Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151705733.141440.311950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "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, ***?
|
| Because it's an awfully short trip to show exactly where you are wrong.

You haven't done that yet, ***, for all your assertions.
Assertions carry no weight.



| You are wrong about muons. (Androcles: "Ok, then they don't."
| Precisely.) You are also wrong about speed. See below. It's a short
| trip.

Either they come from the top of the atmosphere or they don't. <shrug>
Either they have a life span of less than 2.2 usec or they don't. <shrug>
So in SR fairyland velocity isn't distance/time. <shrug>
You are a shithead. <shrug>

|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > 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.
|
| But Billy runs around the same closed track at a *speed* of 8 m/s (not
| zero, ***),

No he doesn't. On an oval track Billy runs 100 yards at 8 m/s, changes
velocity as he goes around turn 1 and turn 2, run 100 yards at -8 m/s,
changes velocity again at turns 3 and 4 and finishes at zero distance.
(And he's not in an inertial frame of reference, ***.)
Total distance moved, zero. Total velocity, zero. Total speed, zero.
His speed for 100 yards is 8 m/s, his speed on the back straight
is -8 m/s, his TOTAL speed is zero, because 8-8 =0.
His velocity is constantly changing on the curves, arsehole,
so we refer to that as instantaneous tangential velocity.
You never did learn calculus, did you, arsehole? Typical relativist.
When you learn to integrate you'll find the integral of the velocity
is zero and the derivative of distance is positive and then negative
for a TOTAL of zero.



and crosses the finish line at the same point he
| started the race, and as you said, ***, his average *velocity*
| during this race is zero, ***.

That's what I said, you ***. I also said speed is the magnitude of
velocity, you stupid ***, and the velocity is zero.


|
| Short trip. Wrong again, ***.

Can't be, I agree with you that the velocity is zero, shithead, as I've said
all along.


|
| >
| >
| > | 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.
|
| Really?


Yes really, stupid arsehole.

| 8 m/s is the magnitude of zero, ***?

Of course not, you stupid jerk. You are the moron that
says Billy's speed is 8 m/s, not me.



|
| Wrong again. Wrong about muons. Wrong about speed. Short trip.

Don't be a ***... oh wait, you can't help it.


|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | 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?
|
| Up above where you said the velocity of Billy going around a track with
| a speed of 8 m/s has a velocity of zero.

I didn't say that, you lying ***.

|
| You called me a liar. Apologize.

*** you, show where I said Billy went around a track with a speed of 8 m/s.
You are a fucking LIAR.



|
| Nicely run short race, by the way. You got to where you are wrong
| awfully fast. Must have done so at a speed of ... oh, 299,792,458 m/s
| or so. Let's clock you against a feral muon and see which is quicker --
| a muon decaying or you being wrong.

You are losing your marbles, Phuckwit Duck. Have another *snort* of cocaine.
You'll NEVER convince me you have a clue what you are rabbiting about,
lying ***, because I am not wrong, you are.

Androcles.



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


.

Loading