Re: SR fundamental contradiction


"Brian Kennelly" <bwkennelly@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:agaWg.3723$gM1.1723@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Brian Kennelly" <bwkennelly@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:FZ0Wg.3714$gM1.2909@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Brian Kennelly" <bwkennelly@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:Xg_Vg.3694$gM1.2041@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > "Brian Kennelly" <bwkennelly@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:6zUVg.3669$gM1.3580@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | You don't believe that it is possible to define t' (tau) in a
| > | > | > | way that satisfies:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 1/2(t'(0,20)) = t'(32,16)
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And satisfy 1/2(t'(0,4)) = t'(32,16) as well? That's right, I
don't
| > | > | > believe it is possible.
| > | > |
| > | > | Why do you want to satisfy that equation?
| > | >
| > | > Because I want to send the light back again
| > | The '20' in the left hand term includes the full round trip in
| > | the latin frame. 16+4=20
| >
| > Yes, 16 is half of 20 and 4 is the other half
| Nobody but you is claiming that. 16 and 4 are the divisions of
| the signal in the t times, but they are neither is 'half'. Only
| the tau times are equated between the out and back portions of
| the signal, so that they each represent half of the trip.


Proof?


| >
| >
| > | Your new equation does not correspond to anything in the argument.
| >
| >
| > tau(4) = 8, tau(16) = 8, hence 4 = 16.
| Those equations are yours, not Einstein's.

Proof?



| Einstein included
| the spatial dependence. When you do, then your conclusion does
| not follow, even for linear equations.

Proof?

|
| tau(-32,4)=tau(32,16)= 8

| No contradiction.

Proof?


| The correct form of your argument is:
| if tau(x1',4)=tau(x2',16), then x1' \= x2'

Well done, shithead.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
See any x1' or x2' in that equation, fuckwit?
How about x1'/(c-v) and x2'/(c+v), moron?
Your blind faith in a huckster is pathetically stupid and ridiculous,
which is why I'm ridiculing you, stupid ***.
Relativity has more holes in it than the cheese Einstein ate in Switzerland.
No contradiction.


| >
| > | > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured
| > in
| > | > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
| > | >
| > | >
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
| > |
| > | The 'plus' sign on the right hand side does not belong.
| >
| > Ok, what the *** is it doing in
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| The plus sign is not on the right hand side. It is on the left.

Yes. That's why 1/2 of 20 is 16. The other half is 4.




| The left hand side represents the out-bound and return trip.
| The right hand side represents only the out-bound.

That's right. The right hand side represents only the out-bound.
We ignore the inbound, it won't produce the cuckoo malformations
and make a huckster famous. You are a so FUCKIN' stooopid.

|
| That is the reason for the 1/2 on the left. If the time is the
| same in both directions, then the outbound time is half of the
| full trip.
| (Before you object that 16\=4, note that the times being equated
| are the tau times, not the t times.


Yes, tau(16) = 8 and tau(4) =8.

| Nobody is claiming that the
| two t times are equal.

"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. " --
Albert Nobody.

You are right. Your tin god is a nobody.


Tau is a linear function of t *and* x',
| so there is no contradiction, if the x' values are different.)

tau(4) = 8, tau(16) = 8

|
|
|
| >
| > See the thread title? "SR fundamental contradiction".
| > That wasn't me, that was someone else who realized something
| > was wrong, and a xxxxxxxxxxx like you with your head up your
| > xxxx can't see what it is.

What's up? Don't like plain English?

| Then enlighten me.

Sure:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/


| Your arguments will carry more weight if you can refrain from
| offensive language. The strength of your language is inversely
| proportional to the strength of your argument.

