 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / September 2007Just how Blind, Ignorant, Bigotted and Stupid can Poe be?
"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif >"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to >claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel >times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are >moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif What's wrong with AB = BA, Androcles? w. >>"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to >>claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > What's wrong with AB = BA, Androcles? This: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeDistance.html He's got no way out from this :-) Dirk Vdm >>>"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to >>>claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Dirk Vdm Is Androcles driving backwards on the British motorways? They cannot charge him for driving too fast, because Andro is driving at a negative velocity, and no Britsh traffic law covers that. Quite a bright guy, this Androcles. w. On Sep 30, 3:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > >>claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeDistan... > He's got no way out from this :-) So where did he get this idea from that if distance from A to B is x then the distance from B to A is -x ? -- Jan Bielawski : On Sep 30, 3:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- : SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > >>times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are : > >>moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif : > > What's wrong with AB = BA, Androcles? : > : > This: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeDistan... : > He's got no way out from this :-) : : So where did he get this idea from that if distance from A to B is x : then the distance from B to A is -x ? : : -- The distance from A to B is x', along with Poe you can't keep your frames straight and are confused by direction, just as wabnigga is confused by time. "Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com > in messagenews:ttsuf3p86flf3vh89vi28ibragcmeivokk@4ax.com... > : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > straight and are confused by direction, just as wabnigga is confused by > time. You wrote that if distance from A to B is x then the distance from B to A is -x. Where did you get this idea? -- Jan Bielawski : > in messagenews:ttsuf3p86flf3vh89vi28ibragcmeivokk@4ax.com... : > : > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] : You wrote that if distance from A to B is x then the distance from B : to A is -x. Where did you get this idea? http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/1np/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.1 You've never heard of vectors, go back to replacing light bulbs. Show Wabnigga how it's done, Austrians are as dumb as Poles. > : > : > "Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. dot .- - > > wrote [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You've never heard of vectors, go back to replacing light bulbs. I've neard of vectors but distances are not vectors. For example, answer this simple question about two distances: let two points be given in the plane: A = (1,2) B = (3,1) What is the distance from A and B? What is the distance from B and A? -- Jan Bielawski >> : > : > "Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. dot .- - > >> wrote [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > What is the distance from A and B? > What is the distance from B and A? *Please* stop it - he might finally get it. And then I have to hold *you* responsible for spoiling the fun. Please? Dirk Vdm : > : > : > "Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. dot .- - > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] : : I've neard of vectors but distances are not vectors. In English, "nerd" doesn't have an "a" in it, you are not a nerd of vectors. You are not even a fully qualified nerd, you are an assistant light-bulb changer. Distances with direction are vectors, AB is the opposite direction to BA with equal magnitude. We use a minus sign when we mean opposite direction. How many Poles does it take to change a light-bulb? : A = (1,2) : B = (3,1) : What is the distance from A and B? I'd have asked "What is the distance from A to B?" A .AND. B isn't a point, that's the point. A and B = [(1 and 3),(2 and 1)] = [1,0] You've never nerd of Boolean Algebra either. Androcles wrote : > You've never nerd of Boolean Algebra either. I'd guess he did. You'd better not speak about this : http://www.google.fr/search?q=fumble+xor+site%3Ausers.telenet.be : > in messagenews:ttsuf3p86flf3vh89vi28ibragcmeivokk@4ax.com... : > : > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] : You wrote that if distance from A to B is x then the distance from B : to A is -x. Where did you get this idea? http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/1np/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.1 You've never heard of vectors, go back to replacing light bulbs. Show Wabnigga how it's done, Austrians are as dumb as Polacks. -- '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' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif "Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid. The Uncle Stooopid doctrine: http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. In sci.physics.relativity, JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:53:08 -0000 <1191178388.815708.167830@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >> in messagenews:ttsuf3p86flf3vh89vi28ibragcmeivokk@4ax.com... >> : > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You wrote that if distance from A to B is x then the distance from B > to A is -x. Where did you get this idea? Because it is the case that d(A,B) = -d(B,A) if one treats d() as a mapping from vector to vector (although one would probably just write B-A or A-B in that case, anyway). If d() is vector to scalar (speed, as opposed to velocity; length, as opposed to displacement), then it's always positive. In any event, AB != BA, but ||AB|| = ||BA||, and there