Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12f7dfe4-b550-49a8-9df5-82c77425a6c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 31, 4:13 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c6744b32-9527-41d7-9127-79581c0e5589@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 31, 1:13 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:32 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Looks like you have forgotten the mental beating you took the last
time you were here. Back for more, oh ignorant one?

Note: The only people who think Einstein's stuff is religion are folks
like you who can't hack the math who thus think we are taking it on
faith.

Eric,
Good to hear from you again. I seem to have forgotten the
mental beating. Maybe you could refresh my memory about it. Let's
see, I had some equations that represented times and distances.

x=wt
w=velocity of light
x'=x-vt
x'=wn'
t'=t
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)

Oh gawd .. not that crap again .. It was well and truly shown to be
self-inconsistent before and it still is

So with regard to Einstein's little explanation, if a photon is
going in a +x direction, it has a velocity of c; if it is going in a -
x direction, it has a velocity of -c. n' is the time it would take a
photon to travel a distance of x'. n' would correspond to t' in the
Lorentz equations as Einstein explained them. Einstein's equation was
x'=ct'. In other words, n' would refer to the transitions of a
cesium isotope molecule in S' as compared to t, which would be the
transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S, and t'=t would refer to
the rotation of the sun or some other common measurement of time as
seen from both frames of reference.
OK, so let's just go through the mental beating once again for
old times sake.

No .. please don't. A hundred teims is more than enough

Jeckyl,
Good to hear from you again. So you claim to have proven these
equations wrong. When did that happen? Why are you so bashful about
it now? Are you telling us that you just do not like to show off?
I did not see it the first time, so why not just do it one more
time so everyone can see?

No need .. you equations are a load of self-contradictory crap .. try using
google if you don't remember the many many many times I (and others) proved
you wrong. I have no interest in going thru the same tedious process again
for the likes of an ignorant cretin like you.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?
    ... it has a velocity of -c. ... cesium isotope molecule in S' as compared to t, ... transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S, and t'=t would refer to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?
    ... Looks like you have forgotten the mental beating you took the last ... cesium isotope molecule in S' as compared to t, ... transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S, and t'=t would refer to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?
    ... Looks like you have forgotten the mental beating you took the last ... cesium isotope molecule in S' as compared to t, ... transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S, and t'=t would refer to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pig-ignorant Moody
    ... You're calling someone else ignorant? ... although it does more often refer to the spoken word. ... Unless it's the character in 'The Usual Susects'!!! ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: OT/ Being Gay Is NOT a Choice
    ... Dana Carpender: ... It's different when you refer to yourself as ignorant ... often than not an insult, that's usually the way it's taken unless ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
Loading