I gave my arguments on my page without profanity. You objected, so
*** you, I say it the way it is, ***. The objective is to embarrass
the *** out of you, prude. I'm being deliberately offensive to an
arrogant fuckwit who doesn't know any mathematics so you can
whine about me farting in your church. What's good enough
for Monty Python is good enough for me. I don't rely on pretty
language for my arguments to carry weight, my arguments are
straightforward logical and mathematical, yours are based on your
faith in the Holey Church of Relativity and its Pope, Einstein the
Righteous Philanderer. (Not that I care about his philandering,
or Bill Clinton's for that matter.) This is about PHYSICS, you lunatic.



| >
| > | The
| > | time in the right hand side includes only the out bound ray. It
| > | represents the time of the reflection.
| >
| > The time in the right hand side includes only half the total time.
| > It represents the time of the reflection.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Einstein's equation simply says that, in the system moving with
| > | the train, the reflection occurs at the mid point of the round
| > | trip.
| >
| > 1/2 of 100 = 80, the other half is 20.
|
| The length of the train is the same in both directions.

The speed of light is different in both directions, c-v and c+v.


| From
| this obvious fact, we conclude that, in the train system, the
| time for the light signals in both directions are the same.

Then you have a contradiction, shithead.
Either the train stretches and shrinks or the speed of light
isn't c. Pope Einstein says it shrinks, so does Archbishop
Lorentz. Which is it?

Say three Hail Aethers for your stupidity:

Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holey Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now
and at the dilated hour of death.


|
| >
| > The distance in the right hand side includes only half the total
distance.
| > It represents the distance of the reflection.
| >
| > Nothing wrong with that, is there?
| It is correct that the right hand side contains the distance of
| the reflection (in Einstein's x'[=x-vt]).

| It also contains the time of the reflection (in t time). The
| value of the function is the tau time of the reflection.

I shine the light from the locomotive to the mirror at the rear, just
to be awkward and create a COUNTER EXAMPLE.
That makes the RHS tau(x', 0,0,0,x'/(c+v)).
Tough titty, cretin. Live with it.
Go ahead, derive a new set of cuckoo malformations.
Begin:
If x' be taken infinitesimally small,
1/2 [ 1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v) ] @tau/@t = ??

C'mon cretin, strut your stuff..



|
| >
| > | It represents that in terms of the times and locations in
| > | the other system.
| > |
| > | What is your objection?
| >
| > I have no objection,
| Then you assent to the correctness of Einstein's equations?


"The length of the train is the same in both directions" is WRONG.
As long as trains move my peristalis I will assent.


| > | > | > | Yours is an assertion easily disproved by example.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I didn't make any assertion, Einstein did.
| > | > | No, you assert that Einstein's equation cannot be satisfied,
| > | >
| > | > I PROVE, I do NOT assert.
| > | Your proof must be flawed, because, as I showed you, a
| > | counter-example exists.
| > |
| > | State your proof.
| >
| > I did. Trains move by peristalsis. A counter example exists,
| > some of them have wheels.
| > Wheels are not inertial frames of reference so maybe they don't count.
| > SR is not flawed, it works fine for earthworms.
| > 1/2 (20) = 4, 1/2(20) = 16 and 16+4 = 20. Right, worm?
| State your proof, not your erroneous equations.

Your turn. Shine the light from the locomotive and derive the
cuckoo malformations, you fucking imbecile.





|
| > | > | that, consequently, it is nonsense. I disproved your assertion,
| > | > | using your numbers.
| > | >
| > | > No you didn't, and you got the wrong answer anyway.
| > | Where is the flaw in my demonstration?
| >
| > Nothing, it is fine.
| Thank you.
|
| >
| > How about this one instead:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| >
| > No worm in that one, sick sock puppet.
| > How fine am I doing?
|
| As a criticism of Einstein, it is meaningless, because you have
| light travelling at two different speeds in the same reference
| system.

Yes, t = x'/(c-v) with the light going forward and t = x'/(c+v)
with the light going backward. Einstein's old pocket watch had
two second hands.


| You also seem to be claiming, erroneously, that because the
| clocks are synchronized in t time, they are synchronized in
| train time. That is a proposition that you may want to prove,
| but you cannot assume.

Prove it then. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Androcles


.

Loading