOats can correct me if I'm wrong here. Side: True
1
point
the hypotenuse in such situations is rarely explainable by a quadratic equation. A hypotenuse is the longest side of a right-angled triangle, the side opposite of the right angle. What the fuck does that have to do with what I just explained? You're talking triangles and I'm talking about time variables in 4D matrix. Side: True
1
point
1
point
As I said, it has nothing to do with the discussion. And as I said, you have revealed to the entire world your astonishing ignorance by failing to deduce its blatant relevance to the discussion. That's about a triangle. It's about the triangulation of coordinates you pathetically stupid, pseudo-intellectual halfwit. How can you calculate coordinates in 4 dimensional space unless you understand their position in 3 dimensional space? You are literally more stupid than a bowl of chicken noodles and I suggest you shut the hole in your face. Side: False
It's about the triangulation of coordinates No one was talking about triangulation of coordinates. How can you calculate coordinates in 4 dimensional space unless you understand their position in 3 dimensional space? No one was talking about that, either. A hypotenuse has nothing to do with it either. You are literally just pulling words out of your ass. Side: True
1
point
1
point
Those were your words, were they not? Of course, they were my words, anyone with half a brain can see that. And anyone with half a brain can see those words do not talk about the triangulation of coordinates Then you said this... Demonstrably false, since the hypotenuse in such situations is rarely explainable by a quadratic equation You immediately started talking about something nonsensical completely different than what I was talking about. The topic was about the numbers after "t" which you confused as being multiplied. Side: True
1
point
Of course, they were my words, anyone with half a brain can see that. And anyone with half a brain can see those words do not talk about the triangulation of coordinates You made a false statement about coordinates which I disproved. What are you finding difficult to understand about that? You immediately started talking about something nonsensical Not only was it perfectly clear what I was talking about, but I FUCKING WELL EXPLAINED IT TO YOU. LOL. Side: True
You made a false statement about coordinates which I disproved. And brilliantly I might add! You introduced a new word, triangualtion, thinking this would impress the audience. Pity it didn't work, since triangulation has nothing to do with the topic discussed. But the strategy was ingenious. Side: True
1
point
And brilliantly I might add! No, it was very simple. Such things are however probably relative the the observer. You introduced a new word, triangualtion You literally can't even spell it, can you? Triangulation has been going on since the 6th century BC. It is new like you are intelligent. That is, it isn't. Side: False
You made a false statement about coordinates which I disproved That's an obvious 'no' on both counts. Your response was meaningless, you pulled words out of your ass. Not only was it perfectly clear what I was talking about, but I FUCKING WELL EXPLAINED IT TO YOU You were not even remotely talking about what I was talking about. You were blathering. Side: True
1
point
Burrito thinks he has achieved some sort of victory because of a "mistake" of mine he has spotted. LOL. It's obvious to anyone with experience in physics that t1 means t with index 1, a new variable. Not t multiplied by 1 as our genious has concluded. Physisists never write formulas that way. Side: True
1
point
Nope, t1 can be considered a coordinate in a 4 dimensional matrix Actually it was a simple variable substitution, an alternative to the active transform whereas t is replaced by -t. Since Buritto was perplexed by the fact that the time variable could have negative values, I decided to use the other equivalent method of variable substitution. Of course any letter could have sufficed say u=-t but I used t1=-t so it resembled time, in order to avoid frightening him with a different variable. But he apparently got even more confused and permanently stuck on the semantics of variables, and thought I was implying that t gets multiplied by 1, truly a marvel of scitzophrenia on his part. Side: True
1
point
1
point
Phenomenal stupidity. Perhaps you would be interested in the introduction to algebra course designed for six year olds:- in Algebra we don't use the multiply symbol (×) between numbers and letters https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/ Side: True
Sorry, but I've gone somewhat beyond the multiplication table and how basic algebra works. We are talking about Superscripts and Subscripts, which are often used in formula and equations. Didn't you know that? Side: True
1
point
Sorry, but I've gone somewhat beyond the multiplication table and how basic algebra works. So you admit that algebra does not work in the way you are pretending it works? Well... Thanks. We are talking about Superscripts and Subscripts That's hilarious. I have not mentioned either during the entire course of this conversation. You can't deflect to a random topic and then arbitrarily declare that is what "we" are talking about. Shut your stupid face you idiot. You're not funny and you're not clever. You're the dictionary definition of an idiot. Side: True
I have not mentioned either during the entire course of this conversation. Now, you're starting to catch on, it's what we've been trying to explain to you but you were stuck on stupid. Good to see you finally understand and we're all on the same page. See, that wasn't so hard, was it. Side: True
1
point
