Re: SMAL *** ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:


"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.

No, it's zero.

Proof:

event 1: (0,0)
event 2: (0,t)

where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but greater
than zero, that yields 0.

Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
event

event 1A: (d, t/2)

and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),
but never mind.

Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed is
the magnitude
of velocity.

In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?

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),

Actually, it depends on one's assumptions. For instance, one might direct
the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube of
flint glass on inbound.

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.

Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX showed
no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.

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.

Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s
(relative to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two
posts in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also
traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.

In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take
100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then
going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.

Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99 seconds.

In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100 seconds.

As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least given
the parameters of this thought-experiment.

If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe going
crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as the canoe
is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one plots its
course relative to the river.

This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"
problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a
trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, with the
current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in
still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferous aether.

And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (one might
contemplate, for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel within
the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and the canoes
are racing through different paths).

That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to Einstein's
"fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to at the time, but
slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were discarded.

This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, and quite
willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. After
all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting
Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).

However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than
that. :-)


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.

I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for various
phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that Einstein's
computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without alternatives that can
show various phenomena that are well-documented in the scientific
literature.

Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a
result that SR and GR cannot predict.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.

.

Quantcast