 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006The Perversion of Einstein's Relativity
One of the most abominable features of Einstein's relativity is its capacity to assert itself by exposing its own absurdities that should otherwise have disgraced it. Consider Problem 3 ("Explaining Length contraction") on p. 46 in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf : "Two bombs lie on a train platform, a distance L apart. As a train passes by at speed v, the bombs explode simultaneously (in the platform frame) and leave marks on the train. Due to the length contraction of the train, we know that the marks on the train will be a distance gamma*L apart when viewed in the train's frame (since this distance is what is length-contracted down to the given distance L in the platform frame)." Why is the idiocy taught to students? Can they react in a rational way? In a normal world, students would replace the train with a stick whose proper length is gamma*L, the bomb explosions with the projections of two mechanical hands and would conclude by analogy that, if the marks on the train are really a distance gamma*L apart, the two mechanical hands will be able to "catch" the passing stick. Then redictio ad absurdum would convince them that length contraction, which is a corollary of the postulate of constancy of the speed of light, simply does not exist and that the theory of relativity is therefore false. In Einstein's zombie world analogies are forbidden. Since relativity hypnotists have found it suitable to introduce a train and bombs, nobody has the right to replace the train and the bombs with a stick and mechanical hands. People know that and don't even think of such analogies (let alone discussing them as they learn by rote textbook idiocies). Pentcho Valev Headline, New York Times: "Pentcho Valev, endless, mindless anti-Einstein Usenet poster, Impaled on Charolais Bull Penis while visiting Texas Ranch" Film at 11 for the little ones > One of the most abominable features of Einstein's relativity is its > capacity to assert itself by exposing its own absurdities that should [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why is the idiocy taught to students? Because, just like you experienced, when it is taught to imbeciles, they are left in a bewildered state. Updated list of differences ignored by Pentcho Valev: - students and imbeciles - bad science and bad engineering, - bad engineering and bad cost management, - honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it, - physics and linguistics, - an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915, - understanding a book and turning its pages, - speed and relative (aka closing) speed, - doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols, - real life and a Usenet hobby group, - receiving a detailed reply and being ignored, - the three things that smell like fish, - inertial and non-inertial, - speed and velocity, - an article and a book, - relativity and disguised ether addiction, - algebra and analytic geometry, - kneeling down and bending over, - local and global, - a sycophant in English and in French, - a relation and an equation, - massive and massless particles, - a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho, - implication and equivalence, - group velocity and phase velocity, - science and religion Dirk Vdm >From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@comcast.net Dirk Van der moortel typed in reference to distinctions that Pentcho ignored: >receiving a detailed reply and being ignored I agree with Dirk on several of his distinctions being ignored, but in throwing in "receiving a detailed reply and being ignored" if I interpret this correctly, Dirk is claiming indirectly that Pentcho can't tell the difference between receiving a detailed reply from sci.physics readers and being ignored by them. This is awfully primitive criticism. If a whole group/plurality ignores person/individual X, does that have any general meaning? The scientific method is supposed to involve "no prejudice" by the experimenter or theorist. But sci.physics contributors fall into the "unprejudiced" and "prejudiced" categories. The unprejudiced types write their own original or unoriginal ideas and don't usually spend most of their time attacking others. The prejudiced types almost exclusively attack others. With the use of pseudonyms, nobody even knows whether people of the prejudiced type are even teachers, professors, students, researchers, politicians, lobbyists, terrorists, or lunatics. Yet in this little microcosm of sci.physics, we're actually reflecting most of the world in my opinion. The world is composed of Individual-Oriented people and Plurality-Oriented people. I don't think that there is any Plurality-Oriented Creative Genius. They are almost all arguably Individual-Oriented - not just one Individual, "Me First, Number One," but the Unknown Individual who is a "faceless" Individual in any group or non-group, that is to say an arbitrary member of any Plurality and the only real constituent of any Plurality. The scientific method cannot proceed by Pluralities or votes. 