T1 does not substitute the variable. It multiplies it by one. No you crazy moron. Maybe in first grade arithmetic that's a big deal. But on forums where there are no fonts for lower indexes t1, t2, e.t.c. are used to denote variables and only an imbecile would think t is being multiplied by 1 and 2, given the context. Side: True
1
point
Maybe in first grade arithmetic that's a big deal. The rules of arithmetic do not change dependent on how old you are. Why are you so addicted to embarrassing yourself? t1, t2, e.t.c. are used to denote variables T is the variable you pitiful imbecile. One is a number. Side: True
T is the variable you pitiful imbecile. One is a number. That's a matter of convention you complete moron. It's impossible to even copy a "t with lower index 1" variable into forums like this one WHERE LOWER INDEXES ARE NOT SUPPORTED. That's why on sites like this one everyone uses t1, t2...e.t.c. impying that these are variables meaning t with lower index1,2 e.t.c. Below is another link where such notation is used. Perhaps this may somehow penetrate your thick scull. Side: True
1
point
Minus t is not an alternative to t multiplied by one. Inject yourself with something to remove the meth effect temporarily. Then you will see I've never claimed what you saying. I said that the substitution t1=-t is an alternative to the active transform t -> -t. Both are used and they are equivalent. t1 is a variable name, 1 is unseparable here. There is no multiplication taking place. Similar to how it's used in the forum in the link below. Side: False
1
point
I said that the substitution t1=-t is an alternative to the active transform t -> -t. There is no such thing as an active transform, idiot. You mean active transformation if you are referencing a relation to spatial transformations in Euclidian space. Furthermore, you laughable clown, t -> -t, literally means nothing in algebraic terms. You are trying to tell us that t minus greater than minus t. It's gibberish. Shut the fuck up you dummy. Side: True
There is no such thing as an active transform, idiot There is such a thing as a crazy bitch trying to score points by poiting out to a foreinger's syntax errors, as an argument in a math dispute. And that bitch is you. You mean active transformation if you are referencing a relation to spatial transformations in Euclidian space. Yes well that's the only way you've heard of it being used, dummy. Active transformation can refer to direct variable transformation in any metric space or in any equation. it means you directly substitute an expression instead of a variable, like x^2 instead of x into the equation itself. Passive transformation means you;re introducing a new variable bound with the previous one with the same condition and writing the equation in terms of the new variable or variables. t -> -t, literally means nothing in algebraic terms. You are trying to tell us that t minus greater than minus t. Where did you see me use the => sign? I'm using -> which means that you substitute -t instead of t directly into the equation. Side: False
1
point
There is such a thing as a crazy bitch trying to score points by poiting out to a foreinger's syntax errors There is such a thing as pretending to be a foreigner every time somebody points out that you've made a mistake, and then calling me an idiotic bitch every other second. That's called being a pointless moron. Yes well that's the only way you've heard of it being used, dummy. Oh, so you used the wrong syntax while at the same time you didn't use the wrong syntax? That's nice. Did you learn that one from Hitler? Side: True
There is such a thing as pretending to be a foreigner every time somebody points out that you've made a mistake Придурок, грамматическая ошибка и ошибка в расчетах это разные вещи Только охуевший мудак вроде тебя будет их сравнивать. Oh, so you used the wrong syntax while at the same time you didn't use the wrong syntax Syntax has nothing to do with it. It's not only used with reference to Eucledian space, but in many other situations, THAT is obviously what I meant. It appears you've used the wrong combination of drugs while using the wrong combination of drugs. Stop jerking yourself off on my debates you crazy narco faggot bitch. Side: False
2
points
1
point
1
point
Придурок, грамматическая ошибка и ошибка в расчетах это разные вещи Только охуевший мудак вроде тебя будет их сравнивать. Я англичанин, так что, очевидно, это просто доказывает, какой ты полный идиот Yeah, I can do that too retard. Having access to Google Translate doesn't make you foreign. It especially doesn't make you foreign when you pretend to be Russian, because the Russians use a different alphabet. Hence, either you have two different keyboards (one with the Russian alphabet and one with the English alphabet) or you've literally just exposed yourself as a liar. Good one. Syntax has nothing to do with it. Syntax was literally the word you used to describe it you walking human farce. Side: True
Я англичанин, так что, очевидно, это просто доказывает, какой ты полный идиот That sounds like shit in Russian. Это потому что ты мудак используешь переводчик, а я пишу на своем родном языке. Syntax was literally the word you used to describe it "It"? What the fuck are you talking about retard? I was specifically addressing your claim that active transformation is only used in Euclidean space. That's not about "syntax", it's a matter of correcting your factual mistake. Side: False
1
point
Active transformation can refer to direct variable transformation in any metric space or in any equation. I agree, but what does this have to do with you not knowing the difference between t and t1? You are literally writing pure unadulterated gibberish with no relevance. it means you directly substitute an expression instead of a variable, like x^2 instead of x into the equation itself. But then it is no longer x you idiot. It is x squared. X to the power of 1 is x, so you're still wrong. You are going round and round in circles and you are still wrong. Side: True
