Re: OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:iacff2ppi53krstg0ddpfoildifal0r7jb@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:tdkef2db6oa59jdtr3baj3rnl4s0phm37v@xxxxxxxxxx
|
| >| >c is the speed from A to A in time t'A-tA relative to A,
| >| >and is 0/0 millimetres/year,
| >| >u is the speed from A to B relative to A in time t,
| >| >and is 300,000 km/sec.
| >| >Speed exists only relative to another object and NEVER reverses
| >direction.
| >| >
| >| >You are jealous because I found Einstein's first real blunder before
you
| >| >did.
| >|
| >| Nah!
| >| I'm smug because I know that not all integrals around closed loops
equal
| >zero.
| >
| >
| >That's dodging the issue. The integral of dx/dt .dt from A to B equals
| >the integral of dx/dt.dt from B to A and the sum is zero, so you can
| >wipe that smug grin off your face, Ritz said so.
|
| Your problem is you don't understand virtual imagery and you think time
goes
| backwards when light reflects from a mirror....

Your problem (and Einstein's) is you don't understand formal mathematics.
The correct way to describe a velocity is AB/t, but the fuckhead decided
he wanted to change tB to be different to tA, but even then
he should have written AB/(tB-tA) = c and BA/(t'A-tB) = -c.
It is YOU that thinks time runs backwards because you have
no -c, and if you knew anything at all about programming a
computer, which you do not, it would show -c.
But we know you do not because you leave out pitch and
get 0.3 LY. Why is that? Because you are a fuckhead, like Einstein.
How do you measure eccentricity from a point source, shithead?

You can't measure it so it isn't there. Right, FUCKWIT?!

Don't tell me what my problem is, ***, the problem is all you,
I KNOW what -c is and you do not.


|
| >
| >You are jealous because I found Einstein's first real blunder before you
| >did.
|
| I've found hundreds of YOUR blunders.

In your dreams.



|
| >| >|
| >| >| 'c' is a universal constant.
| >| >
| >| >Constants do not reverse direction.
| >| >c = 0/0 millimetres/year in all inertial frames of reference.
| >| >u = 300,000 km/sec relative to the source.
| >|
| >| Gord! another engineer gone bad!
| >
| >Nah, I'm still sane. You are jealous because I found Einstein's
| > first real blunder before you did.
|
| I've found hundreds of YOUR blunders.

*** off, stupid old ***. You don't know what negative
numbers are and you think time runs backwards.


|
| >| >No such animal, the only dimensions in physics are mass, length and
time.
| >|
| >| All physical quantities have dimensions. So do many constants.
| >| Velocity has dimension L/T.
| >
| >That's two dimensions, L and T, silly old wabo. Obviously
| >you've never heard of dimensional analysis, invented for dumb
| >physicists to check their work.
|
| You're learning....
| Speed has the dimesnsions L/T


Let me know when you've learned v-c and v+c, because
v doesn't change direction in Einstein's paper, c does.
Don't try to program a computer, you are bound to fail.
Oops, you already have.



|
| >| >It doesn't, it leaves at 'u'.
| >| >'c' means it returns to the source after reflection.
| >|
| >| ...this I cannot follow....
| >
| >Why, do you object to me calling the speed of light 'u'?
| >Einstein used to call it Geschwindigkeit 'V'.
| >
| >"daß sich das Licht im leeren Raume stets mit einer bestimmten, vm
| >Bewegungszustande des emittierenden Körpers unabhängigen Geschwindigkeit
V
| >fortpflanze."
| >
| >but he got his Corpses mixed up with Bodies.
| >'c' is Einstein's fake velocity of light, 'u' is Androcles' real velocity
of
| >light.
| >
| >Anyway, since 'V' has been dropped, let's that instead.
|
| Drunk again, I see.

Are you? I thought you said you were laying off the bottle.


|
| >| >It didn't pass customs because you welched on a bet, but it is
| >| >ok to bring it back in since all duties have already been paid
| >| >and there has to be a mirror for TWLS to be equal to OWLS,
| >| >Ritz said so.
| >|
| >| Yes...and the mirror must be at rest wrt the source and detector....
| >
| >What, the GPS receiver mirror? Nah, people carry them
| >around in cars, they still work. No need to stop the car.
| >We engineers have it figured out, we don't care what you dumb
| >physicists say.
| >I had a girlfriend who used mine to check her makeup.
| >No, wait, that was my rear view mirror, I had to reset it.
|
| Reset what, the makeup or the girl?

I never kiss and tell.


|
|
|
|
| >| >| pom....so that doesn't apply at all.
| >| >
| >| >We still have to know tB, we get that from tB = (t'A-tA)/2.
| >| >You need a mirror for that. Then we can work out the distance.
| >| >
| >| >" Do you thing it will pass customs? TWLS = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = OWLS = c,
| >| > in any one frame. Ritz said so." -- Henri Wilson.
| >| >
| >| >See? TWLS = OWLS, Ritz said so.
| >|
| >| Neither Ritz nor I said anything of the kind.
| >
| >It's on the line above, mate. You wrote it alright.
| >You are just jealous because I found Einstein's first real blunder
| >before you did, but that does take an engineer, of course.
| >
| >|
| >| >| In any TWLS experiment where the mirror
| >| >
| >| >There you go, GPS receivers need mirrors.
| >|
| >| stop raving..
| >
| >You are jealous because I found Einstein's first real blunder
| >before you did.
|
| I've found hundreds of YOUR blunders.