1.5 billion Moslems/Muslims or 1 million members of the Association of Professors cannot be accepted as measures of the scientific method. In this sense, Sir Roger Penrose is right. The scientific method is an ideal. Scientists aren't ideals - they're fallible and in that realm of science that we know most about (Academia), they tend to be extremely peck-orderish and conformist and bureaucratic. And in this, they resemble human beings in general. Just present your ideas and don't fear being attacked by wolves. Fear is what makes tyranny so successful in the name of the "race", the "nation," the "state", the "group", the "civilization". Pentcho may be wrong about Einstein, but he's right to ignore whomever he wants to among his negative critics. Osher Doctorow Pancho Villa wrote: > The Perversion of Einstein's Relativity So quit perverting it. >One of the most abominable features of Einstein's relativity is its >capacity to assert itself by exposing its own absurdities that should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >what is length-contracted down to the given distance L in the platform >frame)." You already posted this 2 weeks ago. Your understanding of it has not progressed any. >Why is the idiocy taught to students? Can they react in a rational way? >In a normal world, students would replace the train with a stick whose [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Pentcho Valev Idiot first-class. > One of the most abominable features of Einstein's relativity is its > capacity to assert itself by exposing its own absurdities that should [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > corollary of the postulate of constancy of the speed of light, simply > does not exist and that the theory of relativity is therefore false. And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was indeed a contradiction. You are missing an important detail, that's why you got confused above. > In Einstein's zombie world analogies are forbidden. Nonsense. > Since relativity > hypnotists have found it suitable to introduce a train and bombs, > nobody has the right to replace the train and the bombs with a stick > and mechanical hands. Well, as an exercise try to figure out what you are missing in your mechanical hands analogy. Don't blame relativity for your own incompetence. > People know that and don't even think of such > analogies (let alone discussing them as they learn by rote textbook > idiocies). They think of such analogies all the time. Your mechanical hand analogy is in fact very common. We even discussed it here at least once many years ago, before you started posting your revelations. BTW, where do cranks get this idiotic notion that learning equals "learning by rote"? It's THE standard crank line. My guess is that since that's how THEY "learn" science, they assume that that's how everybody else does it. Pathetic. -- Jan Bielawski >> One of the most abominable features of Einstein's relativity is its >> capacity to assert itself by exposing its own absurdities that should [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > a contradiction. You are missing an important detail, that's why you > got confused above. Yeah, an error in relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or something equally trivial." (--Jan Bilewacky) so that he and Kip thorne lost their bet with John Preskill. Surely someone would notice in 30 years. Why didn't YOU notice, Mr Nobody? What is the important detail Valev is missing, shithead? If the arsehole Dork Van de merde was even halfway honest he'd write that up as an immortal fumble by Jan Phuckwit Bird: "Nobody noticed as an argument" . He's a prejudiced shithead like you and so he doesn't notice either. Androcles. > > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was > > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was indeed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, an error in relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero > or something equally trivial." (--Jan Bilewacky) That's not what I wrote. The context of that (older) remark was that "an error in relativity OF THE TYPE YOU ENVISION would be like... <etc.>". The type of error Pentcho and many other armchair SR "critics" envision is always some triviality in the algebra or - at most - some silly schoolboy mistake in the calculus. SR is wrong, obviously - it doesn't take gravitation into account for a start - but its errors are much more sybtle and their resolution requires much more mental effort than the "criticis" imagine (or are able to imagine). > Surely someone would notice in 30 years. Why didn't YOU notice, Mr Nobody? > What is the important detail Valev is missing, shithead? The behaviour of solids in Einsteinian mechanics. > If the arsehole Dork Van de merde was even halfway honest he'd write > that up as an immortal fumble by Jan Phuckwit Bird: "Nobody noticed as an > argument" . "Nobody noticed" is simply an invocation to common sense. Errors below certain level are extremely unlikely (as in "impossible"). If they seem the height of subtlety and complication to you then guess who has some homework to do. -- Jan Bielawski >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was >> > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was indeed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's not what I wrote. Oh yes it is, you self-contradicting f.cking liar. Aug 25 2005, 6:30 am by JanPB (Even ignoring everything else I posted, this sort of mistake would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer. It's WAY too simple-minded. It would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or something equally trivial. Einstein wouldn't even bother to submit his paper either.)  