I agree, but what does this have to do with you not knowing the difference between t and t1? GO AND CHECK THE LINKS I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU TO FORUMS WHERE THIS KIND OF NOTATION IS USED FOR VARIABLES. Or have you poisoned yourself with methanol again? Are you completely fuckin blind? But then it is no longer x you idiot. Stop using words the meaning of which you cannot even remotely comprehend due to your idiocy, like for example the word "idiot". Yes X it is squared. That's the whole point of variable transformation in this case. You plug X squared into an equation and see how it changes. If the equaiotn was for example Y=Log(X) it will transform into Y=2Log(X). This was just an example, usually these transforms are linear. Side: False
1
point
GO AND CHECK THE LINKS I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU TO FORUMS WHERE THIS KIND OF NOTATION IS USED FOR VARIABLES. Stop deflecting to other irrelevant discussions and concentrate on the one you are having here. I've never seen you drop any links. Even if you had, they would not be relevant because they do not concern the specific circumstances of our discussion, nor would they evidence your intent when you made your childish error in the first place. All you have for us are pots of gold and rainbows, because you're a fucking idiot who made a mistake a small child would struggle to make. Stop using words the meaning of which you cannot even remotely comprehend due to your idiocy Screaming insults at me is not going to refute basic maths. T^1 is T, hence you have gone round and round in circles and you are still wrong. It's that simple. There is nothing complex about it. You are trying very hard to make it complex so that you can find a hole to scurry your retarded weasel of a body out of, but I am afraid it is not going to happen on my watch. Side: True
I've never seen you drop any links. Get medical help immediately. You have poisoned yourself with methanol. Even if you had, they would not be relevant because they do not concern the specific circumstances of our discussion, nor would they evidence your intent when you made your childish error in the first place These links evidence that your idiotic ramblings about my "mistake" are childish nonsene. Such notation for variables is used on math sites where lower indexes are not available. An example for non-blind people is once again given below. Side: False
1
point
These links evidence that your idiotic ramblings about my "mistake" are childish nonsene. But you haven't actually provided evidence of anything. The only reason you are saying you have produced evidence is because you are trying to sell us a rainbow. Perhaps you will go further and drop a useless link or two, but one thing you are certainly not going to do is show us evidence that when you wrote t1, you meant anything other than t. Side: True
1
point
Those circles are LSD flashes IN YOUR STUPID HEAD. Clearly, the fact that you are screaming at me implies the complete opposite. I never once mentioned rasing T to the power of one. LOL. You literally claimed that t1 is a variable because active transforms stipulate that variables may have conditions attached, and then exemplified it by squaring t (actually it might have been x, but same difference). You are simply beyond the moronic. You are a total, jaw-dropping aberration of idiocy who has travelled around in circles for three hours instead of simply holding your hands up and admitting you made a mistake. It took you two days to even create this excuse in the first place. You ran away and hid when your mistake was actually pointed out to you. Utterly cringeworthy. Side: True
Clearly, the fact that you are screaming at me implies the complete opposite. That's the only way to get a narco to its senses, short of slapping on the face. You literally claimed that t1 is a variable because active transforms stipulate that variables may have conditions attached, and then exemplified it by squaring t (actually it might have been x, but same difference). Same difference? Are you a complete fucking idiot? I was just giving an example of what an active tranformation is as opposed to a passive transformation. I also gave a textbook example of an equation were this is used. This had nothing to do with reversing the flow of time in Maxwell equations. Your inability to grasp that very simple concept after so much explanation on my side shows how much damage narcotics have wrecked upon you. Side: False
1
point
That's the only way to get a narco to its senses If somebody does not understand something, you cannot bring them to their "senses" by screaming obscenities at them. None of your statements ever seem to fit the facts, do they? Same difference? Are you a complete fucking idiot? Either it's the same difference or you tried to exemplify that t1 is a variable by using the wrong variable. Which one do you want to go for, dummy? Side: True
Either it's the same difference or you tried to exemplify that t1 is a variable by using the wrong variable. None of these is true. I wonde how your stupid head could have come to such an idiotic dilemma? it's obvious that t1 is a variable form the context in which I used. This kind of convention is sometimes used for variables in online algebra as proven by my links. This is really no big deal at all. Only a crazy monomaniac could get himself stuck on this so intensely. Side: False
1
point
None of these is true. One is demonstrably true, because they are the only two possibilities. it's obvious that t1 is a variable No it isn't obvious. It's the opposite of obvious. Time is a variable and one is a number. Unless there are specific circumstances and a specific reason to name an arbitrary variable t1, its use in an equation amounts to utter, unadulterated nonsense. Side: True
