Re: Eleaticus confirms that SR has been disproved!


"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:02996ca5$0$31363$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w9eim.27526$D91.15291@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.

Well .. more correctly it is an equation .. and the '=' sign is the
equality.
It would be an inequation if it used an inequality.

(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

That is an equation that is wrong.

We have so far defined only a ``LHS'' and a ``RHS''. We have not
defined a common ``inequality'' for LHS and RHS, for the latter
cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
``RHS' is not equal to ``LHS'' .

It's an inequality because I say so and I've used Einstein's motor mouth
which gives me the authority to define anything I fuckin' want to.




But actually it should be (tau(1)+ tau(2))/2 = tau(1)

That is not equivalent to what the above says though

Yes it is.
tau(1) = tau_1.
tau(2) = tau_2.
tau(3) = tau_1 +tau_ 2.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif


Einstein's equation is not of that form.

Yes it is.

There are should not be two
occurrences of tau(1).

Too bad. 1/2 of (35 minutes plus 30 minutes) = 35 minutes,
the other half is 30 minutes.
x'/(c-v) = 35 minutes, x'/(c+v) = 30 minutes.
Look, this real easy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm

See, we assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions.



Einstein's equation is of the form

(tau(1)+ tau(3))/2 = tau(2)

The form is
(tau(0,orange, 1)+ tau(0,dog's breakfast, 3))/2 = tau(x', hairdryer, 2)
The orange, dog's breakfast and hairdryer are as irrelevant as x,y, and z
and vanish in the derivative that follows. They were only put there to
confuse
fuckwits.


The form you used would just be silly, seeing the tau values are times,
not *differences* in times. That would mean you are saying tau(1) =
tau(2), and that means the light took zero time.

You mean instants and not durations, don't you?
Trouble is, motor mouth, x'/(c-v) is a duration.
Anyway, it's ok for the light to take zero time in SR.

"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless;
we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our
theory
plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" -- Albert
Einstein,
who plays the part, physically, of Widow Twankey in Alladin and his
Wonderful Lamp, the fuckin' pantomime clown.



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.

The equations he referred to (the Lorentz transforms) are linear

Bull***, he hasn't got to them yet. Nor can he derive them.


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

I think

Do you have any empirical evidence to support that absurd hypothesis?



you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_map

Don't tell me what I mean. I tell you want I mean. Einstein's crap is not
linear,
you stupid twat.



Also refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group
The tau function from the Lorentz transforms is
Tau(x,y) = gamma(t - vx/c^2)

You have no magic "gamma", you pulled it out of a hat.


Is obviosuly linear (we can ignore the y and z here) (NOTE: Einstein used
the symbol Beta instead of the, now, more familiar gamma)

We haven't got that far yet. We are still stuck on his inequality.



In case it isn't obvious to you
tau((x1,t1)+(x2,t2))
= tau((x1+x2,t1+t2))
= gamma((t1+t2) - v(x1+x2)/c^2)

tau((x1,t1))+tau((x2,t2))
= gamma(t1 - vx1/c^2) + gamma(t2 - vx2/c^2)
= gamma((t1+t2) - v(x1+x2)/c^2)
= tau((x1,t1)+(x2,t2))

Fuckin' hell, you can't read mathematics!

Yes .. I can

No, you can't thanks.

Sorry, I can.

Bull***, you have no idea what mathematics is.
You are right to be sorry, though.



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 saw it .. and the formula you quoted, for anyone who can read it, was
obviously unrelated to the question you asked. Unless you misunderstand
what Einstein actually wrote.

So you obviously don't comprehend plain nonsense when you see it.
I don't misunderstand anything, what I want to know is why the abject
moron said
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 should have motor-mouthed
the words "Hey Inertial, this is what I'm talking about"

That would have helped.

It's there now.


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.

Good .. now you won't confuse people with your unrelated questions.

Ok.




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,

I can

Liar.


Einstein the moron said those "times"
(in quotes, not times without quotes) were the same.

No .. he did not. Quoted or otherwise

Yes he did, you stupid lying twat.

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at
A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of
events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without
further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an
event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' 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."


But you can't read.

I clearly can

You don't even know what "clear" means, you lying idiot.


The inequality I cited above DOES say those "times" are the same

No .. it does not. You clearly cannot read.

Lying arsehole.



AND it does say the speeds are c-v and c+v because the terms c+v
and c-v clearly appear...

Sorry .. I thought you understood physics and mathematics .. I was
mistaken

You should be sorry.





but you are too fuckin' stupid to read simple
algebra.

On the contrary .. I read and understand it far better than you in this
case.

No evidence of that.




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.

Yes .. it is .. see above

No it isn't. See above.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tAB=tBA.gif

An irrelevant animation does not mean it is not linear

How would you know?



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!

The only problem is that you don't understand it


Ok, times up. All you can manage is simple denial.
You are obviously a complete fuckwit.

Where does Einstein say "light travels at c in that system as well",
motor mouth?

In his second postulate. It travels at c in every system.

Liar.
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

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."

Yes he did..

So light doesn't travel at c in every system, you fuckin' stupid ***.



though again you have problems understanding. That is the
closing speed between the ray and the initial point of k, both of which
are moving in the stationary system. So you need to subtract their speeds
to get closing speed.

Please try to follow what is said. It is not really that difficult

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

Yes .. very clear

So light doesn't travel at c in every system, you fuckin' stupid ***.



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,

Exactly. thanks for agreeing :)

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

I'd love to take credit for SR .. but I can't.

Thanks for agreeing you are an ignorant twat. :)

Goodbye.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.







.

Quantcast