# Re: Androcles's accusations of lying

*From*: Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT)

Chris.

On the trip, did you have a side window or a back window?

Regards,

Jonathan

On Apr 5, 6:23 am, "Chris" <ns_cjrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I do not understand the special theory of relativity, electromagnetism or

the general theory of relativity.

I just recall how Hilary and I were picked up one day while we were out in

the country by a flying disk and together we travelled to a star some 10

light years away where we met some freindly intelligent black shiny skinned

dinosaurs with spears and then came back. The journey took as 3 months out

and three months back including the stopover of a few days on the alien

planet and we were away 6 months.

Hilary was easily brainwashed by the local christian gang of thugs into

forgetting the experience and I resisted a bit longer so I was shrinked.

The aliens who flew the disc did not show themselves or were not present and

they were not the aliens on the distant planet we went too.

So the prediction of time dilation is not what we observed. The length

contraction cancelles out the time dilation. Obviously if the distance you

go is contracted by the velocity you get their quicker. (The faster you go

the sooner you get there)

Time=distance/velocity so time taken contracted distance/velocity = distance

x gamma/velocity. Or time=distance/4-velocity.

Momentum=mv/gamma = m * (v/gamma) this is the rule for partial fractions...

remember?

I did say I did not understand it! Do you?

--

Chris.

Remove ns_ to reply"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a74e2094-666a-4e76-bfcb-97d88e7b3770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 23, 8:11 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 6:58 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 6:23 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 3:08 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:57 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sue... a écrit :

On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, pcardin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Think of androcrap as a fart: Unpleasant, noisy, and bringing

forth

nothing useful. Responding to him is like talking into

somebody's ass.

Even if Andro is Joe Stalin reincarnated

that doesn't excuse the original poster from

withdrawing or substantiating words he has

credited to another person. (Einstein)

No results found for

"Light always travels at a constant speed in a

vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"

A difference between psychopaths like Sue or Androcles and

sane people is the ability to consider meanings of words

instead of litteral writings.

If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system, then every other

co-ordinate

system K' is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a

condition of uniform motion of translation. Relative to K' the

mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good exactly as they do

with

respect to K.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Chapter V.

Even if other posters can't distingush

the first from the second postulate of SR

that doesn't excuse the original poster from

withdrawing or substantiating words he has

credited to another person. (Einstein)

No results found for

"Light always travels at a constant speed in a

vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"

Since light has no mass to couple to a gravito-inertial

field, but the original poster persist in advancing

formula as tho it did. The issue is likely more

than just semantics or errors in translation.

I don't understand your objection, Sue.

Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum relative to any

inertial frame of reference.

That implies observer dependence.

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

<<Second Postulate: Speed of light is independent

of the speed of the source and the observer

This flows directly from the Maxwell equations!>>

http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/events/stav2006/jamieson1.ppt

< A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate

transformation will convert electric or magnetic

fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,

but no transformation mixes them with the

gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml

<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical

constants which can be evaluated by performing two

simple experiments which involve measuring the force

of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed

parallel current carrying wires. According to the

relativity principle, these experiments must yield

the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial

frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same

in all inertial frames. >>

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting. Philosophically I agree with what you said, that the

speed of light is dependent on the observer. However, it is quite

possible to establish a frame of reference with no observer traveling

at that speed. Either way, there is a Coordinate system associated

with Maxwell's Laws, either x, y, and z, or r, theta and phi.

<< In physics, an inertial frame of reference is

a reference frame, tied to the state of motion

of an observer, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

It is

with this coordinate system with a point (0,0,0) or (0,theta,phi)

which is either traveling, or not traveling with respect to the

source, or the observer, and it is this point or any other point in

the coordinate system with which the speed of light is constant.

For there to be divergence and curl and all those neato things in

electrodynamics, you have to have a coordinate system, and that's

essentially the same thing as an inertial reference frame.

Time-dependent Maxwell's equationshttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

I don't know if it was your intention, but you've convinced me,

qualitatively, Uncle Ben has given an equivalent statement of this

second postulate, differing only in semantics.

Well, I guess Einstein just wrote that observer

independence in so Uncle_Ben could take it out.

Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Androcles's accusations of lying***From:*Androcles

**References**:**Re: Androcles's accusations of lying***From:*Chris

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Androcles's accusations of lying** - Next by thread:
**Re: Androcles's accusations of lying** - Index(es):