Re: Eleaticus confirms that SR has been disproved!


"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:029944ad$0$20627$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ntbim.95732$Cj1.64635@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:02993198$0$8693$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZCaim.199927$fS3.42660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"hdbanannah" <hdbanannah@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:90a59eb7-aa1a-495b-9242-0e49d0bb0219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ooh, Motormouth, huh?

Yes.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
What the answer, moronic motormouth?

==
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?
==
I assume you are referring to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

Close enough.


Are you talking about his definition of synchronized clocks?

Fuckin' hell, can't you read mathematics?

Yes, I can thanks.

Writing ideas in algebra is shorthand to save motor mouthing.

Yes, it is

I'm talking about his stooopid inequality
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] =
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v)) ,

Its an equality, actually .. there is an = sign there,

Oh sure. (One hour + two hours) divided by two EQUALS one hour.
It must be an equality, I motor-mouthed EQUALS.
Want it in algebra?
(1 + 2)/2 = 1

But actually it should be (tau(1)+ tau(2))/2 = tau(1) because motor mouth
charlatan Einstein says
"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"
and in the second place it ISN'T fuckin' linear.

a.. Additivity (also called the superposition property): f(x + y) = f(x) +
f(y). This says that f is a group homomorphism with respect to addition.
a.. Homogeneity of degree 1: f(ax) = af(x) for all a.

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear

Fuckin' hell, you can't read mathematics!
No, you can't thanks.


but anyway

it's shorthand for
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.

What I want to know is why the stupid *** said that.

Well .. now I know what part of the document you were talking about ..

Well done, I wrote it at the top of the fuckin' page and you needed
a further explanation. I congratulate you on your remarkable ability
to be so stupid as to not see it. I should have motor-mouthed
the words "Hey Inertial, this is what I'm talking about"
and then wrote
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
x'/(c-v))
I'll do that now.
(pause)
Ok, done, it's in red type on a yellow background, you should be able
to find it.


Einstein has said light is travelling from the origin of the moving system
to a point x', where x' = x-vt

Yes, he did.

So, in the stationary frame, the light travels distance x = x' + vt

Yes, it does.


As light is travelling at c in the stationary frame (NOT travelling at c-v
as you said), it takes time
t1 = x/c = (x'+vt1)/c = x' / (c-v)
to travel there.

Well, well, well, ain't that amazing! Right on, sonny.




Similarly, for the return journey, it takes light travelling at c (NOT
travelling c+v as your said) time
t2 = x' / (c+v)
to return to the (now moved) origin.

Well, well, well, ain't that amazing! Right on, sonny.



The equation you cited above does not say those times are the same. Nor
does it say the speeds are c-v and c+v.

If you could read, Einstein the moron said those "times"
(in quotes, not times without quotes) were the same. But you can't read.

The inequality I cited above DOES say those "times" are the same
AND it does say the speeds are c-v and c+v because the terms c+v
and c-v clearly appear... but you are too fuckin' stupid to read simple
algebra.



However, there is a function (tau) of position and time in the stationary
system that gives the corresponding time in the moving system.

Which (however) is NOT linear.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tAB=tBA.gif

In the moving system, the difference in the two corresponding times (given
by the tau function) are the same (which is what the equation you cite is
actually saying). There is no problem with that, as the distances
travelled in the moving system are the same, and light travels at c in
that system as well.

There is fuckin' BIG problem with that!
Where does Einstein say "light travels at c in that system as well", motor
mouth?
What Einstein the imbecile REALLY said is
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
That's fuckin' clear enough, isn't it?


It seems you made a mistake in your reading of the formula and the
accompanying text. And so the answer to your 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?
==
Is that he didn't say that at all.


Yeah, right, Einstein didn't write SR and he didn't say anything at all. The
ignorant twat calling itself "Inertial" wrote SR.




.

Quantcast