1
point
Time is a variable,1 is a number Glad you agree. t1 is another variable in my notation It could only ever be that. It could not be a variable which anybody else would ever be aware of without you specifically telling them. Hence, it's the same difference. Either outcome ends with you not knowing what you are talking about. Side: True
It could not be a variable which anybody else would ever be aware of without you specifically telling them Nobody on math forums, except a dumbass like you, has any problems understanding that t1 is a variable, not t multiplied by 1. Because only an idiot would ever write t1 meaning t multiplied by 1, in any formula. Hence there is no ambiguity here and that is why people use it on internet forums where there is no support of subindexes. Because you often run out of a,b,c,...e.t.c. and have to use indexed variables. Or, like in this case, you need to emphasise that the variables are relevant to the same object, like time in this case. I thought you would go nuts if I called the new variable "u", but it turns out that me using an indexed notation blew your mind completely. Go figure. Side: False
1
point
Nobody on math forums, except a dumbass like you, has any problems Nobody on maths forums lacks the powers of telepathy it would require to enter your head and realise that by t1 you mean minus t? That's awesome buddy. I'm pretty sure everybody on maths forums would simply write minus t. Side: True
Nobody on maths forums lacks the powers of telepathy it would require to enter your head and realise that by t1 you mean minus t? No you blind retard, I wrote that t1 = -t, which is a simple variable substitution. You didn't need "telepathy" to know that t1 means a variable because I told you so directly more that 20 times. I'm pretty sure everybody on maths forums would simply write minus t Since you're obviously blind, ask some social worker to read out to you what's written in my posts on Schrodinger equation symmetry and in the description of this debate. I specifically wrote in both cases that I'm using the transformation t -> -t, writing it as an active transformation. But since in that other debate you were so shocked by the possibility of t being less than 0, I thought using the passive transformation form would be going easier on your psyche. Turned you I was wrong, well I'm not a qualified psychiatrist. Side: False
1
point
I wrote that t1 = -t No you didn't you liar. Obviously if you had done that we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Since you're obviously blind I am blind for assuming people on maths forums would refer to -t as -t instead of t1? Are you literally some kind of crackhead? Side: True
1
point
1
point
Because you often run out of a,b,c,...e.t.c You didn't run out of letters though. You were specifically referencing time, you used no letters other than t, and you wrote t1 in complete independence from any other calculations. You cannot create a hole of plausibility large enough to crawl your fat, idiotic body out of. It does not matter if you sit here trying until next Christmas. Side: True
You were specifically referencing time, you used no letters other than t, Exactly, this was to emphazise that both these variables denote time. One of them denotes reverse time. Really not hard to understand unless you're a total moron. and you wrote t1 in complete independence from any other calculations. I wrote t1 = - t specifically stating that it's a variable transformation. Which means that I'm introducing a new variable, not multiplying the old one by 1. That would be an absolutely crazy way to understand what I wrote. Side: False
1
point
Exactly, this was to emphazise that both these variables denote time You didn't use "both" variables you retard. You were specifically talking about time, but you wrote t1 instead of t. I wrote t1 = - t You did no such thing you fucking liar. You are going to try to convince us that you are only just mentioning this now, after I've been mocking you for the last three hours for NOT doing that? Have you the mind of a walrus? Honestly buddy. You need to work on your bullshit. Side: True
You didn't use "both" variables you retard. Could you stop projecting for a moment? Yes you are a retard and you seem to be proud of it. As shown by this phrase: You were specifically talking about time, but you wrote t1 instead of t. I was specifically using 2 different variables, one in the initial equation and the other, t1, in the transformed equation. Side: False
1
point
You did not write both t and t1. You wrote only t1 I literally did and it's written in black and white. This is a quote from that other debate which you were referrencing: "No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=-t. Introducing another variable into the equation which is a function of the former variable. That's what a substitution is. It has nothing to do with specific values". This literally means using 2 variables for 2 equations, the initial one and the transformed one. Side: False
1
point
I literally did You literally did not. It's written in black and white. Only if you edited it. Get it through your astonishingly stupid face that -t does not mean the same thing as t1. Not only does -t not mean the same thing as t1, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD TO CALL IT T1 WHEN YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS, WHICH IS -T. LOL. You are literally the most stupid person I have spoken to since Brontoraptor logged off. Side: True