SignatureJan Bielawski Aug 25 2005, 6:30 am by JanPB Androcles. > >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was > >> > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was indeed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (Even ignoring everything else I posted, this sort of mistake would > have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer. Exactly - "this sort of mistake". There are no _trivial_ mistakes in relativity. -- Jan Bielawski >> >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was >> >> > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Exactly - "this sort of mistake". There are no _trivial_ mistakes in > relativity. You've just been proven a liar. <shrug> Therefore you have no credibility and anything YOU say is subject to at least suspicion and is usually wrong. You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg High school algebra: x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Right or wrong, dumbfuck? If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic shithead. For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Einstein said eta = y, zeta = z because he did not know how to move sideways or up, anencephalous cretin. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. [end quote] Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'. "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid). In agreement with experience and without any assumption, you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, incompetent c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm f.ck off, useless tord! tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are. Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator. Personally I prefer three witches: Double double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! Hexenmeister. > >> >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was > >> >> > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles This set of equations is nonsensical. As written, it attempts to transform four numbers (x,y,z,t) to *six* numbers (xi,eta,zeta,tau,tau,tau). You denote the last triple by the same letter (tau) which makes the whole thing now not only irrelevant but also incorrect as it makes three different numbers equal to one number (tau). You wrote this set, not Einstein, so don't tell me that it's Einstein's work. > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, > pathetic shithead. No. "If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are" is just some random claim. > For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is > sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c > Right or wrong, shitforbrains? This is correct except no object in SR can move this way. If you want to write down the Lorentz transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis then your way is not the way to write it down. What you've done is stringing together some equations at random. > Einstein said > eta = y, > zeta = z > because he did not know how to move sideways or up, > anencephalous cretin. Sure, he didn't know elementary linear algebra - HAHAHAHAHAHA! -- Jan Bielawski Hexenmeister wrote: > > Hexenmeister wrote: > >> > Hexenmeister wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Bilewacky: This set of equations is nonsensical. As written, it attempts to transform four numbers (x,y,z,t) to *six* numbers (xi,eta,zeta,tau,tau,tau). You denote the last triple by the same letter (tau) which makes the whole thing now not only irrelevant but also incorrect as it makes three different numbers equal to one number (tau). You wrote this set, not Einstein, so don't tell me that it's Einstein's work. Androcles: tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = y zeta= z This set of equations is nonsensical. As written, it attempts to transform *three* pairs of numbers (x,t), (y,t), (z,t) to *two* pairs of numbers (xi,tau), (eta, zeta,t). > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, > pathetic shithead. Bilewacky: No. "If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are" is just some random claim. Androcles: No. "Wrong" is just some random claim. > For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is > sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c > Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Bilewacky: This is correct except no object in SR can move this way. Androcles: Ok. So you don't know how to move sideways or up either. Bilewacky: If you want to write down the Lorentz transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis then your way is not the way to write it down. What you've done is stringing together some equations at random. Androcles: Correct it then, I want to know the cuckoo transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis. > Einstein said > eta = y, > zeta = z > because he did not know how to move sideways or up, > anencephalous cretin. Bilewacky: Sure, he didn't know elementary linear algebra - HAHAHAHAHAHA! Androcles: In 1895 Einstein 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 pass the SATs). What are you laughing at? Neither do you know elementary linear algebra or you'd give me the cuckoo transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis. Androcles > Hexenmeister wrote: > > High school algebra: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > transform *three* pairs of numbers (x,t), (y,t), (z,t) to *two* pairs > of numbers (xi,tau), (eta, zeta,t). Ah, so you don't know what function is. You think these four equations describe four transformations on three two-dimensional planes. How a person can be so confused about all this and yet pontificate about SR remains still a mystery. Anyway, four equations like this describe a *single function* from one 4D space to another 4D space. In other words, it transforms one quadruple (x,y,z,t) to another quadruple (xi,eta,zeta,tau). Since the image space is 