Re: Since google prevents me to answer post to inertial.
Y.Porat
> Well if S denotes seconds then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for
> D, and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>
> Take this example: A and B are lightsensors, C and D emitters
>
> System A and B are at rest, spatially separated 300 000 km apart
> C travels at 0.0000000001 and D at 0.9999999999 towards system "A ->
> B"
>
> When they at same moment T(E) are on each side of A both fire a pulse.
>
> When the both pulses at same moment, reach B they will travel parallel
> there according to ***INERTIAL***.
>
> The separation between D and lightpulse is 3 cm
> The separation between C and lightpulse is 299 999,99997 km
>
> That is not invariant, and for each second passed the distances will
> follow....
>
> If S denotes seconds, then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for D,
> and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>
> That have nothing soever todo with ROS.
>
> JT
-------------------
whats going on here??!!
let me understand it
did the croook Inertial did something
that enables him to attack you
and prevents you to respond ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
JT
>
> - Visa citerad text -
No it is probably a google malfunction, but i posted three (wrote
three replies in the tread, physics defeated by simple puzzle i got
responses from google published but they never showed up. So i decided
start a new thread with the answer.
JT
Inertial
news:5a2dbdc9-4adc-4093...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 1:14 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The original post does not appear on my news-server .. weird. Only saw it
because stalker porat replied to it.
>> Well if S denotes seconds then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for
>> D, and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>>
>> Take this example: A and B are lightsensors, C and D emitters
OK
>> System A and B are at rest, spatially separated 300 000 km apart
>> C travels at 0.0000000001 and D at 0.9999999999 towards system "A ->
>> B"
D--------->
A B
C->
>> When they at same moment T(E) are on each side of A both fire a pulse.
D
A B
C
>> When the both pulses at same moment, reach B they will travel parallel
>> there according to ***INERTIAL***.
They travel parallel at the same speed all the time according to SR
So when pulses (path shown by .) get to B
...D.
A B
C....
>> The separation between D and lightpulse is 3 cm
OK
>> The separation between C and lightpulse is 299 999,99997 km
OK
>> That is not invariant,
Yes it is .. light travelled at c, regardless of the speed of C and D.
That C and D moved after the light was emitted doesn't change that
>> and for each second passed the distances will
>> follow....
>>
>> If S denotes seconds, then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for D,
>> and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>>
>> That have nothing soever todo with ROS.
No .. it has EVERYTHING to do with RoS. Its because you ignore RoS that you
get contradictory results.
Your logic is this
1) SR says A (invariant light speed)
2) SR says B (RoS) but will assume it is false
3) You get contradictions
4) Therefore SR is wrong
Of course, that is not a logically valid conclusion. What is wrong is the
assuption that if you assume part of SR is wrong, or does not apply, then
the result is something that is NOT-SR, and it is that NOT-SR that is
contradictory.
>> JT
>
> -------------------
> whats going on here??!!
>
> let me understand it
> did the croook Inertial did something
> that enables him to attack you
> and prevents you to respond ???
Nope. He's the one making attacks anyway. I'm defending what SR says
against his lies.
JT
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well you are stupid, you see i ***forgot to tell you*** that 1 second
before C and D passed A object E travelling at 0.9999999999 passed A.
That means that E and D are relative at rest spatially separated 300
000 km. Do you understand yes or no?
Now the conundrum after 1 second the lightbeam from D only travelled 3
cm towards E, where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go, light should
travel at c to be invariant not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
Or are you maybe thinking that your 3 ECDT turd centimeters represent
300 000 km?
Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own lightpulses****
if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000 km
relative it in one second to be invariant, problem for SR is that it
is a logical fallacy.
Anyone can see that above.
> >> and for each second passed the distances will
> >> follow....
>
> >> If S denotes seconds, then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for D,
> >> and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>
> >> That have nothing soever todo with ROS.
>
> No .. it has EVERYTHING to do with RoS. Its because you ignore RoS that you
> get contradictory results.
No it has not SR is a logical fallacy see above.
> Your logic is this
>
> 1) SR says A (invariant light speed)
> 2) SR says B (RoS) but will assume it is false
> 3) You get contradictions
> 4) Therefore SR is wrong
No it is not SR is a logical fallacy see above.
> Of course, that is not a logically valid conclusion. What is wrong is the
> assuption that if you assume part of SR is wrong, or does not apply, then
> the result is something that is NOT-SR, and it is that NOT-SR that is
> contradictory.
No the light do not travel at c between D and E only 3 cm, light
invariance is a logical fallacy.
Inertial
"JT" <jonas.t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b1a9148-8d1c-4033...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
No .. I understnad SR .. unlike you
> you see i ***forgot to tell you*** that 1 second
> before C and D passed A object E travelling at 0.9999999999 passed A.
