Re: Constructivism ("Practical Geometry") in the Relativity of Simultaneity


"jrysk" <philneo2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1c41a220-6a8b-45db-85e6-0fac4f4cdf5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 6, 6:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"jrysk" <philneo2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7ce96bc0-df30-456f-8b7f-6c5b47493a54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 6, 4:37 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"jrysk" <philneo2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:2fe0e602-320b-453b-8eda-a4d101d10107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 5, 5:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"jrysk" <philneo2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a3824544-13ec-4b18-9bc6-165721a01168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

| Einstein used constructivist math

Hey fuckhead!

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Your answer goes here:

________________________________________________________

Other answers have been:

According to Ian Parker:

"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________

According to cretin harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx

"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.

______________________________________________________

According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________

According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day
terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light
is
c."

According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the
equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________

According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________

According to Spirit of Truth:

that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
According to constipated Eric Gisse
"I don't give a *** (fill in the blank ____________)."

______________________________________________________

'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What Einstein says about light is among the assumptions or principles
of the relativity of simultaneity. The problem with the relativity of
simultaneity has nothing to do with any of its assumptions, principles
or definitions. The problem is that "natural" coincidence is not one
of them. Nor is it a deduction of the relativity of simultaneity. It
doesn't play any logical role at all in the argument.

Therefore, whatever objective statement you care to make about light,
the speed of light, or anything having to do with light--as it relates
to relativity--has to wait until the relativity of simultaneity is
shown to have logical content. Otherwise, there is nothing to say
about light in relation to the relativity of simultaneity--IF you are
interested in logical content.

And the relativity of simultaneity will never be shown to have logical
content--and has never been shown to have logical content. This is
for the reason I have already stated. Now, if you are an adherent of
"practical geometry," then comments about light may have something to
do with "practical geometry."

However, since "practical geometry" does not have any logical content,
and the relativity of simultaneity has no logical content (since
Einstein was determined that it would have no logical content--and
carried out his determination), I am not interested in light in
relation to the relativity of simultaneity.

Reason? I am interested in logical content and the relativity of
simultaneity has no logical content.

You should abandon any inquiry regarding light. The only question
before us now is the one I posed before:

where is "natural" coincidence in the Pythagorean theorem?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cut the crap. Does A meet B when B meets A?
If it does we have simultaneity and can discuss it logically.
If not we have nothing to discuss except a padded room
and who should occupy it.

"the following relations are universally valid:--
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. "
Ref:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/SectionI.
Thus spake Einstein.

Therefore the simultaneity of the events of the clock hands pointing to
midnight at A, B and C is INDEPENDENT of light signals, sound signals or
turtles carrying messages on their back saying the time is midnight.

Now if you want to constructivism an equilateral triangle geometrically
so that the light signal goes from A to B to C and back to A, just
remember
that the time at A is synchronous and simultaneous with the time at A,
"relativity of simultaneity" drool not withstanding.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Hint: someone needs a padded cell.

Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

It's you who needs the cell, because the "clock" experiment is the
"train" experiment.

Here's the train experiment, crank.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

You seem to have difficulty answering my very easy question.
Now try to concentrate, work hard at it.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, fuckhead?

[ignorant drool snipped]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, that's the clock experiment.
================================

That's not an answer to my question.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, you STUPID fuckhead?







.

Quantcast