Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151584161.736778.286470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| 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.

Yeah, well, its been documented that you are a ***.

|
| > 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.

Top of the atmosphere to sea level, ignoramus.


| 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.

Lying ***:
http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html
"The three parameter fit gave value of the average muon life time
(2.02+-0.08) microseconds"


|
| > 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?
Wild muons come from the top of the atmosphere.


|
| >You refer to domesticated muons,
| > I'm referring to wild, feral muons.
|
| And that matters...why?

*** off. You brought muons up, now you question ME, you arsehole?



|
| > 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.

Muons do. You brought 'em up, ***.



|
| > 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?

Freshmen are taught velocity is distance/time. You've never learned that.

|
| >
| >
| >
| > | 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, ***.

There are no bananas in a round trip either, stupid ***. But anyway, c =
0/0 which
doesn't equal 300,000 km/sec, moron.


|
| 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, ***?

Still zero, you stupid ***.


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

You haven't found me wrong yet, imbecile.


|
| >
| >
| > | 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?

Never heard of him. Does he claim the distance from A to A is greater
than zero?

Androcles


|
| >
| > |
| > | 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