Re: Relativists cannot count to three.

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:25:18 -0800

Androcles wrote:
>
> "Tom Capizzi" <tom.capizzi@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:B5Xzd.13240$152.549@trndny01...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> > wrote in message news:7BWzd.11539$Os.754822@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >>
> >> "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:OcVzd.60125$ef5.15664@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>> If I stand before a vertical surface and throw a ball 'o' with
> >>> speed
> >>> 'u', catching it as it returns, I need a minumum of two coordinates
> >>> to describe the events of emission, reflection and reception.
> >>> Ao----------(+u - >)------------* emission
> >>> *--------------------------------oB reflection
> >>> Ao----------( -u <- )------------* reception
> >>>
> >>> In agreement with experience it is clear that the time for the ball
> >>> to reach the wall and back again is given by 2AB/(t'A-tA) = u,
> >>> the velocity of the ball.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If I do this whilst riding a moving platform travelling at velocity
> >>> v,
> >>> the wall also moving, I need a minimum of three coordinates
> >>> for a stationary observer to evaluate the events.
> >>>
> >>> Ao----------(v+u)-----------* emission
> >>> *---------------------------oB reflection
> >>> Co---------(v-u)------------* reception
> >>>
> >>> In the frame of the observer, the ball travels from A to B'
> >>> at v+u and returns from B' to C at v-u.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein only uses two cordinates, A = C = (0,0,0) and B = (x',0,0).
> >>
> >> *You*
> >> *do*
> >> *not*
> >> *understand*
> >> *the*
> >> *concept*
> >> *of*
> >> *coordinates*.
> >
> > Is it not true that SR only requires the origin of the moving
> > observer's coordinate
> > system and the stationary observer's coordinate system to be
> > coincident at a
> > single instant? After that both observers see the other's origin
> > shifting position.
>
> Correct. Dinky the spermless can't count to three either.
> >
> > In any case this model is useless for evaluating SR. The velocities
> > are miniscule
> > compared to the speed of light, and the velocity composition is linear
> > here,
> > unlike the requirement of SR.
>
> This is not about "evaluating" SR, v can have any value.
>
> If you used the relativistic velocity
> > composition
> > formula and then examined the results as one of the velocities
> > approached c,
> > then it might be meaningful.
>
> Sure thing.
>
> c = (c+v)/(1+v/c),
>
> giving
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/c+x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
> instead of
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> so now derive the Lorentz Transforms from that and then derive the
> composition of velocities from the Lorentz Transforms.
> Reference :
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Androcles.

Hey idiot Androcles,

<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>

reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.

Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.

Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
 Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
 Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
 Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
 Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
 No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
 No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
 Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
 You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
 You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
 You are fucked, idiot Androcles.

Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a ***-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup. 

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Quantcast