Re: Even cranks get published


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157078112.722141.238790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1157008520.754088.275210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Koobee Wublee wrote:
| > | > Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > > <rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > > news:1156952763.771923.287980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > > | Look what the cat dragged in from Apeiron (an antirelativistic
| > | > > | journal):
| > | > > |
| > | > > |
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO1PDF/V05n1lut.pdf
| > | > >
| > | > > Yes...
| > | > > Look what the cat dragged in from Annalen der Physik, a crackpot
| > journal.
| > | > >
| > | > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | > >
| > | > > Even cranks get published.
| > | >
| > | > In that 1905 paper, I am discovering worng mathematics everyday.
Why
| > | > is it that no one else has noticed?
| > |
| > | Think.
| > |
| > | > For example, in section 3,
| > | > Einstein's derivation of Lorentz Transform is utterly nonsense and
full
| > | > of errors.
| > |
| > | No, you must have misunderstood something. The derivation is
elementary
| > | linear algebra and calculus.
| >
| > HAHAHA!
| > Elementary linear algebra and calculus:
| >
| > "2AB/(t'A-tA) = c" -- Einstein.
| >
| > Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA = 0/0.
|
| Well, you assume nonsense, you get nonsense. What else did you expect?
|
| > The first thing to learn is not to divide by zero.
|
| It is you who is dividing by zero - why do you admonish others?

HAHAHAHA! That's not my equation, you drunken shithead.



|
| > An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero
or
| > something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
| >
| > ROFLMAO!
|
| The context of my remark which you do not provide was that the first
| part of Einstein's 1905 paper contains very easy mathematics which is
| thus fully transparent and can be fully checked.


In agreement with experience we futher assume Bilewacky is
a complete and totally vacuous moron.


|
| > JanPB, Fri, Mar 10 2006 7:10 am :
| > " kk's postings about physical content of Einstein's postulates made me
| > look again at his 1905 paper and I noticed what I think is another
| > experimental assumption.
|
| Exactly right. This was me answering someone who claimed SR was all
| about mere mathematical redefinition of things, i.e., a theory without
| physical content. I pointed out that SR's definition of synchronisation
| did rest in fact on at least two significant experimentally verifiable
| facts. One of them you quoted below (for some incomprehensible reason)
| in which I talk about Fizeau's polygonal light path experiments on
| which the consistency of Einstein's sync rests (the sync wouldn't be
| transitive without them).
|
| > Recall Einstein's definition of synchronisation of two clocks A and B:
| > send a light pulse from A to B, reflect the light at B back to A,
| > register the emmission and the arrival times: t_A, t_B, and t'_A. The
| > clocks A and B are synchronised if:
| >
| >
| > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (*)
| >
| >
| > (Equivalently, one can send two light rays, from A to B and from B to A
| > and then the requirement is that:
| >
| >
| > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t'_B, (**)
| >
| >
| > where t'_B is the second ray's emission time at B.)
| >
| >
| > He then says: "We assume that this definition of synchronism is free
| > from contradictions" and notes that the following two conditions are
| > satisfied (thus guaranteeing the "freedom from contradictions"):
| >
| >
| > "1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
| > A synchronizes with the clock at B.
| > 2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
| > the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each
| > other."
| >
| >
| > This portion of the 1905 paper is frequently glossed over (I've never
| > seen it discussed on this NG) but the second condition is in fact
| > non-trivial and it demands that certain experiment yield certain
| > result. Otherwise Einstein's synchronisation of clocks is vacuous.
| >
| >
| > Try to prove condition 2 yourself: sync clock at A with clock at B
| > (condition (*) or (**) satisfied), and also clock at A with clock at C
| > (ditto), and based on this try to prove that B is in sync with C
| > (again, this means that (*) or (**) must hold for B and C). While doing
| > this remember that A, B, C are in 3D space, i.e., not necessarily
| > colinear.
| >
| >
| > You'll see you cannot prove it unless you know that the following is
| > also true: the time it takes for a light ray to complete a triangular
| > roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete
| > the reverse triangular trip: A-C-B-A (imagine mirrors positioned at B
| > and C to make the light ray go around). This must be verified
| > experimentally, otherwise there is a chance the definition of Einstein
| > sync is vacuous. "
| >
| > HAHAHAHA!!!
| > Androcles
|
| ?
| I have this feeling you are completely lost.

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at
A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of
events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without
further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an
event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We
have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required
by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from B to A. "

By the totally lost and clueless Bilewacky method,
the time of the clock at B is 1/3 the time of the clock at A, C is 2/3,
and on the return of the ray the time is 2/3 for B and 1/3 for C!
You still have not determined a common time for A, B and C,
vacuous head, and you never will.

I have this knowledge you would not know division-by-zero if
it bit you on the nose, you "feelings" are useless, Mr. "You
cannot prove it".

How far is it from A to A, shithead?
Whether you go via -B- or -B-C-D-E-F-G-H, it is still zero
and the time for light to go from A to A is t'A-tA, totally clueless
and lost fuckwit.


Androcles.




.