Only if you edited it. I edited nothing you crazy bafoon. It isn't my fault that you have selective blindness syndrome. ABSOLUTELY NO REASON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD TO CALL IT T1 WHEN YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS, WHICH IS -T The reason is using a passive variable transformation. You may howl at the moon as much as you want, but that's what it's called in maths. The fact that you're getting triggered by such a thing is simply astonishing! LOL. You are literally the most stupid person Calling you out on your insanity and exposing your mentall illness may piss you off, but that doesn't mean that the person doing it is "stupid" in any way. Side: False
1
point
I edited nothing you crazy bafoon Obviously I am correct in that you did not explain the meaning of your imaginary "variable" because you have explained the meaning of precisely ZERO variables. Your OP is stuffed with variables but you have not explained what any of them mean. You are too busy lying your face off and throwing childish insults about like an angry toddler. Your stupidity is quickly escalating to legend level. Just saying. Side: True
Obviously I am correct in that you did not explain the meaning of your imaginary "variable Obvisouly you are a bafoon who doesn't understand his native language. I specifically said that t denotes time. And obviously t1 denotes reverse time. Your OP is stuffed with variables but you have not explained what any of them mean Well you could have asked me instead of acting like a fucking ape and writing shitpost after shitpost about my "mistakes". E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field, J is the current density, ρ is the charge density and c is the speed of light. Now are you going to tell me that rot and div are also variables? That would be hilarious. Side: False
1
point
I specifically said that t denotes time. Nobody has ever disputed that t denotes time so you are being stupid again. And obviously t1 denotes reverse time. This is obviously not obvious because reverse time would be denoted as -t. t1 obviously denotes nothing at all, which is why it can't be discovered anywhere on the internet. Is the dummy fed up yet? Side: True
1
point
The reason is using a passive variable transformation. You literally said the opposite thing two hours ago. You claimed "the reason" is an "active transform (sic)". I told you that you probably meant transformation, you blamed "syntax" and then called me some more names. This is getting embarrassing. It's cringeworthy. That's the fifth time you've altered your own argument you pathetic tool. Not only have you just contradicted yourself, but you haven't answered the simple question I asked you in the first place. Why would anybody write t1 instead of -t when they could simply write -t instead? That's contrary to basic common sense, so random phrases you've plucked off the internet like "passive variable transformation" obviously don't cut it as an explanation. They just illustrate that you're a cretin who is writing a long succession of shitposts. Side: True
1
point
so random phrases you've plucked off the internet like "passive variable transformation" I'll actually take that back because the phrase "passive variable transformation" doesn't even appear anywhere on the internet. You literally made it up. The phrase "what does t1 mean in physics" also doesn't yield any relevant results anywhere on the internet, as I pointed out to you earlier. I think that was one of the comments you ignored. I guess you couldn't think of any explanation which was stupid enough to satisfy your extremely high standards. Side: True
I'll actually take that back because the phrase "passive variable transformation" doesn't even appear anywhere on the internet. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ Side: False
1
point
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ The phrase "passive variable transformation" does not appear on that page, nor does it appear anywhere on the entire internet. Anybody who doubts this is free to click the link and run a search with Ctrl and F. You are utterly cringeworthy. You literally have inserted the word "variable" inbetween the legitimate terminology of passive transformation. I can think of absolutely nothing more desperate and pathetic, but why don't you go right on ahead and surprise me? Side: True
Stop using the word "literally" because you literally have no idea what it means. I've already said that these transformations are equivalent in our case. I told you about the passive form after I saw that you were stumped and perplexed by the active version t -> -t. Your first reaction was of a retarded ape, when you said things like "you're claiming t is greater than t". But your reaction to the passive version of the same transformation, was even more profoundly retarded. Side: False
1
point
Stop using the word "literally" I will if you stop making a fool out of yourself. Deal? I've already said that these transformations are equivalent in our case. There are two types of transformation: active and passive. First you claimed the reason was an active transform[ation], then two hours later you said it was a passive transformation. You are a big fat dummy and that is the scientific reality of matters. Side: True
You did no such thing you fucking liar I've already told you to ask your social worker to help you out since you're obviously blind. Here's a direct quote from that other debate in which I first mentioned using t1: "No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=-t. Introducing another variable into the equation which is a function of the former variable. That's what a substitution is. It has nothing to do with specific values." By the way your claiming that I had been refferencing "specific values" was another spectacular idiocy on your part. Side: False
1
point