4-dimensional, it takes four equations to specify this (single) function fully: one equation per coordinate. In yet another words: these four equations form a coupled set - that's why it's meaningless to say that "if one is true then they all are", etc. etc. This function - called the Lorentz transformation - is parametrised by a certain fixed vector (the "observer's velocity") which in this case is pointing along the x-axis. One can easily rewrite this function in terms of the velocity vector pointing in some other direction. > Bilewacky: > If you want [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Correct it then, I want to know the cuckoo transform for an observer > whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis. This is just basic linear algebra. Why don't you do it - after all you have the front to lecture us on Einstein's inadequacies, so surely you can do the required simple calculation yourself. > Androcles: > In 1895 Einstein 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 pass the SATs). What are you laughing at? Well, it *is* a cool anecdote. I'll check it out when I have time, sounds intriguing. > Neither do you know elementary linear algebra or you'd give me the cuckoo > transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other than > the x-axis. I can write down the transform but I thought you could do this sort of thing in your sleep? -- Jan Bielawski Hexenmeister wrote: > > High school algebra: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > transform *three* pairs of numbers (x,t), (y,t), (z,t) to *two* pairs > of numbers (xi,tau), (eta, zeta,t). c.nt: Ah, so you don't know what function is. Androcles: x' = x-vt. g(f(x)) = g(x-vt). You've now used v, so xi = x' * gamma is f.cking nonsense. How fast does a plane move relative to itself, moron? Moronic c.nt: You think these four equations describe four transformations on three two-dimensional planes. Androcles: You haven't a clue what I think, imbecile. What I KNOW is that you have no credibility, you are a f.cking liar. Moronic arsehole: How a person can be so confused about all this and yet pontificate about SR remains still a mystery. Androcles: So why do you do it? Imbecile: Anyway, four equations like this describe a *single function* from one 4D space to another 4D space. Androcles: Bullshit. You don't know what a function is and this is physics anyway, not mathematics. I live in a 3D world. Imbecile: In other words, it transforms one quadruple (x,y,z,t) to another quadruple (xi,eta,zeta,tau). Androcles: So now you want to discuss math and you can't handle two more time axes. <shrug> Three orthogonal spatial axes, only one time axis. Any motion in the Y or Z axes uses T time, not TAU time. I've already told you carry three watches, one for each axis. Moron: Since the image space is 4-dimensional, it takes four equations to specify this (single) function fully: one equation per coordinate. Androcles: No it isn't, the image space is 6-dimensional. That's six equations, which I gave you. You couldn't count the toes on your feet. Lying c.nt and Moron: In yet another words: these four equations form a coupled set - that's why it's meaningless to say that "if one is true then they all are", etc. etc. Androcles: What the f.ck does "etc. etc." mean? You want to run your mouth and I'm supposed to guess or what? c.nt: This function - called the Lorentz transformation Androcles: That's two functions in two parameters, g(f(x,t)). x' = f(x,t) = x-vt t = f(x,t). xi = g(x') because "it is clear x' is independent of time" - Einstein said so. tau = g(t) You are missing g(f(y,t)) and g(f(z,t). Moron: - is parametrised by a certain fixed vector (the "observer's velocity") Androcles: Velocity is distance /time, you don't know the basics. You don't even know the PoR, the observer has no velocity. He never moves relative to himself, the world move relatively to him. Any fool can tell that by looking out of an aircraft window, the ground moves beneath him. Moreover, planes climb as well as go forward, and they sideslip in a crosswind. So tau_f = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) (foward flight) tau_s = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) ( sideslip) tau_c = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) (climb) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) forward flight eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) sideslip zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) climb. Six equations, as required. The image space is 6-dimensional. Why do you think that is nonsense, shitforbrains? Moron: which in this case is pointing along the x-axis. One can easily rewrite this function in terms of the velocity vector pointing in some other direction. Androcles: Nope. You said it was nonsense, you only have a 4D image space. You don't know how to move sideways or up, you are totally thick. > Bilewacky: > If you want [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Correct it then, I want to know the cuckoo transform for an observer > whose velocity vector points somewhere other than the x-axis. This is just basic linear algebra. Why don't you do it - after all you have the front to lecture us on Einstein's inadequacies, so surely you can do the required simple calculation yourself. > Androcles: > In 1895 Einstein 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 pass the SATs). What are you laughing at? Moron: Well, it *is* a cool anecdote. I'll check it out when I have time, sounds intriguing. > Neither do you know elementary linear algebra or you'd give me the cuckoo > transform for an observer whose velocity vector points somewhere other > than > the x-axis. Moron: I can write down the transform but I thought you could do this sort of thing in your sleep? Androcles: I can, the image space is 6-dimensional. Velocities up to 'c' are allowed along the x-axis but you can't climb as well, Pythagoras holds good in SR. Androcles. OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I think everyone has now a clear idea of Androcles' credentials and authority to talk about physics. -- Jan Bielawski > OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I > think everyone has now a clear idea of Androcles' credentials and > authority to talk about physics. Since apparently c = 0 in HexenmeisterPhysics(tm), I'm certainly inclined to agree, at least until additional data comes in, preferably not including mosquitoes, green dinosaur eggs, tortoises, high-speed children and grandparents, and famous copyrighted cartoon characters. (Not that I mind the occasional metaphor; I use them myself. But the ones used by Androcles/Hexenmeister/etc. aren't all that illuminating.) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >> OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I >> think everyone has now a clear idea of Androcles' credentials and >> authority to talk about physics. > > Since apparently c = 0 in HexenmeisterPhysics(tm), Hey c.nt! 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c = 0 is EinsteinPhysics(tm) and not just "apparently" either, you lying arsehole. You are a f.cking deranged psychotic. [rest snipped] Androcles. >>> OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I >>> think everyone has now a clear idea of Androcles' credentials and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > [rest snipped] > Androcles. You're absolutely right. Read that as Since apparently c = 0 in Hexenmeister's idiotic notion of SR physics... My mistake. Now, did you want to admit to being a follower of Sekerin, Wilson, or Greenfield? In any event, your credentials are indisputable. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >>>> OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I >>>> think everyone has now a clear idea of Androcles' credentials and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > My mistake. You are good at making mistakes, c.nt. What you should have written was "Since obviously c = 0 in any sane person's notion of idiotic SR non-physics..." but you can't because you are troll that doesn't know what a vector is and are only interested in voicing your stupidity in the form of sarcasm. > Now, did you want to admit to being a follower of Sekerin, Wilson, or > Greenfield? None of the above, I'm a leader, I can think for myself. > In any event, your credentials are indisputable. Yes, that is true. Pity you have none. Androcles. >> [quoted text muted] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but you can't because you are troll that doesn't know what a vector is > and are only interested in voicing your stupidity in the form of sarcasm. True enough! Einstein's biggest mistake was assuming that the value (lAB + lBA)/2t was a meaningful constant. In fact, anyone with a little acumen will notice that it is virtually impossible to do anything with this at all, as it is indeed a constant, but is identically zero (since lAB = -lBA in vector arithmetic); therefore TWLS measurements cannot be done since they will all be zero. This also applies, of course, to Sagnac, which can be represented (in the four-corner case) as (lAB + lBC + lCD + lDA)/4t which is obviously zero as well. This generalizes to the N-vertex case. A dual star system can be represented as the limiting case of Sagnac, and therefore movement itself (light or anything else) is impossible -- a nice generalization of Zeno's paradox. Even a one way measurement is extremely difficult, since the standard method would require that two clocks be synchronized at a point C, then moved to points A and B, the measurement done, then the two clocks moved back to a common point D (which may or may not be equal to C). This can be represented tCA + tCB + tAB which is merely a variant of the 3-vertex Sagnac case, and is again zero. MMX is a dual lightpath system; these paths are tAM + tMB + tBM + tMD + tDA = 0, and tAM + tMC + tCM + tMD + tDA = 0. Therefore MMX will show nothing. This is obviously a useful check of the theory. >> [quoted text muted] > > None of the above, I'm a leader, I can think for myself. Yes, that's why you're here instead of submitting peer-reviewed papers. Even JSH and kenseto are ahead of you there. (For the record, JSH is an interesting character who has resurfaced in sci.math. Kenseto you've presumably already met, and has written a book.) Or are you merely following in Sekerin's footsteps? [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >>> [quoted text muted] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > was a meaningful constant. > In fact, anyone with a little acumen will > notice that it is virtually impossible to do anything with this at all, as > it is indeed a constant, but is identically zero (since lAB = -lBA in > vector arithmetic); therefore TWLS measurements cannot be done since they > will all be zero. Quite correct. Nothing travels two ways simultaneously. You can create vectors N and E to *describe* movement NE, but NE is not North and then East or East and then North, and if you did that you'd get the speed wrong anyway. Therefore you cannot measure the speed of something travelling two ways. There is no such animal as a "two way speed