is of course the vast difference between the total displacement after, say, 200 laps at a racetrack (always zero), and the total distance (up to 500 miles). It's a subtle (and for the purpose of lightspeed largely meaningless) distinction. > -- > Jan Bielawski  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com : In sci.physics.relativity, JanPB : <filmart@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] : vast difference between the total displacement after, say, 200 laps : at a racetrack (always zero), and the total distance (up to 500 miles). Yeah, one gets you home by midnight and the other doesn't. I was only 24 hours from Tulsa... I still am and hope to stay that way. : It's a subtle (and for the purpose of lightspeed largely meaningless) : distinction. I see you're a nerd of vectors. Bilewacky isn't, he's never neard of them. Polish for "nerd" is "neard", he CLAIMS to have or be a neard of vectors but doesn't realise distance has direction. Maybe "distance" in English is as bad as "Geschwindigheit" in Deutsch and physics is a cultural problem, which is why Americans use Poles like Bilewacky to change light-bulbs. Nice of you to educate him. 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com > : > >>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif In your gif above: For an observer outside the plaform, "they" use a different equation to measure the ball's velocity. u = platform's velocity v = ball's velocity as viewed by platform w_ball = ball's velocity as viewed by observer outside the platform where w_ball =(u+v)(1+uv/c^2) Therefore if you use the W_ball as the velocity instead of "v", the time dilation should be the same for when the ball (or twin brother) travels from A to B as when it travels from B to A. On Sep 30, 4:10 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > : > >>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > time dilation should be the same for when the ball (or twin brother) > travels from A to B as when it travels from B to A. Thus W_AtoB = =(u+v)(1+uv/c^2) IS NOT THE SAME AS: W_BtoA =(u-v)(1-uv/c^2).....(since v is now negative) > On Sep 30, 3:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So where did he get this idea from that if distance from A to B is x > then the distance from B to A is -x ? Beats me. But it does not really matter out which orifice he pulled the idea. What matters is that he is neither prepared not able to put it back in there. That's what I love *so* much about Anrdocles - Don't you? ;-) Dirk Vdm. On Sep 30, 6:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > >>claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Dirk, if a ball is thrown from A in the exact opposite direction and speed than a ball is thrown from B....you CANNOT SAY because V_ab = +5 and V_ba = -5 thus Vtotal = zero Which is what you wrote at the link you gave above, quote: "Claiming that ..... or c+ (-c) = c is not only illogical, it is f.cking stupid." On Sep 30, 2:52 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 30, 6:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - According to the same link, Androcles wrote: "when IN FACT it is zero according to the logical and mathematical model. Androcles." ------------------ It is NOT ZERO, To say: c+ (-c) = zero or V_ab = 5 or V_ba = -5 thus Vtotal = zero Both above are incorrect and not the proper way of using their summmation in calculating the ellapsed time. On Sep 30, 6:00 am, Helmut Wabnig <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. dot .- - > wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:17:11 GMT, "Androcles" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > w. THEE HELMUT WABNIG ! Why it's an honor. > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel > times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are > moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Yes, that was a little too concise and not consistent with Einstein's notation. The issue is that to illustrate tAB = tBA, Einstein's situation in which the points A and B are STATIONARY in the frame in which the times are being measured, you drew this cartoon: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif in which A and B are MOVING in the frame in which the times are being measured. You seem absolutely incapable of understanding that the time of travel of light from A to B is different in the frame in which A and B are STATIONARY vs when A and B are MOVING. In fact, you seem incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "frame in which A and B are STATIONARY". I'll say it, but it will go over your head. If there is a point of view, a frame, a coordinate system, in which the positions of A and B are unchanging, we call that STATIONARY. For instance, from the point of view of your left eye, your right eye is essentially STATIONARY even if both eyes (and you) are riding on an aircraft. That is because if we use your left eye as a reference point, and measure distances to right eye and other points on your body, we find them to be unchanging in time. When positions don't change in time, we call that STATIONARY. In contrast, when positions change in time, we call that MOVING. Figuring out which things are MOVING and STATIONARY in any given reference frame seems to be your fundamental problem. Hence, you draw your cartoon as an illustration of section 1 of Einstein, 1905, a situation which clearly does not apply. Just keep studying sections 1 and 2 before your confuse yourself by going farther. When you've figured out that the discussion of "stationary clocks" in 1 does not refer to the discussion of "moving clocks" in section 2, you can proceed. HTH, HAND - Randy : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel : > times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are : > moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. : : Yes Yes indeed. You snipped the holy word of Einstein, fuckheaded troll. Here it is for you again, not that you can understand an equation or would understand what the Greek letter tau stands for. Tau is just a Greek letter, Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif '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' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif "Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com > : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you > dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein <snip> Rabbi? What's that? : > : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to : > : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : : Rabbi? What's that? