Re: Einstein "mixem up his frades"


"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7d3b7d70-bdd2-4852-a653-28b5c5513fe7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John Parker, "Androcles",' has finally given us enough information to
be able to diagnosis his ridiculous assertion -- that Einstein in his
initial SR paper of 1905 derived a formula expressing the dilation of
a rigid rod's length because of its motion.

The received wisdom of the century has been that what was shown was
instead a contraction, the very phenomenon that Fitzgerald, Lorentz
and others had hypothesized so as to explain the null result of the
Michelson-Morley Experiment. John "observes" that the Einstein
Dilation was derived by AE but was misunderstood as a contraction in
spite of algebraic proof of a dilation.

In his gentle way, John excuses AE for the error on grounds of
insanity.

In a message to our friend Glird today (US time) in the thread called
"Linear",

news:
2a4f3d6e-82ec-44e6-9ee7-26be3d2ec17b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(I can't swear to the link. Google doesn't do links well.
Please advise me on a better news reader.)

John repeated his assertion, but this time he explained what his
symbols mean. This was a first, to my knowledge. Here are his words:

Note that Einstein doesn't know what a ratio is and gets his frades mixem
up.
...
xi = x'/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
xi is the length of the moving rod,
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than one.
When I went to school 2 = 1/0.5, the moving rod gets longer with
increasing speed. i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the
lengthening.

John may be amazed to read that I agree with him that
xi > x ! But what is "xi"?

While we must agree with John's arithmetic, we should try to verify
his assertion that
"xi is the length of the moving rod." Moving w.r.t. what?

Presumably, with respect to the frame L[aboratory] in which it is
moving. (Otherwise, one immediately gets a contraction.)

The K-frame,
the ectoplasm frame,
the astral plane frame,
the absolute frame,
the universal frame,
the aether frame,
the one that doesn't exist frame.

It is NOT the embankment frame or
the train frame, those are relative.
No presumption about it, Einstein was a proven kook.


Our conclusion will be to respectfully disagree.

The Bonehead contention:
The empty space (xi, k-frame, moving "stationary" frame) gets longer
because the stationary "moving" sphere of radius R (x', K-frame) gets
shorter.
The faster the empty space travels the longer it gets.
Insane Bonehead insists xi > x' and xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2), Einstein said so.

The train (xi, k-frame, moving "stationary" frame) gets longer because the
embankment (x', K-frame, stationary "moving" frame ) gets shorter.
The faster the train travels the longer it gets.
Insane Bonehead insists xi > x' and xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2), Einstein said so.

The faster the embankment remains stationary the shorter it gets.
Insane Bonehead insists xi > x' and xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2), Einstein said so.

Einstein mixed up his frames.

The faster the Michelson Morley experiment remains stationary the
shorter it gets because the empty space (xi, k-frame, moving
"stationary" frame) gets longer.
Insane Bonehead insists xi > x' and xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2), Einstein said so.

And it is all so simple...
"The discovery of the aberration of light was soon followed by an
explanation according to the emission theory."
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
lex parsimoniae


Bonehead has repeatedly given us more than enough information to
be able to diagnosis his psychosis-- that Einstein in his initial SR
paper of 1905 derived an idiot formula expressing the contraction of
a train's length because of its stationariness.

We'll disagree but Uncle Bonehead Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956
American Redneck of Non-science cannot be respected as if he were
sane.

Nature doesn't care how many sheep bleat Einstein's "bah", it's still
humbug.

<crap snipped>

Disrespectfully, Androcles Ph.D. mathematics.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Androcles "mixem up his frades"
    ... John "observes" that the Einstein ... xi is the length of the moving rod, ... where the author sets up the problem of a sphere, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle Boneheads wet farts
    ... lab frame, you would have the correct answer. ... that's what Einstein says it is. ... Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks ... We envisage a rigid sphere of radius R, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle Boneheads wet farts
    ... lab frame, you would have the correct answer. ... that's what Einstein says it is. ... Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks ... We envisage a rigid sphere of radius R, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle Boneheads wet farts
    ... lab frame, you would have the correct answer. ... that's what Einstein says it is. ... Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks ... We envisage a rigid sphere of radius R, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: For Uncle Bonehead Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956 rednecked wetback hillbilly faggot of science.
    ... Androcles, for the first time ever, you have misquoted Einstein. ... rest frame in the familiar way. ... "sphere" is moving. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)