Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dsi7lh$6be$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:33:58 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:12:32 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


It isn't at all hard to grasp...unless one is an SRian.
It simply proves that nothing happens to the object....which is what I
have
been trying to tell you.

You have still not got it, Henri.
The point is that YOU claim that according to SR,
something have to happen to the object.

Why have you "been trying to tell me" the obvious
which never was disputed?
Because you believe SR say otherwise.
Why else would you insinuate that "SRians" don't understand it?


Don't you read the messages of your colleagues PD and AllYou. Please
inform
them that what I have been telling them is correct.

What YOU have been saying is:
| It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object
| will increase and the other decrease.
| So what conclusion would any normal person reach Paul?

This statement reveals that YOU think 'gamma' is a property
of the observed object, and you find it contradictory that
a property of the object can have different values at the same
time.


'gamma' is not the property of the object, Paul...Hahahahah!... I know
you were
trying to be funny. Hahahaha!

It didn't work.

The following statement is thus thoroughly confirmed:
What YOU fail to grasp is:
| The two gammas are different because the two
| relations to the objects (observers) are different.
| Gamma is a property of the _relation_.

Claiming that you know that nothing happens to
the observed object is completely beside the point.
Everybody knows that, it was never disputed.


That's where you are wrong. Many of your SRian colleagues dispute it.

No, if "SRian" means people knowing SR, they don't.
You are too dumb to understand what people say to you.

In October 2003, I wrote:
| Henry is unable to grasp the distinction between
| the following two statements:
| 1. The observer's state of motion cannot affect the observed
| object in any way.
| 2. The observer's state of motion can affect the observer's
| measurements of the object.
|
| So when someone say that a frame dependent entity
| is frame dependent, Henry insists that the someone has said
| that an intrinsic property of the object is frame dependent.
|
| This is a claim he has repeated over and over in
| different versions for years.
|
| And will continue to claim.

QED

YOUR delusion is that SR says otherwise.


I never said that. I have been trying to convince your colleagues that
this is
correct. I have referred them to YOU for advice.


Claiming (erroneously) that others share your delusion
doesn't change the fact that it is your delusion.


You are now hopelessly confused about what I said, what you think I said,
what
your colleagues have said and what i have told your colleagues to say in
future.

YOU said addressed to ME:
| It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object
| will increase and the other decrease.
| So what conclusion would any normal person reach Paul?

It is utterly irrelevant what somebody else might have said.
It is YOUR delusion, yet again confirmed in the very posting
I now am responding to, that SR claim that that an object
is affected by being observed.

And what I have told you hundreds of times during years
is that according to SR, nothing happens to the object.


Tell yer mates about it then...they're too dumb to understand..

You are the one that is too dumb to understand
that according to SR nothing happens to the observed object.


I already know. Now tell your mates ..

You have thoroughly documented that you are too dumb to understand
that according to SR nothing happens to the observed object.

You wrote:
| 'gamma' is not the property of the object, Paul...Hahahahah!...
| I know you were trying to be funny. Hahahaha!

See?
No, you don't.
You are too dumb to understand the implication of your own words.

You have been told for years by me and others, but still
you reveal your failure to understand it by writing statements like:
| It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object
| will increase and the other decrease.
| So what conclusion would any normal person reach Paul?

And don't flee by claiming that the conclusion you referred
to were the obvious one for a normal person, namely that 'gamma'
is observer dependent and not a property of the object.

The conclusion YOU had in mind was the conclusion of a dumb
person: this is contradictory - SR is crap.


What conclusion would a normal person reach, paul?

Hard for you to know, is it?

I, being a normal person, know it would be as stated above.

Paul

You? Normal? Narwhal, maybe, but about a normal as a K2 accretion disk
bouncing of the surface of a B8.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Tusselad


Androcles.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
    ... Don't you read the messages of your colleagues PD and AllYou. ... This statement reveals that YOU think 'gamma' is a property ... the observed object is completely beside the point. ... | is frame dependent, Henry insists that the someone has said ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
    ... Don't you read the messages of your colleagues PD and AllYou. ... This statement reveals that YOU think 'gamma' is a property ... | is frame dependent, Henry insists that the someone has said ... 'gamma' in relation to one reference object (or observer) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
    ... "It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object ... | will increase and the other decrease. ... | relations to the objects (observers) are different. ... Tell yer mates about it then...they're too dumb to understand.. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading