Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity - by Androcles

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:47:07 GMT

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cul1f20i67@drn.newsguy.com...
> Androcles says...
>
>>"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." -- Einstein
>
> You are reading that incorrectly. Here he is talking about the closing
> velocity of light on the "initial point of k".

Oh, for pity's sake!
What we have is the mosquito model YOU came up with, and the fucking
equation is clear enough.
Corresponding to c is the mosquito at 5 fps in still air, or light in a
vacuum.
Corresponding to x' is the 32 ft distance, scaled for light at 32 *
60,000 km.
Corresponding to v is Sam and Joe at 3 fps, or 0.6c
The initial point of k can only mean where the light starts from, which
is A or Sam.
The time for light to travel from A to the reflection point B at c-v is
60,000 km * 32 / 0.4c = 16 seconds. Sheesh!
Coming back takes 4 seconds.
The idiot McCullough has fallen for Einstein's little prank that 4
seconds equals 16 seconds.
You are pathetic, McCullough. Fucking wake up!

>
> There are three different quantities that have the dimensions of
> velocity here:
>
> 1. The speed of light as measured in the stationary frame.

5 * 60,000 km/second for 80 * 60,000 km = 16 seconds.

> 2. The speed of light as measured in the moving frame.

(5-3) * 60,000 km/second for 32 * 60,000 km = 16 seconds, and
(5+3) * 60,000 km/second for 32 * 60,000 km = 4 seconds.

> 3. The closing velocity of light on an object at rest in the
> moving frame, as measured in the stationary frame.

Bull***. There is only one mosquito (one ray of light), and only two
frames.

>
> As I said, Einstein assumes that 1 and 2 are both c:

No he doesn't. NOWHERE can you find that in his paper,
YOU are telling porkies.

> light has speed
> c in all directions, in all frames.

That's McCullough's relativity, not Einstein's. McCullough is a
bullshitter.

> 3 is of course not equal to c.
Right. Of course it isn't.
Sam is rushing toward the light at 0.6c, so the closing velocity is
1.6c.
That's where the c+v comes in, and the 4 seconds.
Joe is moving away from the light, the light is moving away from Sam,
so for them the speed of light is 1 - 0.6 = 0.4c and it takes 16
seconds.
Einstein is claiming 4 seconds equals 16 seconds by his dumb definition.

>
> The clue that Einstein is talking about closing velocity is because
> closing velocity involves *three* reference points: the two objects,
> and a third frame.

There is no third frame. The frames are named K and k. We don't need
clues and hints. There are 3 velocities, sure. They are named c in the
stationary
frame and (c-v), (c+v) in the moving frame, just like the mosquito.
Einstein's paper is perfectly clear, even if it is stupid.

> The other two notions of velocity involve only two
> reference points: a frame, and an object. Einstein in the sentence
> quoted is talking about the closing velocity between A. the light
> ray, and B. the "initial point of k", as measured in C. the stationary
> system.

You are ranting, McCullough. You are irrational, dreaming up a third
frame.
The "initial point of k" is A (or Sam).
The point of reflection is B (or Joe)

Einstein says:
"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'' [16 seconds]required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' [ 4 seconds] it requires to travel from B to A.

That's why I asked you "WHY does Einstein think (16 +4)/2 = 16?"
I'm still asking you.
WHY does the cretin think 16 = 4?

Androcles

Quantcast