Re: SMAL *** ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more or
less
| > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | experiments.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways. Therefore
| > your
| > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a fucking
| > | > idiot. Androcles
| > |
| > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | impossible.
| >
| > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a step
| > forward
| > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take your
| > medication.
| > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. A
| > mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) = c. A
| > shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and pretend he
knew
| > mathematics, like this:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.

And according to the definition of a vector.

| The same
| logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back to NY
| would also have an average speed of 0.
|
Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks in
Boston
and his wristwatch is unreliable?
Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient information. It
is UNDEFINED.
Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed is the
magnitude
of velocity.
Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is half of
(t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is reasonable (if
imprecise),
but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of order.
Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the distance
from
NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small".
It is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a discontinuity.
He is violating the rules of mathematics.
You cannot tell me the person taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2
hours,
therefore he takes 1 hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it over
easily.
It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the clock
at Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says
himself,
x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then he plays his
frame-hopping
game and pretend to use rigorour math, bur we really don't care what the
time
is by a photon's wristwatch.

Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then say
he's
being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who didn't
know
what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.
Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is belief,
faith.
I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.
Androcles.



| [rest snipped]
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| It's still legal to go .sigless.
|


.

Quantcast