Re: Who is who?


<rvallshg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d3d15d5c-40ae-481d-a639-c5eaa3e8d74f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27 jun, 14:31, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<rvall...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5c10e94d-83ab-4d68-a11d-80969c2f2d9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27 jun, 07:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<rvall...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear rvall...:

On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.

There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.

You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?

As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.

We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein?s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton?s
?Principia?? he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein?s Relativity theory.

David A. Smith

(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
==========================================
Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead.

You know that this is my usual behaviour in this group. I respect the
opinions or decisions of any person here, including yours. I never
insult a person or take into account an insult to me. By the way,
among the things that David doesn?t continue addressing with me are
the c ± v expressions in Jun30 1905 Einstein?s paper, the ones that
you are continually referring here. Why you reject to discuss this
topic with me? I remember yet our two months long dialogue that you
stopped precisely in this point some years ago, and I remain still
open to continue it.

===============================================

Mathematics has nothing to do with respect, opinion or decision, and
everything to do with proof.
IF Einstein said
some function of x'/(c+v) is equal to that same function of x'/(c-v)
THEN
Einstein was an idiot who didn't understand mathematics.
ELSE ... (there is no else, he did say it).

We can have y=x2
=============
No we can't, apples are not oranges and we are not discussing y here.
Drivel snipped.
====================================

Talking about actual experiments are irrelevant.
As far as you are concerned, you just want to argue and
your arguments get increasingly ridiculous as they go further
into mysticism and away from logic and mathematics.

I agreed with you. A mathematical error can?t be justified by any
experimental measurement.

===================================
Good.
===================================


Einstein's THIRD postulate, which you are too stupid to recognise
IS a postulate (and false) is:

Contrary to your expectations with me, I agreed with you about the
postulate nature of what Einstein includes in his second postulate

=============================================

Did I mention any second postulate?
What are you changing the subject for?
==============================================

(a
new DEFINITION of time). But we haven?t agreement about it being
false.
QUOTE
the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
to travel from B to A.
UNQUOTE

This is for me the most important Einstein?s assertion in all his
paper. A new DEFINITION of time.

=============================================
Nobody gives a hoot what's important for you, crank.
Your opinions count for ***, it's what you can PROVE that matters.
=============================================

Simultaneity defined for different
points of an Euclidean space. Explain to me why do you say that it is
false.
=============================================
Sure: An experimental measurement can?t be justified by any
mathematical error.
=============================================


I you are surprised for the word ?Euclidean?, go to the
beginning of paragraph 1 and you will find it jointly with ?Newtonian?
and also with ?Cartesian?. As distance AB equals BA (Euclidean, no?),
declaring the times ?equals? is compatible with a constant and
isotropic vacuum light speed c.
================================================
What the *** is wrong with you, babbling about "surprise" ?
================================================

I confess you that perhaps in my first
hundred readings of the paper, I didn?t realize the importance of that
definition.
==============================================
Right. It went right over the top of your head as Einstein wanted it to.
===============================================

It seems to me so natural and evident, something so close
to human common sense, that the need for being a DEFINITION was
maintained obscure to me for many years.
================================================
So YOU were surprised and that makes you hallucinate I might be.

The real time x'/(c-v) clearly does NOT equal the real time x'/(c+v),
so the fake "time" (in quotation marks) which is a supposedly a
function of the real time cannot be a linear function as the liar Einstein
claimed.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -
Einstein.

In the second place the equations are NOT linear.

In the third place Einstein was a babbling idiot that failed mathematics.

In the fourth place I suspect you don't even know what "linear" means.

We establish by definition that you are an idiot.
================================================





Now what possible opinion could you have that can change that?- Ocultar
texto de la cita -

In 1905 vacuum light speed was supposed to have the constant c value
only in the ether, and a different one (c±v) in any of the other
frames (remember the design of the M&M experiment).
=============================================

You want ME to remember? I wrote this, fuckhead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm

AND this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
===============================================


This was a
consequence of the assumed unique time for all the frames. To say that
vacuum light speed is the same in all frames was a contradiction with
that. Einstein resolved that contradiction incorporating his new time
DEFINITION in the second postulate, making it compatible with the
first postulate (the same vacuum light speed c for all frames, but now
a different time in every frame, making the ether superfluous, being
now the bodies themselves the unique ones able to be related in
inertial systems). In that way Einstein extended Galileo?s Principle
of Relativity to be valid also for electrodynamics, obtaining his 1905
Einstein?s Principle of Relativity, that jointly with the new second
postulate formed 1905 Relativity. I don?t pretend, Androcles, that you
will understand all of this in a single first reading.
==============================================

No, you pretend to know mathematics, and you don't. You are
a babbling cretin.
An experimental measurement can?t be justified by any
mathematical error.

==============================================

You are in a
different road since many years. I am sure you will be interested in
proving me wrong.
==============================================

I have no interest in proving you wrong, you are a clown.
I have proven Einstein wrong and then moved forward.
That you are too stupid to understand that is your problem, not mine.

Oh, and remember the design of the M&M experiment and
remember the design of the Sagnac experiment and
remember the design of THE RING LASER GYROSCOPE IN
USE TODAY ON MANY AIRCRAFT AND SHIPS.

It's not an "experiment" anymore, cretin, it's now technology.


.