measurement". What you can do is measure the speed one way and then LATER the other way, and as Einstein says in one of his lucid and sane moments, "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." and of course it returns later to the initial point of k with the velocity c+v if it returns at all. I see sense is slowly -- very slowly -- sinking into your thick skull. I also see that "G" catches on much faster than you. > Thanks SCW for the response > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Am I right? That's instant insight, the guy sees right through bullshit, now he seeks confirmation and his witty sarcasm is sharper than your dull drooling sarcasm. We call that "intelligence", something you lack. > This also applies, of course, to Sagnac, which can be represented (in the > four-corner case) as > > (lAB + lBC + lCD + lDA)/4t > > which is obviously zero as well. This generalizes to the N-vertex case. Correct. The bottle moves in a circle from Mickey's left hand to his right and then back again from his right had to his left. The time for the moves are different, yet the distance from left hand to right is the same as it is from right hand to left. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm Thus c-v and c+v are correct. > A dual star system can be represented as the limiting case of Sagnac, You are off in dreamland again, babbling about things you do not understand. It's taken you years to discover "TWLS measurements cannot be done" so hold off on dual stars, you don't have the acumen. For homework, download and fix this program so that "we" can understand it: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm I'd like to see a sign of intelligence from you, but alas I fear not. [rest snipped] Androcles. > OK, it looks like any shread of rational argument has stopped here. I > think Don't lie. You've never thought. You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg High school algebra: x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Right or wrong, dumbfuck? If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic shithead. For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Einstein said eta = y, zeta = z because he did not know how to move sideways or up, anencephalous cretin. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. [end quote] Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'. "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid). In agreement with experience and without any assumption, you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, incompetent c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm f.ck off, useless tord! tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are. Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator. Personally I prefer three witches: Double double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! Hexenmeister. >>> >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said was >>> >> > way too obvious for no-one else to have noticed this - if it was [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. >You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics LOL! You, who disputes Einstein and Hawking? >and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, >Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and >doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini >time. >Modern physics: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Citing a fool's web page makes you the same. >Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up? >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! >Hexenmeister. >>>> >> > And I gather it never occurred to you that what you've just said >>>> >> > was [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > LOL! You, who disputes Einstein and Hawking? Yes, I dispute Hawking too. http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html Now laugh, c.nt. Androcles. >>and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, >>Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >>Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! >>Hexenmeister. [snip] > In Einstein's zombie world analogies are forbidden. Since relativity > hypnotists have found it suitable to introduce a train and bombs, > nobody has the right to replace the train and the bombs with a stick > and mechanical hands. People know that and don't even think of such > analogies (let alone discussing them as they learn by rote textbook > idiocies). Obviously you do not understand what's going on. You are making stupid analogies. If you are to attack relativity you must do that at its postulate base or find a prediction that does not conform to experimental measurement, not just by thought experimenting the wrong way. IWhen length contracts on the train floor so is the cirresponding length between your so called mechanical arms. You are not doing a good service to the honest effort by many people to disrpove relativity. You just add to the sterngth of the argument made by relativists that most of those who deny relativity are cranks. If you are to attack relativity you must understand first basic physics principles which you have demonstrated repeatedly you have no knowledge of. You are waisting your time because relativity has been transformed to a fformal mathematical theory in recent years and has little resemblance to Dr. Al's relativity. What remains are the postulates and there is where the effort should be placed in falsifying it. Anything else is a fairly stupid, immature exercise in futility. Mike > Pentcho Valev |
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.