Re: c = 1.

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/04/04 

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:23:24 GMT

"EjP" <nospam@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:ceovdr$de8$1@info4.fnal.gov...
| Androcles wrote:
| > "EjP" <nospam@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
| > news:ceodtu$34v$1@info4.fnal.gov...
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > Reference for quotes of Einstein that follow:
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | >
| > | > It is common practice among relativists to let c take on the value
1,
| > |
| > | Every field of engineering or science will tend to use the
| > | most convenient set of units for a given application.
| >
| > I wasn't complaining, I do it myself.
|
| Well most of us use more complex units than "blocks" or
| "crayons", but yes, I suspect you get the idea.
|
| > I just thought I'd take it a stage
| > further.
| > Stick your lecture back up your arse, it's *** anyway.
| >
| > |
| > | It's common among physicists and engineers who regularly
| > | deal with velocities near the speed of light to set c=1 because it
| > | simplifies the algebra, just as it's common for astronomers
| > | to set define the distance from the Sun to the Earth as 1.
| > |
| > | > and of
| > | > course few will object to this, since it doesn't matter what units
we
| > use.
| > | > We are therefore using a distance of 1 and a time of 1.
| > | >
| > |
| > | c is a constant, time and distance are not.
| >
| > Bull***. There is nothing 'constant' about c. Prove your claim.
|
| "c" is constant by definition. Whether the actual speed of
| light is constant is a separate issue and not at all
| relevant to your "argument".

YOUR definition, not mine, and that IS the argument and is most relevant.
The speed of light is only constant with repect to the source, and the speed
of light, according to your tin god Einstein, is given by t = x'/(c-v).
Strange as it may seem to you, SOME people know enough algebra to figure out
 t = x'/(c-v).
    = (x-vt) /(c-v)
so
t(c-v) = x-vt
ct - vt = x-vt
ct = x,

but of course they are only being moronic than usual.
I quite like being slightly moronic. It's a whole lot better than being a
complete imbecile, like any unthinking, incompetent relativist.

| > |
| > | You're unusually moronic today. Have you been talking to Seto?
| >
| > You are moronic as usual, been reading Einstein again?
| > Whats up, can't I chose 1 unit for distance? I have to use yours, do I?
|
| Sure, you can choose 1 for *a* distance and/or *a* time, just
| not all distances and all times in all reference frames, which
| is what you're trying to do.

Yes, well, the distance I've chosen just happens to be the distance the
light travels for the origin of system k to x' in the time I chose to be 1,
and by some strange coincidence this happens to be 1 because c is 1. What do
you need, a picture, moron? See my reply to sal. I think he's caught on, but
he's thinking about the math instead of being concerned about how many
different ways to call a non-relativist a moron.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > Einstein says "From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at
the
| > time
| > | > tau0 along the X-axis to x', and at the time tau1 be reflected
thence to
| > the
| > | > origin of the co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau2; "
| > | >
| > | > Employing our convenient distance of 1 and time of 1, we have x' =
1.
| > | >
| > | > Einstein goes on to say: "we then must have ½(tau0+ tau2) = tau1" or
| > | >
| > | > ½( 1+ 1) = 1.
| > | > Yep, that looks right. Anyone want to argue that?
| > | >
| > |
| > | Let's see, if I follow your logic, I guess that since
| > | an astronomer defines the distance from the sun to the
| > | Earth as 1 he's also free to define the periods of
| > | all the planets as 1, right?
| >
| > Of course. And he does. It's called an AU or Astronomical Unit, moron.
The
| > period of Earth has been 1 for a very long time. If there were LGM's on
Mars
| > I expect they would call the Martian period 1 as well. Your attempt at
| > ridicule has backfired, imbecile.
|
| That's the point. One can define the period of the Earth as 1, or the
| period of Mars, but your "logic" would claim that because one can't do
| BOTH simultaneously, the astronomers' system must be flawed.

Astronomers do NOT claim that both the Earth and Mars in their respective
frames take 1 (year) to orbit the the sun, so their system is not flawed.
However, you claim the speed of light is 1 in ALL frames, and that IS
flawed. That's the point. You can define the speed of light in one frame as
1, but in a frame moving with respect to that frame your "logic" (of which
you have none at all), says you can simultaneously define it as 1 in both
frames. The relativity system IS flawed and you are an imbecile.

| >
| > |
| > | > And of course in the K-frame, ½( t0+ t2) = t1, and once again
| > | > ½( 1+ 1) = 1. So x = 1 and t = 1.
| > | > Einstein tells us x' = x-vt, so again we'll use our values, and
| > | > 1 = 1 - v * 1.
| > | > A VERY simple calculation reveals
| > | > v = 0, and the arguments begin.
| > | >
| >
| > No answer to that, is there, moron?
|
| There was nothing to answer. You proved that if you use an
| equation incorrectly, you get nonsense. This isn't really
| news to anyone - except you, apparently.
|
Then show the incorrectness that you assert is there, because assertion
carries no weight, imbecile. You talk about proof. Start offering it. You
can't, of course. All you can do is blabber "idiot" like any troll.

| > I daresay you can think up some abuse,
| > though.
|
| I could, but I believe that your self-abuse is more
| than sufficient for anyone who might be following this.

Show proof that have used an equation incorrectly, or *** off.
Androcles.

|
| -E
|
| > Androcles.
| > | -E
| > |
| > |
| > | > In Newtonian physics, c and v are simply velocities.
| > | > SR has an invariant c, but that's ok. It also has an invariant v.
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| >
| >

Loading