Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:07:26 GMT
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fgsrr302i9k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: Well, Androcles is right about something, which is that I will ignore
: anything he has to say. I won't even read it except by accident
: Daryl McCullough
: Ithaca, NY
Bigotry proven.
On Nov 6, 11:41 pm, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
If it's a mathematical contradiction, then *prove*
it! That's the beauty of mathematics, you don't have
to actually perform an experiment to prove something
wrong, you can post a derivation. So post one!
Here it is, Troll Kook McCullough, the proof by reductio-ad-absurdum
you asked for.
Catch 22.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's thought experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his thoughts.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
.
- References:
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: Sue...
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Prev by Date: Re: Second time dimension
- Next by Date: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Previous by thread: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Next by thread: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|