Re: Relativity


"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:foqac5$o8q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Peter" Poakfield@xxxxxxx wrote
| news:8d3014bd-dfdc-4fd2-ad75-eeab762fa560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| > Hi! Does anyone really understand relativity? I mean, why?
|
| Me.
| It is very easy.
| In 1905 Einstein can wrote: "Examples of this sort, together withto
discover
| any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,"
|
| " the unsuccessful attempts " becomes not truth after Sagnac experiment
| (1913) and Michelson-Gale experiment (1925). So SR is like a homework
"what
| would be if".
| Lorentz proposed shortening of apparatus, Einstein time dilation you can
try
| to propose something else. But we must admit that it is a "beautiful piece
| to teach" (math physics of course).
|
| At that time "the ``light medium" was like a solid body. The "homework" is
| for such. But now are people who are sure that the light medium rotates
| around the Sun together with planets.
| S*

HAHAHA!
And gentle stirred by the planet's moons.
Let's see if you understand this:


Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


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

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Contraction Dilemma
    ... |> I get your point but is this NG a pub or soccer game? ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ... "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, ... Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comment on Wikipedia entry: Simple inference of time dilation
    ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ... "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, ... Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, ... to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Four mirror Sagnac
    ... :>: phase relationship) from the Sagnac experiment on not the other way ... I'm saying read what Einstein wrote, ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ... "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity
    ... Do you understand that relativity made Einstein wealthy and famous? ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ... "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity
    ... Does anyone really understand relativity? ... | Lorentz proposed shortening of apparatus, Einstein time dilation you can ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ... to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. ...
    (sci.physics)