Re: SMAL *** ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET


Sorcerer wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 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.


Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
according to Ghost. Case closed.


Androcles:
There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.

PD:
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?

Androcles
Zero.

PD:
Yes, exactly. And yet you just told me there is "no velocity for a
round trip, ***". But you just found one, ***.

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, ***?

Androcles:
Still zero, you stupid ***.
You haven't found me wrong yet, imbecile.

PD:
That's right, it is zero.
Now light runs back and forth on a closed circuit at a speed of
299,792,458 m/s and crosses the finish line at the same point it
started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
***?

Androcles:
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 ***.

PD:
But Billy runs around the same closed track at a *speed* of 8 m/s (not
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, ***.
8 m/s is the magnitude of zero, ***?

Androcles:
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.

PD:
Now, since speed is the *magnitude* of the velocity, it's reasonable to

ask whether the *magnitude* of Billy's velocity is changing as he
rounds the bend from the front straightaway to the back straightaway.
Certainly according to you, the *magnitude* of the velocity has to
change from 8 m/s to -8 m/s somewhere along that bend. In fact,
assuming that his velocity is continuous, the *magnitude* of that
velocity has to be zero somewhere along that bend, it appears. He has
to have stopped momentarily. Tell that to Billy, who doesn't recall his

legs not moving at any point.

But never mind, because surely as someone with a mathematics degree and

profound experience in engineering, you recall that a *magnitude* of a
vector is by definition non-negative. That is, it has a value of zero
or greater, just in case you don't quite remember what non-negative
means. So when you tell me that speed is the magnitude of velocity, you

must mean that it is non-negative. And so when you told me "his speed
on the back straight is -8 m/s", you must surely realize now that your
brain had fallen out of your ear, which it must often do, as small and
shriveled as it is.

Androcles:
Obviously I meant velocity and was wrong.
===================================

Good, we're caught up. On the back straight, where you now say Billy's
velocity is -8 m/s, the *magnitude* of that velocity (that is, his
speed) is 8 m/s, just like it was on the front straight. In fact, there

is no reason to think that the *magnitude* of Billy's velocity (that
is, his speed) is anything other than 8 m/s throughout the turn from
front straight to back straight. In fact, his speed throughout the
closed-loop race never varies from 8 m/s, and yet the total *average*
velocity for the trip is zero, just as you say.

And returning to something I asked you before, I'll ask you again, just

in case you think you made an idiotic mistake in your earlier answer:
Now light runs back and forth on a closed circuit at a speed of
299,792,458 m/s and crosses the finish line at the same point it
started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
***?

Remember your math degree and your engineering experience in answering
this exceedingly difficult question.

(Oh, and by the way, your lengthening this undoubtedly embarassing
conversation does not make your short trip to Wrong any longer. It
simply means you're making the short trip to Wrong over and over and
over again, at a speed somewhere between 8 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s.

.

Quantcast