Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151547135.216172.284480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1151518607.218930.320160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1151496744.924923.260870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1151443331.684517.255630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > | > "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | >
news:1151431530.173601.106530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is
showing
| > | > | > "*exactly*
| > | > | > | > what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry,
because
| > no
| > | > | > matter
| > | > | > | > how
| > | > | > | > you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is
the
| > | > typical
| > | > | > | > shithead
| > | > | > | > and arsehole.
| > | > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | In your case, Androcles, it's pretty plain what's wrong with
your
| > | > | > | thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
before
| > you
| > | > | > | run into something that's patently wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same
amount of
| > | > | > | energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed,
and
| > still
| > | > | > | come out to be just under c by the time they leave the
| > scintillator.
| > | > | > | You say, "I don't know HOW it does that, but it's sure more
| > believable
| > | > | > | than time dilation." Apparently, to spit out something you
thing
| > is
| > | > | > | hogwash, you'd be happy to swallow something from further down
the
| > | > | > | colon.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I was talking about you, not to you.
| > | > | > You say a muon slows down in a scintillator
| > | > |
| > | > | I did? Where did I say that?
| > | > | Liar.
| > | > "Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same amount of
| > | > energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed, and
still
| > | > come out to be just under c by the time they leave the
scintillator." -
| > | > ***.
| > |
| > | I was referring to YOUR thinking, not mine, Androcles.
| >
| > I know, arsehole, and I'm referring to yours. You say a muon slows down
| > (i.e. loses energy) in a scintillator, slowing to subluminal < c.
|
| Yes indeed. It was subluminal before hitting the scintillator and
| subluminal after hitting the scintillator. It slows an itty bit in the
| scintillator, about 2 MeV/cm.


So apologise, I'm not a liar, you thick ***.

Certainly you are. It's been documented.

In your case, Phuckwit Duck, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
run into something that's patently wrong.

MEASURING the speed of the cosmic muon BEFORE it hits the
scintillator, we find 62 miles (height of atmosphere) in less than
2.2 usec > 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
second
IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE.

That's incorrect. It doesn't cover that ground in less than 2.2 usec in
our frame of reference, at least not that we measure. And in
ground-based muon beamlines, the muons definitely do not decay with a
lifetime less than 2.2 usec or even equal to 2.2 usec in our frame of
reference.

The FoR of the muon
is irrelevant. Pay attention. Wipe the drool off your mouth, too, it's
gotten on your glasses and impaired your calculator.


| >
| >
| > | Pay attention.
| > | Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
| > | impaired your reading.
| >
| > Wipe your mouth out with soap, jackass. Your glasses need cleaning
| > and that impairs your writing.
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >and you don't know how
| > | > | > it does that,
| > | > |
| > | > | I don't? Where did I say that?
| > | > | Liar.
| > | >
| > | > Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do
tell us
| > | > all, ***.
| > |
| > | I know how they lose energy when they slow down.
| >
| > See, you say muons slow down, and when I say you say it, you say I'm a
| > liar, you ***.
|
| Note the difference, you say it slows from superluminal to subluminal
| speeds.

Perhaps you call 62 miles per 2.2 usec subluminal...<shrug>

I don't know where you get the idea it covers that distance in 2.2
usec. <shrug>


|
| > It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
| > before anyone runs into something that's patently wrong.
| > (Not that you've ever measured the speed of a muon before it's going
| > into a scintillator.)
|
| Sure I have. Ever heard of a muon beamline?

Not one that is 62 miles long, no.

And that matters... why?

You refer to domesticated muons,
I'm referring to wild, feral muons.

And that matters...why?

Cheetahs run much faster than moggies.

And that matters...why?



|
| > Anyway, the aurora are Cherenkov radiation, so clearly
| > particles entering atmosphere are superluminal.
|
| They don't travel faster that c. They travel faster than c/n, at least
| for a while.

62 miles in 2.2 usec is faster than 299,792.4562 kilometers per second,

Yes, indeed it is, but nothing goes 62 miles in 2.2 usec.

but I agree, nothing is faster than c = 0/0.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
You are confusing physics with mathematical games, shithead.
Perhaps you don't know how to use a calculator.


|
| >
| > | I didn't say that I
| > | don't know how it does that. You did. Would you like a reference to
| > | where you said that?
| >
| > I know what you said, shithead. of course I said you don't know.
| > You didn't know how the aurorae glow, either, until I told you.
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
| > | > | > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
| > | > |
| > | > | c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
| > | > | Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
| > | >
| > | > See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be
| > right in
| > | > his eyes.
| > | > He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
| > | > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
| > |
| > | Yes indeed.
| > Yes indeed.
| > |
| > | > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
| > |
| > | No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of
the
| > | velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
| >
| > There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
| > it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
|
| Really?

Yes really.

| This seems like a pretty common problem in basic physics
| textbooks.

So a lot of shitheads babble shit they don't understand. <shrug>
What do you want me to do about it? Educate the arseholes? I'm trying.

And so you have the same problem as Seto. You use terms differently
than the way that they are taught to freshmen. And you suppose that is
a problem with everyone else?




| Billy runs around a closed track and crosses the finish line
| at the same point he started the race. What is his average *velocity*
| during this race?

Zero.

Yes, exactly. And yet you just told me there is "no velocity for a
round trip, ***". But you just found one, ***.

Now Billy runs around the same closed track at a speed of 8 m/s and
crosses the finish line at the same point he started the race. What is
his average *velocity* during this race, ***?

It's been a pretty short trip to find out exactly where you are wrong,
***.



| Would you like a textbook reference for a problem
| just like this one? I bet it even has an answer in the back of the
| book.

Produce it, then. Cite the shithead author that doesn't know what
velocity is, unless he says the answer is zero, in which case you lose
again, Phuckwit Duck.

Giancoli, 3rd edition. Look it up. Do you need a page reference, or can
you find it?


|
| Or do you want to dispute the Newtonian mechanics that is taught in
| freshman physics books?

Not at all, unless they are wrong like you.
Try this one, although it may be too advanced for you:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1a.html


|
| Wait, you're an ex-engineer aren't you? Didn't you have to pass this
| class at some point?

Yes. I did. And I've put it into practice.
Androcles


|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | You're a math major. You know the difference between an average of
| > | magnitudes and a magnitude of an average?
| > |
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| > | > Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction, don't you,
| > Phuckwit
| > | > ***?
| > | > Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B is
AB/(tB-tA)
| > =
| > | > 299,792,458 m/s
| > |
| > | That's fine.
| >
| > Of course it is. Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction,
| > don't you, Phuckwit ***?
| > The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s, the symbol c = 0/0 because
| > "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
| > infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
| >
| > Phuckwit Duck plays the part, physically, of a Phuckwit ***.
| >
| >
| > Androcles.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > leaving you phuckwits in the dust.
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
|

.

Quantcast