 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Why observations are sometimes full of crap.
Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway both moving at 100 km/hr With respect to each other both are moving at 0 km/hr Yet for some silly reason they both drove 100 km within 1 hr. Are the observations of A wrt B actually real and both cars are not moving at all wrt to each other? Are the observations of B wrt A actually real and both cars are not moving at all wrt to each other? If there observations of each other are truly correct They won't mind if someone places a cement truck in front of them that is not moving wrt the highway. since they both agree that the other is not moving at all. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway > both moving at 100 km/hr [snip rest of crap] There aren't any highways that mov at 100 km/hr - too high a latitude. > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Spaceman wrote: Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway both moving at 100 km/hr [snip rest of crap] "Uncle rect-Al" There aren't any highways that mov at 100 km/hr - too high a latitude. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... But rect-Al, there aren't any younger and older twins neither, nor any 80-ft poles that fit into 40-ft barns.... except when you look here, on your website and do like that: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson > "Uncle rect-Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > except when you look here, on your website and do like that: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ... ahahaha... > Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson Hahahanson your style is getting popular - journalists are trying to imitate you (but are still very far from the original): http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/26/healthandwellbeing2 Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com Thanks for the kudos and the laughs, Pentcho ahahaha.... ahahahanson Spaceman wrote: Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway both moving at 100 km/hr [snip rest of crap] "Uncle rect-Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote There aren't any highways that mov at 100 km/hr - too high a latitude. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... But rect-Al, there aren't any younger and older twins neither, nor any 80-ft poles that fit into 40-ft barns.... except when you look here, on your website and do like that: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote Hahahanson your style is getting popular - journalists are trying to imitate you (but are still very far from the original): http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/26/healthandwellbeing2 Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com | Spaceman wrote: | Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ... ahahaha... | Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson Have you got rect_Al's take on Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. According to xxein: It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. According to Lamenting Shubert: Why do you want to know? " In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology) is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c." -- cretin Jimmy Black fmlast3@organization.edu. According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. The best so far is still Jan Bielawski. '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 (How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?) The reason it is the best is that .... oh, you work it out! "Uncle rect-Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message | news:488A48F2.92409B96@hate.spam.net... Spaceman wrote: Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway both moving at 100 km/hr [snip rest of crap] "Uncle rect-Al" There aren't any highways that mov at 100 km/hr - too high a latitude. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... But rect-Al, there aren't any younger and older twins neither, nor any 80-ft poles that fit into 40-ft barns.... except when you look here, on your website and do like that: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson ::: Have you got rect_Al's take on ::: "Why did Einstein say [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] ::: (How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?) ::: The reason it is the best is that .... oh, you work it out! hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... What an enemy list you posted here.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Too much!... ahahaha.. Which one is the best?... They ALL are!... That is the BEAUTY of Einstein's sh.t. Everybody has/gets/see a different solution. The only constant and unifying aspect of E-relativity is that it makes everybody disagree and quarrel... which of course is born out of the Jewish make-up of Einstein himself:.... quarrelsome and uncouth... BUT, oh, so very f.cking funny.... ahahahahaha... ....which is reflected in the real world, like here, where one can see where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it: = mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL sh.t" = *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No sh.t" = Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload" = Jews defend it as cultural heritage whether "REL is sh.t or not". ... and to boot Einstein was keenly aware of this and very lucidly and finally confessed in 1954, just a year before Albert folded his relativity tent, closes his umbrella, kicked the bucket & finally puffed, but leaving behind vast hordes of his Einstein Dingleberries (1 set of which resides in this NG) to stink up & retard the intellectual level & quality of physics, Einstein wrote a letter to Besso in which he said: ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that ::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation ::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ & ::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?" Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's final realizations, insights and assessments, saying: :: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman), :: who said [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality? :: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof." Thanks for the laughs, Andro and guys!... ahahaha... ahahahanson | "Uncle rect-Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message || news:488A48F2.92409B96@hate.spam.net... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] | quarrelsome and uncouth... BUT, oh, so very f.cking funny.... | ahahahahaha... The funniest is the Polack Bielawski's answer. He's so confused he cites the one case where Einstein is actually right and says it's wrong. He's dropped off the radar lately, along with Poe. | ....which is reflected in the real world, like here, where one can | see where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] | > | Thanks for the laughs, Andro and guys!... ahahaha... ahahahanson I knew everything when I was young, too. The older you get the more you realise just how little you know. I'm glad nobody is awarding me a Nobel prize, I would find it hard to bear the shame. On Jul 25, 12:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway > both moving at 100 km/hr > With respect to each other both are moving at 0 km/hr > Yet for some silly reason they both drove 100 km > within 1 hr. Maybe their odometers malfunctioned. I understand it happens with clocks all the time. > On Jul 25, 12:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe their odometers malfunctioned. I understand it happens with > clocks all the time. :) Good one! :) On Jul 25, 12:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Two observers A and B are traveling along a highway > both moving at 100 km/hr [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman xxein: I vote for the cement truck. Mass. Oh well. It's just a silly thought, I guess. > On Jul 25, 12:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > xxein: I vote for the cement truck. Mass. Oh well. It's just a > silly thought, I guess. Yes, It usually wins except against a bigger truck. :) |
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.