I've already told you to ask your social worker to help you out since you're obviously blind. I repeat. You did no such thing you fucking liar. Two things prove this. Firstly, we have been arguing for well over four hours and this is the first time you have claimed to have done so, even though -- if true -- it would end the argument immediately. I would have no defence were this what you truly did. Secondly, it would negate the entire purpose of arguing about it for four hours in the first place. Instead of waiting two full days to try to regather your strength to have another go at drowning me in a wall of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, you could simply have said, "no t1 does not mean t multiplied by one. I was using it to indicate -t as I explained". One simple sentence. Instead, we are here four hours later because you have been throwing lie after lie after lie in the air, scrambling desperately for one plausible enough to convince people you aren't really the spectacularly stupid little idiot you are illustrating yourself to be. All I can say is good luck finding one. I would have thought that after four hours, you'd simply have given up. Then again, I'm not crazy. Side: True
1
point
Or, like in this case, you need to emphasise that the variables are relevant to the same object, like time in this case. I'm glad you "need to emphasise" that. I need to emphasise that a Google search of, "what does t1 mean in physics" yields precisely ZERO relevant results. Clown. Side: True
I need to emphasise that a Google search of, "what does t1 mean in physics" yields precisely ZERO relevant results. That search gives some examples of how t1, t2 are sometimes used as variables, as in this question "Adiabatic process-how is internal energy mcv(t2-t1)" https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ Clown. Yes, you have earned that title. Side: False
1
point
1
point
Well, that's what you have been insisting for several hours I haven't insisted anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. You have spent that time scrambling around in circles, desperately searching for ways to disguise your own ignorance. Indeed, after actually admitting you made the mistake, you then proceeded to use two different (and mutually contradictory) defences, with the first being that t1 is the variable t under different mathematical conditions than t (i.e. t^2 etc...) and the second being that t1 is a different variable entirely. It's all been rather silly stuff. that t1 in my formula There is no such thing as "my" formula. Maths is a universal language. Neither you nor anybody else is authorised to replace its symbols with your own and not tell anybody else about it. It says a lot about the sheer degree of buffoonery you are assaulting me with when your best defence is literally that you rewrote the language of maths and didn't bother to tell anybody else. Lol. Side: True
1
point
Stop pretenfing to be a blind retarded person Stop pretending you can ignore the glaring contradictions in the things you are writing with a few cheap insults. You began by admitting you made the mistake (and downplaying it), then you changed your story and argued that t1 was a variation of t (i.e. t^2 etc...), then when I debunked that you changed it again and claimed t1 was a completely separate variable. But I've also debunked that too, because idiots on the internet are not permitted to make up their own math symbols which only they know about. Maths doesn't work that way. Side: True
1
point
The only mistake I made was not banning a retarded clown like you from my debates. Well, that and vanishing for two days after the point was made, then coming back 48 hours later and changing your story three times in four hours. So kind of a few mistakes really. You're basically not having a good night. Side: True
Well, that and vanishing for two days after the point was made Yes I gave FM some time so that he could delete that debate and save you from embarassement. changing your story three times in four hours There was no "story" to change. You were triggered by simple math and got stuck like a broken record on a trivial issue of indexed variables and variable substitution. Side: False
1
point
Yes I gave FM some time so that he could delete that debate and save you from embarassement. So you vanished for two days, three exchanges after I pointed out that t1 = t and you were unable to find any adequate rebuttal, so you could give "FM some time" to "delete that debate" and save me from a word you cannot even spell? LOL. Good one. Any more? Side: True
1
point
Yes three exchanges after that idiocy of yours. That's awesome buddy. When people lose arguments they always end up insulting me. It's how I know I've won. I warned you you would be humiliated if you presisted Lol. Did you literally learn spelling at the Jew Olympics? and that's what's happening now Sure it is buddy. Tell us more about the "legal" war in Iraq. Lol. Side: True
1
point
There was no "story" to change. This claim is inconsistent with the fact that you demonstrably have changed your story multiple times since this exchange began. I have already explained where these changes have occurred, meticulously, so at this point we are in the usual spot of you simply denying everything because you have lost and lack the moral fibre to accept it. Side: True
1
point
You were triggered by simple math rotB = (4π/c)J + (1/c)∂E/∂t is "simple math" in the same way that you have not changed your story four times so far this evening. Your comments are so outrageously ludicrous that I see no point in you actually wasting the time necessary to write them. Side: True
1
point
The one where you pretended you explained your imaginary "variable" beforehand. It's hillarious to see a scitzophrenic like yourself pretend to be a retard pretending to be a blind person. I've alredy given you a quote form myself where I first spoke about introducing a new variable. It must be really hard for your social workers to keep up with this, as they have to remind you of the things they told you 5 minutes ago least you forget what year it is. Side: False
