Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151672556.821403.270270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "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.
|
| Not in less than 2.2 usec.
|
| >
| >
| > | 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"
|
| That's for lazy, pokey muons at very low speed, not for wild, feral
| muons.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > 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.
|
| And that matters...why?


You brought mouns up. You tell me why, you moron.


|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >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?
|
| Yup. I brought up what YOU think about muons, and what YOU think about
| muons is wrong. So I question it.

Muons have *** all to do with it. Velocity is DEFINED as AB/(tB-tA),
not as 0AB/(t'A-tA), shithead.


|
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > 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, ***.
|
| Nope, they don't.

Ok, then they don't. So why bring them 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.
|
| No, they're not. They're taught that velocity is the rate of change of
| (vector) displacement with time, and there is care taken to distinguish
| displacement from distance, speed from velocity, and other useful
| things you apparently never used in your engineering years.
|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | 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.
|
| But there IS a velocity in a round trip. It's zero, just like you said.

The number of potatoes in a round trip is zero, so there are potatoes in a
round trip.
The number of bananas in a round trip is zero, so there are bananas in a
round trip.
The number of miles in a round trip is zero, so there are miles in a round
trip.
Duh...
You are totally off your fucking rocker, you ***.

| >
| >
| > |
| > | 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 ***.
|
| That's right, it is zero.

So what are you arguing about, stupid ***?


| Now light runs back and forth on a closed circuit at a speed of
| 299,792,458 m/s

It can't, speed is the magnitude of velocity and the velocity is zero.


| and crosses the finish line at the same point it
| started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
| ***?


Zero, ignorant ***.


| >
| >
| > |
| > | It's been a pretty short trip to find out exactly where you are wrong,
| > | ***.
| >
| > You haven't found me wrong yet, imbecile.
|
| Really?

Yes really.


| So you are wrong AND blind.

I'm not wrong or blind, ***.Geschwindigkeit is the magnitude
of Geschwindigkeit.

|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | 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?
|
| It appears you don't need him, anyway.

That's right, I don't. But you brought it up.

| You know the average velocity of
| a round trip circuit is zero even though the speed is not

Nonsense, Geschwindigkeit is the magnitude
of Geschwindigkeit.

| -- you said so yourself.

Where did I say that, liar?


| You also apparently know that there IS a velocity for a
| round trip circuit, despite saying earlier that there isn't.

You keep coming up with "apparent", you lying ***.
I have NEVER said there is a banana for a round trip. I said
there are NO potatoes in a round trip (or miles either).



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


You haven't done so yet, lying ***. All you've done is agreed with me
that c = 0/0, whereas the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

"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.



|
| >
| > 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.
| > | > | > |
| > | > |
| > |
|


.