You are jealous because you failed -c class.

|
| >| > and source are mutually at rest,
| >| >(ie.,
| >| >| in the same frame) OWLS = TWLS = c. That is a direct prediction of
the
| >| >| BaTh...but probably too hard for a pommie engineer..
| >| >
| >| >Nah... I fully understand now.. GPS receivers need mirrors, Ritz said
so.
| >|
| >| piss off, pommie engineer.....
| >
| >Nah... you still owe me 3 cases of quality whisky.
|
| You'll never see any of it...

I know that now, you are a poxy welcher.

|
|
|
| >| >The ISS flies well below the GPS constellation, so does HST.
| >| >All it takes is a laser on ISS, Hubble to see the reflection and
| >| >a spread***.
| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >| Let's do the maths.
| >| >| Maximum satellite orbital speed relative to the ground is about 8000
| >| >m/s....or
| >| >| say, 0.000027c
| >| >|
| >| >| siganls take about 2.6 secs to moon and back.
| >| >|
| >| >| ...so the difference in times would be around 0.000150 secs.
| >| >|
| >| >| CMIIW.
| >| >|
| >| >| In that time the satellite will move 1.2 metres.
| >| >| You have to know its position to much better than 1.2 metres.
| >| >| CMIIW.
| >| >
| >| >You are fucking hopeless at simple arithmetic.
| >| >ISS moves a 17,000 mph, 4.7 miles/second, or after 2.6 seconds,
| >| >12.25 MILES. GPS is much better than that. I'll agree to 8 km/sec,
| >| >your figure, 8 km/s* 2.6 sec= 20.8 km. How the *** did you
| >| >come up with 1.2 metres? Too much red plonk has fucked
| >| >your neuron. You'll never make it as a engineer.
| >|
| >| You're fucking hopeless today....
| >|
| >| The maximum speed of an Earth satellite is ~8 km/s.
| >
| >Ok, so that's -8 km/s * 2.6 seconds = ~20.8 km, not 1.2 metres.
| >You failed first grade and that's why you became a physicist, right?
|
| Oh dear. You really are not very bright this morning.

Troll. You sound like Dork or Tusselad, trying to divert
attention from the issue.

|
| > Does an engineer know why?
| >|
| >| The kind of time difference you are looking at is the total travel time
| >(2.6
| >| secs) times 2v/c.
| >
| >c has *** all to do with it, Einstein. The time difference is 2.6
seconds,
| >a daft old wabo said so.
| >
| >
| >|
| >| >| >| >This can be done TODAY, no need to visit the moon.
| >| >| >| >You are not practical, H. It takes an engineer.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| *** engineers. There wouldn't be ANY if physicists hadn't shown
| >them
| >| >how.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >
| >| >| >An engineer designed the wheel and the roads to run them on,
| >| >| >a chemist designed fire to propel them.
| >| >| >It took a physicist to design the club to beat you over the head
with.
| >| >|
| >| >| Nah, an engineer might have stumbled across the wheel but it took a
| >| >physicist
| >| >| to invent the other three.
| >| >
| >| >Fire is chemistry.
| >|
| >| ....the other three WHEELS.... you silly old pom.
| >|
| >| What's the good of having ONE wheel?
| >
| >One wheel is very useful.
| >The rolling log was thought of before the pony and trap, the
| >engineer could only get them one at a time, he had to steal
| >the physicist's club. No physicist would think of that, he'd
| >have to write a theory on paper and apply for a patent while
| >the engineers put up Stonehenge and the Pyramids. By then
| >the patent was rejected, it was already in the public domain.
|
| A physicist thought of the LEVER long before an engineer stumbled on the
idea
| of a ONE wheeled barrow. A Physicist invented the AXLE to join two wheels.

Nah... that was a club. I expect you are still hooking with yours
when you are not at the 19th hole.
Physicists write papers, engineers build.
|
| Levers erected the 30 ton statues on Easter Island and built stonehenge.

Sure, but it took an engineer to think of digging a hole deep
enough to keep the stone upright and bury the physicist in it
as well, the Egyptians just piled their rocks up. Physicists
like to dig their own holes to bury their dumb unifuckation
theories in. Carry on digging, your hole is getting deeper.


|
| >| >The first club was designed by a physicist to beat a woman
| >| >with because his hormones were out of control and so she burnt
| >| >the fucking thing, handed him a bow and arrow and a fishing rod
| >| >her engineer lover had given her and told him to go walkabout
| >| >and find food if he wanted nooky. Women are even smarter than
| >| >engineers, physicists have no chance as evolution has shown.
| >|
| >| Fucking bull***!
| >
| >Yep. Engineers can even out-bull*** physicists as well.
| >We win, you lose.
| >ROFL!
|
| go to bed....with a bottle of glenlivet under yer pillow....

I've just got up, you silly old fart.

Androcles


.