1
point
scitzophrenic The large red line underneath your spelling errors would give you a hint if you unfortunately did not have a subhuman intellect. I've alredy given you a quote form myself where I first spoke about introducing a new variable. If you had introduced me to your imaginary "variable" beforehand I would obviously have known what it was, hence your reasoning is circular and false. It literally is a contradiction of itself, which proves you are an Amarel alt account. Side: True
If you had introduced me to your imaginary "variable" beforehand I would obviously have known what it was If you didn't have an acute form of dementia you wouldn't have forgotten this post: "No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=-t. Introducing another variable into the equation which is a function of the former variable. That's what a substitution is. It has nothing to do with specific values" which I wrote to you 2 days ago. Side: False
1
point
If you didn't have an acute form of dementia you wouldn't have forgotten this post: "No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=-t. I haven't forgotten about any posts, because/and obviously t1 is not a "substitution" for -t. You do not have the authority to make up your own maths you laughably stupid cunt. Side: True
I haven't forgotten about any posts, because/and obviously t1 is not a "substitution" for -t. It is as per my definition you retarded faggot, I introduced a new variable t1 and the substitution t1 = -t. Now stop playing with your buttplug and concentrate on my question to you. Side: False
1
point
Introducing another variable into the equation which is a function of the former variable. Which is illogical because if it were a function of the former variable (i.e. -t) you should have simply written -t, not introduced a completely separate variable. That's stupid. Obviously. Following the stupidity of this principle, we could deduct everything from equations except variables, and since these variables could in turn be condensed down into yet fewer variables, it would eventually lead to a single variable representing the entirety of mathematical possibility. Just insanely stupid ramblings. Side: True
Which is illogical because if it were a function of the former variable (i.e. -t) you should have simply written -t, not introduced a completely separate variable. No you idiot that was done delibaretely and that's the whole point of passive transformation. As in the Lorenz transform T = (T1 + (VX1)/c^2)/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) X = (X1 + (V*T1))/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) In my case it's simpler. Just the time reversal transform t = -t1 Side: False
1
point
No you idiot You keep calling me an idiot every time I prove that you are wrong. Why? that was done delibaretely I made no argument about whether you deliberately wrote something stupid or accidentally wrote something stupid. Your reply is a typical non-sequitur (i.e. does not follow). that's the whole point of passive transformation Passive transformation has nothing to do with arbitrarily making up your own math symbols you boring infantile halfwit. T = (T1 + (VX1)/c^2)/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) Appears nowhere on the internet. X = (X1 + (VT1))/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) Appears nowhere on the internet. t = -t1 Appears nowhere on the internet. Also is mathematically impossible, since you have attributed two different values to the same variable. How stupid can a person actually be? Obviously t cannot simultaneously be t and -t. You are absolutely pitiful. What a total, utter waste of my time. Side: True
T = (T1 + (VX1)/c^2)/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) Appears nowhere on the internet. X = (X1 + (VT1))/Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) Appears nowhere on the internet. Can you already shut the fuck up about the internet? Your brain appears nowhere in this discussion. It's obvious that I can't write the formulas here in math fonts. There is no Tex support on this forum. But show this to any physicist and they will recognize Lorenz transformation. Also is mathematically impossible, since you have attributed two different values to the same variable. It's a different variable you retarded clown. Stop playing with your buttplug and answer my question to you. Side: False
1
point
Yes X it is squared. I've literally just told you that. X^2 is not the variable. The variable is x and you've squared it. However, since x to the power of one is still x, x^1 still gives you x. How is this complicated you retard? Nothing you can say or do is going to stop you from being wrong. You can try all night if you like. Side: True
I've literally just told you that. X^2 is not the variable. The variable is x and you've squared it. NO ONE SAID X^2 WAS A "VARIABLE" However, since x to the power of one is still x, x^1 still gives you x. What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't rasing X to the power of 1. Side: False
1
point
The solitary basis of you writing x^2 was to try to evidence that t1 is a variable The solitary base for that was refuting your stupid claim that active coordinate transformations are only done in Euclidean space. And you know that yet continue to impersonate a retarded clown. Side: False
1
point
What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't rasing X to the power of 1 Are you actually stupid? You raised x to the power of 2 in an effort to evidence that t can be raised to the power of 1. You've babbled so much crap that you're literally now drowning in it. Side: True
