Re: Comment on Wikipedia entry: Simple inference of time dilation


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1huo45-gck.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: In sci.physics.relativity, Jeckyl
: <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: wrote
: on Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:13:50 +1100
: <13niqdeh784qkae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
: > "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > news:AJ9ej.70737$S37.59928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >>
: >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
: >> message
: >> news:dcin45-g05.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >> : In sci.physics.relativity, Jeckyl
: >> : <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: >> : wrote
: >> : on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:06:03 +1100
: >> : <13ngn59s3eqfr22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
: >> : > "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: >> : > news:3PYdj.69862$S37.763@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >> : >> Catch 22:
: >> : >>
: >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
: >> : >>
: >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
: >> : > You have no demonstrated any problems with those formula
: >> What a fucking idiot, writes that *** before I say anything.
: >
: > Fine .. so what are the problems...
: >
: >> : The formulae "problems"
: >> are:
: >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
: >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
: >
: > Hmm .. that's exactly what you said before ... again .. you have not
: > demonstrated any problems with those formulas
:
: Actually, I'm not sure how one demonstrates a problem
: with a formula; the problem is with the *derivation* --
: or perhaps the theory -- as Androcles apparently sees it.


Very good. You can leave out "apparently", the problem is
with the derivation.

:
: Since the formula is derived using c+v in Einstein's
: original paper, the derivation is apparently invalid in
: Androcles' mind.


No, no, you can leave out half that sentence. The derivation is
self -contradictory.



: However, that doesn't necessarily mean
: the formula need be tossed out.

Sad, perhaps, but it does mean it should be tossed out.

: (Personally, I don't see it.)

Yeah, but that's only because you are wilfully blind and ignorant.

: [snip copy-paste-crap]

That's why you can't see it and what makes you wilfully blind and ignorant.
[restore copy-paste explanation]

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.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination 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 pipe dream.

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

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


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.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton










.

Quantcast