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rabbi If you want to know the meaning of a word get a dictionary, idiot. Idiot? What's that? > : > : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > : > : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > : > or would understand what the Greek letter tau stands for. > : > Tau is just a Greek letter, Poe. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif > : > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by > : > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you want to know the meaning of a word get a dictionary, idiot. > Idiot? What's that? So then, are you a rabbi? I'm confused. : > : > : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to : > : > : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : > : So then, are you a rabbi? I'm confused. Hello confused, I'm Androcles and I'm about to plonk you. Here I go... *plonk*. > : > : > : > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > : > : > : > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Hello confused, I'm Androcles and I'm about to plonk you. > Here I go... *plonk*. You're not a very good rabbi then I guess. Simple Simon says... >You're not a very good rabbi then I guess. No, Androcles is a very bad combination of being extremely stupid, extremely rude, amd extremely foul-mouthed. But don't worry about him "plonking" you. He's a liar, too. He doesn't really plonk anybody. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY Randy Poe says... >You seem absolutely incapable of understanding that >the time of travel of light from A to B is different >in the frame in which A and B are STATIONARY vs >when A and B are MOVING. Yes, Androcles is a complete idiot. Actually, to be slightly kinder, what appears to have happened is that Androcles read Einstein's paper (however many decades ago) and became confused about one point. That happens, sometimes. No paper is completely unambiguous, and even the most careful readers sometimes misinterpret what is being said. Normally, such a situation can be corrected: you ask someone who *does* understand the paper to explain it to you. That's how a sane person would respond. Androcles, however, is not a sane person. His response was nothing short of lunatic: He insists that the only explanation that "counts" is one from Einstein himself. Unfortunately, Einstein has been dead for 50 years. It doesn't matter how good a job at explaining the derivation of the Lorentz transformations. There is a Catch-22: If your explanation is clear enough that Androcles could understand it, then Androcles will insist that that's not what Einstein could possibly have meant. So because Einstein died too soon, Androcles has devoted the rest of life to being confused about relativity. It's sad, I suppose. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY > Randy Poe says... > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > rest of life to being confused about relativity. It's sad, > I suppose. Perhaps it would have been better if Androcles had died too soon - specifically better for Androcles, that is. Not for us, who have learned to really love the way he can entertain us on a rainy sunday afternoon. Dirk Vdm > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel > times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are > moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Yes, that was a little too concise and not consistent with Einstein's notation. The issue is that to illustrate tAB = tBA, Einstein's situation in which the points A and B are STATIONARY in the frame in which the times are being measured, you drew this cartoon: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif in which A and B are MOVING in the frame in which the times are being measured. You seem absolutely incapable of understanding that the time of travel of light from A to B is different in the frame in which A and B are STATIONARY vs when A and B are MOVING. In fact, you seem incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "frame in which A and B are STATIONARY". I'll say it, but it will go over your head. If there is a point of view, a frame, a coordinate system, in which the positions of A and B are unchanging, we call that STATIONARY. For instance, from the point of view of your left eye, your right eye is essentially STATIONARY even if both eyes (and you) are riding on an aircraft. That is because if we use your left eye as a reference point, and measure distances to right eye and other points on your body, we find them to be unchanging in time. When positions don't change in time, we call that STATIONARY. In contrast, when positions change in time, we call that MOVING. Figuring out which things are MOVING and STATIONARY in any given reference frame seems to be your fundamental problem. Hence, you draw your cartoon as an illustration of section 1 of Einstein, 1905, a situation which clearly does not apply. Just keep studying sections 1 and 2 before you confuse yourself by going farther. When you've figured out that the discussion of "stationary clocks" in 1 does not refer to the discussion of "moving clocks" in section 2, you can proceed. HTH, HAND - Randy > > "I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to > > claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Randy Too Complex. THE CORRECT simplified ANSWER IS: ------------------------------------- The ball's velocity "v" observed by the platform ....is observed as a different velocity "w" by a person OUTSIDE the platform. Where W_AtoB = (u+v)(1+uv/c^2) and W_BtoA = (u-v)(1-uv/c^2) (u = platform's velocity) You will find the time dilation is the same AtoB versus BtoA using the two equations above. -------------------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.