Re: Hansen discovers how to reason.

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: 21 Jan 2005 06:56:40 -0800

Androcles wrote:
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message

> news:csp4m3$o1g$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> > In article <vORHd.183456$Z7.129917@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > Androcles <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
> >>news:csjk47$qic$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> >>> In article <5SbHd.171372$Z7.140144@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >>> Androcles <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> >>>>message
> >>>>news:csjf6l$noi$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> >>>>> In article <8SaHd.170793$Z7.4631@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >>>>> Androcles <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Oh, I know what was said.
> >>>>Ahh.. the alarm clock went off and woke you up?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Let A depart from B with a velocity -v...",
> >>>>> and when I asked you about that, according to the quoted
portions
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> Franz's message, you accused me of illiteracy and then quoted
some
> >>>>> text
> >>>>> from Einstein starting with "If at the point A of space there
is a
> >>>>> clock,
> >>>>> an observer at A..." that in no way suggested that there was an
> >>>>> observer
> >>>>> or a point in space that departed from B or was moving with a
> >>>>> velocity -v.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I didn't want to immediately accuse you of changing definitions

> >>>>> and
> >>>>> making
> >>>>> up stuff with scant resemblence to Einstein's procedure.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Scant resemblence? Scant fucking resemblence? You really are a
> >>>>trip!
> >>>>Einstein's definition applies IF and ONLY IF A and B are
relatively
> >>>>at
> >>>>REST.
> >>>> It is totally incorrect to claim that the time for light to
travel
> >>>>from A to B is half the time it takes to travel from A to B and
back
> >>>>to
> >>>>A again, if there is any relative motion between A and B (IN
> >>>>AGREEMENT
> >>>>WITH EXPERIENCE).
> >>>>
> >>>>Einstein's "procedure" is called fucking guesswork and nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>>So I asked for
> >>>>> clarification.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You wouldn't need a clarification if you'd done your homework
and
> >>>>read
> >>>>Einstein's text. What have I got to do, keep repeating it?
Fucking
> >>>>wake
> >>>>up!
> >>>
> >>> No matter how many times you repeat it, Einstein's procedure did
not
> >>> involve a moving observer A. That one is all you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>No matter how often I have to repeat it, Einstein's procedure is
ONLY
> >>valid
> >>if the observer doesn't move. The moment v > 0 comes into an
> >>equation,
> >>his procedure is nonsense.
> >
> > Of course. His procedure is, after all, for a stationary observer
to
> > synchronize stationary clock in a stationary frame. A moving
observer
> > doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> Exactly right. A movign observer doesnlt make much sense,
>
> But ...... the sneaky *** tries it anyway.
>
> If you lie with dogs, you'll get up with fleas.
> Half the time for the light to go from A to B and back again equals
the
> time for
> the light to go from A to B, that's Einstein's "procedure" that you
see
> nothing wrong with, and I say is ok *PROVIDED* A and B don't move.
> What does the cunning fucker do? He separates B from A at velocity v!
>
> First he whines
>
> "From the origin of system k [all that A]et a ray be emitted at the
> time tau0 along the X-axis to x' [call that B] and at the time tau2
be
> reflected thence to the origin of the co-ordinates [A again],
arriving
> there at the time tau2;

Just stepping in long enough to ask for clarification.
Which point, A or B, is moving in k? One of them has to be moving in k
for them to separate, right?

PD

> we then MUST [my capitalization] have" (yeah,
> those are his words.... Are you ready for this?..... TADA !! ) half

> the time for the light to go from A to B and back again equals the
time
> to it takes to go from A to B."
> except I've put it in words, the snide shitbag wants to do it in
> coordinates to create maximum confusion, the true skill of the
huckster!
> So he writes:
>
> (1/2) (tau0 + tau2) = tau1,
> or
> (1/2) ( t_A + t'A )= t_B
>
>
>
> The fucking fraud may have hoodwinked the smart-arses who want to
> pretend they know what he is saying, since Joe Average doesn't have
a
> clue anyway, but the poxy lying dog hasn't fooled me.
> I'm not a bigheaded Alan Schwartz with an inferiority complex that
wants
> to be superior and call everyone "idiot", nor am I as smart as
Einstein,
> but I'm no fraud either.
>
>
> > Once those clocks are synchronized, and a moving observer with
moving
> > clocks in a moving frame synchronizes his own clocks, the clock in
one
> > frame can be related to the clocks in another.
>
> The light speed between frames cannot be, though. There is only one
ray
> of light.
>
>
> >> Just how thick can you be?
> >
> > You're a tough act to follow.
>
> I'm not an act. I'm for real. Einstein is the actor. He even says
"the
> velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> infinitely great velocity."
> I'm not playing a part at all. I'm playing cop. Einstein's fraud
needs
> to be uncovered, but it does take a smidgeon of intelligence to see
how
> it was done.
>
> Don't you think it would be a whole lot easier for me to go along
with
> it and continue preaching the nonsense, so that all these other
> contributors would then say " Good ol' Androcles, he knows what he's
> talking about." when all I'd have to do is quote Einstein?
> I could be a fraud too. It's easy.
> Want me to show you I can derive the Lorentz Transforms?
> Want me to use all the pretty prose and lie through my teeth?
> I can, you know. I can say "obviously" and "in agreement with
> experience" and "clearly" and "we then must have" just like Einstein.
> But I don't lie with the dog, and I don't have his fleas.
>
> Androcles.

Quantcast