Re: The Perversion of Einstein's Relativity

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:26 +0000, Hexenmeister wrote:


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.27.10.41.56.392245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[quoted text muted]

You are good at making mistakes, ***.
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.

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]

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.

.

Loading