Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?


"mathkills" <mathkills@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ad0083d7-0da2-4d6a-bfcf-f2a9032bf009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 10, 2:04 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mathkills" <mathki...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0a306717-9774-40e9-9816-a0da966ce1bf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|> Challenge accepted and I dropped the atomic bomb first.
| > Would you like to give in or should you be the next fool
| > that worships Einstein that would like to be proven to not
| > know the most basic things like basic math and the science
| > of measurement?
|
| OK, teach me something. Let's keep it simple and find one specific
| item that we disagree on... you choose sir.

The first thing you need to learn is how to address a reply
so that others know who the *** you are talking to, we don't
all use google.

This is not much help but you sent it. Why snip?

[snip internet path overhead]

| noted.

Much better. Note that I snipped what *I* wrote, it serves no further
purpose,
but I leave the thread intact for others to read should they so choose.
There are those that snip as a way of trying to win an argument, which
is rather pointless, and then they try to excuse themselves under the
disguise of calling it "netiquette", a leftover from the days when we had
28K
modems which took ages to download text. True netiquette doesn't require
that you snip what the other person wrote, although you are free to snip
what
*you* wrote, and of course older material from which the discussion is
exhausted.
Unfortunately we do get a lot of cranks trying to promote their own crackpot
theories instead of politely asking questions and experience has shown
that fighting fire with fire can be more successful than snipping, although
not always. The cranks also like to switch their names because they want to
be heard but are not listened to. It doesn't really work, they soon betray
who they are by their writing style and of course they are still cranks --
which
they cannot hide.

Now... back to the thread title. You said:
| OK, teach me something. Let's keep it simple and find one specific
| item that we disagree on... you choose sir.

I choose time.
A clock is a regular oscillator and a counter. The oscillator can be a
constant
drip of water, a quartz crystal, a balance wheel, a pendulum, the moon going
through phases, the Earth spinning on its axis or orbiting the Sun, any of
the
planets orbiting the Sun. For each oscillator there is a count ratio to
every other
oscillator in the universe, that ratio determining what the count of a 1 Hz
pendulum
is to a day, 24 * 60 * 60 = 86,400 : 1. If the pendulum is operating at .5
Hz,
it is 43,200 swings to one turn of the Earth.
Now if we imagine, as Einstein did, that a moving clock runs slow, then
that clock has to change its ratio with respect to every other oscillator
in the universe.
More interestingly, "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions." is total nonsense, because
the ratio of the clock at the equator to the day does not agree with the
ratio of the clock at the pole to the day. After enough years have passed
the equator must lag behind the pole in its orbit around the Sun by a
complete
orbit, and the Earth is thus a flattened disk with a hole in the middle
where
the Sun goes. Einstein was a flat-Earther.
Now you want to use mathematics. I have, and that is a PROOF,
reductio-ad-absurdum, that the hypothesis Einstein proposed -- that time
can be different from one place to another -- is false.
What the mathematician does is to go back through the argument that
led to the absurdity and pinpoint the precise place where the blunder
occurred. It is here (although there are many other blunders):

We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless 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.

On the surface it appears to be fine, but look deeper and you'll see it is
nonsense.

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?

Because he was a crank.










.

Quantcast