Are you actually stupid? You raised x to the power of 2 in an effort to evidence that t can be raised to the power of 1. I never mentioned raising t to any power nor did I have any reason to do so. This debate is about reversing time flow in Maxwell's equations which amounts to plugging -t instead of t into the equations, or in other words writing an equation for B(x,y,z,-t) instead of B(x,y,z,t) and E(x,y,z,-t) instead of E(x,y,z,,t), or in other words - performing an active transformation t -> -t. Side: False
1
point
I never mentioned raising t to any power Ahahahaha! That was the only relevance your rambling about raising x to the power of 2 even had to the discussion in the first place. You've literally talked so much shit that you've disappeared up your own sphincter. Either what you wrote was completely irrelevant, or it was written with the purpose of evidencing that t1 is a variable. You can't have it both ways you farcically stupid clown. Side: True
Could you please quit the clown act? It isn't entertaining anyone except yourself. There were no "ramblilngs" on my part and what I wrote in my example of an active transformation had nothing to do with the t variable in Maxwell's equations. I only provided it because you were unable to understand what an active coordinate transformation is, and you still are. In my example for idiots I used a different transformation of a different variable in a different equation. The only thing that's disappeared inside your own sphincter is you head because it's permanently stuck up your ass. There was no need to "evidence" that t1 is a variable because I called it a variable and that's enough because it's a matter of notational convention. You are obviously taking it both ways, and that is the reason why you keep behaving like a retarded clown. Side: False
1
point
Could you please quit the clown act? Could you please stop launching brute force attacks against basic common sense? There were no "ramblilngs" on my part Denying the undeniable is not really an adequate defence when the proof is pasted all over the thread. You have done nothing other than ramble. You are doing it right now, in fact. t1 is a variable because I called it a variable Ah, the "it is because I said so" argument. Very nice. Except we were specifically discussing time, and the abbreviation for that variable is t, not t1. Do you know why it is t and not t1? Drum roll please, ladies and gentlemen... Because t1 = t. Side: True
1
point
This debate is about reversing time flow in Maxwell's equations How does t1 reverse the time flow? It multiplies time by one. which amounts to plugging -t instead of t into the equations Round and round in circles. You made this claim three hours ago and my answer is still the same. Minus t does not "amount to" t multiplied by one. Minus t is the negative value of t and t multiplied by one is t. Does this shit need to be written in Russian for you? Side: True
Minus t does not "amount to" t multiplied by one. No one except a complete idiot like you thinks that t1 here means t multiplied by 1. Also it doesn't matter how you call the new variable as long as it's the inverse of the old one. I used t with lower index 1 which is written as t1 on forums like this one. So the second pair of Maxwell equations become: rotE = + (1/c)∂B/∂t1; rotB = (4π/c)J - (1/c)∂E/∂t1; where t1 = -t Side: False
1
point
No one except a complete idiot like you thinks that t1 here means t multiplied by 1 That isn't what I think. That's LITERALLY what t1 means when it is written in algebraic notation, as you wrote it. Also it doesn't matter how you call the new variable as long as it's the inverse of the old one. CLEARLY it matters if you invent your own abbreviations for your own variables and do not share them with anybody else. Are you kidding me? That's literally the same thing as making up your own version of maths. rotE = + (1/c)∂B/∂t1 So, to clarify, this is what the Maxwell equations become when you arbitrarily rename the negative value of the variable t as t1, without telling anybody else about it? Yes? This is what they become when I do the same thing:- rotE = + (1/idiot)∂B/∂yourapproximateIQ-33492 Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
t1 is a variable name One is a number. The number one is always the number one, hence why the number one cannot be a variable. T is the variable, and it represents time. That is what we were discussing when you decided you were going to be stupid enough to disagree with me. Time. T1 (T2,T3 etc...)would never be used as the name for any type of variable, for several good reasons:- A) The confusion it would cause to the algebra. B) The fact that T1 would still be better named T, and then T2, T3 etc... C) The fact that it appears nowhere on the entire internet database. Another good indication that you are a moron. Side: True
1
point
only an idiot would fail to understand what I meant. Lol. Right buddy. Just like only an idiot would believe the emperor was riding through the street in no clothes. Side: False
Just like only an idiot would believe the emperor was riding through the street in no clothes Well that makes you an idiot so , you cannot even comprehend a simple children’s tale , in the tale the Emperor is in fact wearing no clothes no one dares to say so until a child cries out “ he’s wearing no clothes “ their is deeper meaning to this tale which no doubt is lost on you. I’ve always known you were stupid but this is a different level mate Side: True
Ok, time up for you, idiot. This debate is stating that Maxwell equations are not invariant with respect to time reversal. You have chosen the "False" side. You have provided exactly 0 arguments to support your claim that my statement is false. Either address the debate topic and show specificallly where the error is in this debate description, OR admit that you're a sore loser and get the fuck out of here. So which is it going to be? Side: True
|