Doesn't make any difference
> That means that E and D are relative at rest spatially separated 300
> 000 km. Do you understand yes or no?
Yes
D E--------->
A B
C->
Doesn't change anything
> Now the conundrum after 1 second the lightbeam from D only travelled 3
> cm towards E,
Light traveled one light second toward E (not 3cm).. but E also moved away.
> where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go,
There is no missing 299 999,99997 km. That is how far E moved after D
emitted the pulse.
> light should
> travel at c to be invariant
It does
> not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
It doesn't. D and E are moving. Light is travelling at c
[snip turd nonsense]
> Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
Nope. Doesn't make any difference. SR still works
> Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own lightpulses****
They can have different separation speeds depending on who is measuring
them. The speed of light realtive to the emitter is always c
> if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
> inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000 km
> relative it in one second to be invariant,
It does
> problem for SR is that it
> is a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy is your 'logic;
1) SR says A (invariant light speed)
2) SR says B (RoS) but will assume it is false
3) You get contradictions
4) Therefore SR is wrong
Step 4 does not follow
> Anyone can see that above.
Only someone who doesn't understand SR (like you).
>> >> and for each second passed the distances will
>> >> follow....
>>
>> >> If S denotes seconds, then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for D,
>> >> and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.
>>
>> >> That have nothing soever todo with ROS.
>>
>> No .. it has EVERYTHING to do with RoS. Its because you ignore RoS that
>> you
>> get contradictory results.
>
> No it has not SR is a logical fallacy see above.
No .. it doesn't.
>> Your logic is this
>>
>> 1) SR says A (invariant light speed)
>> 2) SR says B (RoS) but will assume it is false
>> 3) You get contradictions
>> 4) Therefore SR is wrong
>
> No it is not SR is a logical fallacy see above.
No .. it doesn't.
>> Of course, that is not a logically valid conclusion. What is wrong is
>> the
>> assuption that if you assume part of SR is wrong, or does not apply, then
>> the result is something that is NOT-SR, and it is that NOT-SR that is
>> contradictory.
>
> No the light do not travel at c between D and E
Yes .. it does. But D and E move as well.
> only 3 cm, light
> invariance is a logical fallacy.
The only logical fallacy is your pathetic attempt at refuting SR by saying
it says things that it doesn't. Someone as clever as you claim to be should
understand that. I suspect your claims of being of above average
intelligence are just as fallacious as your supposed refutation.
JT
> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No fuck your ASCII is bad
C
A-----------------B.E
D
> D E--------->
> A B
> C->
>
> Doesn't change anything
>
> > Now the conundrum after 1 second the lightbeam from D only travelled 3
> > cm towards E,
>
> Light traveled one light second toward E (not 3cm).. but E also moved away.
No you stupid D and E, ****ARE AT RELATIVE REST WORTH EACHOTHER****
> > where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go,
>
> There is no missing 299 999,99997 km. That is how far E moved after D
> emitted the pulse.
No you stupid fuck they are relative at rest both have velocity
0,9999999999 worth system A and B.
Light should however travel at c between them not 3 cm per second,
light travel 300 000 km between spatially separated and relative at
rest A and B, i demand light to travel 300 000 km between spatially
separated and relative at rest D and E
otherwise it is not invariant. Do you understand?
> > light should
> > travel at c to be invariant
>
> It does
No anyone can see what i wrote above... it is that simple. 3 cm is not
equal to 300 000 km
> > not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
>
> It doesn't. D and E are moving. Light is travelling at c
So now light do not longer travel at c between two objects ***relative
at rest*** separated by 300 000 km, where are your references to this
i have not seen it mentioned that 3 cm towards other object during the
second should be OK???????????????????
> [snip turd nonsense]
>
> > Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
>
> Nope. Doesn't make any difference. SR still works
Anyone can read the thread and see it doesn't so why pretend?
> > Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own lightpulses****
>
> They can have different separation speeds depending on who is measuring
> them. The speed of light realtive to the emitter is always c
Well c is not defined 3 cm/s.............................. both object
D and E is relative at rest 300 000km apart... how come light only
move 3 cm towards E during a second?????????????
> > if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
> > inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000 km
> > relative it in one second to be invariant,
>
> It does
No it does not travel 300 000 km towards relative at rest object E,
********ONLY 3 CM-********
> > problem for SR is that it
> > is a logical fallacy.
>
> The logical fallacy is your 'logic;
Fuck you are a stupid bot inertial.
> intelligence are just as fallacious as your supposed refutation.- Dölj citerad text -
Inertial
Ahh .. I put too much gap between D and E compared to A and B
So when E passes A
D E--------->
A B
C->
When D passes A
D E--------->
A B
C->
And it still doesn't change anything
>> Doesn't change anything
>>
>> > Now the conundrum after 1 second the lightbeam from D only travelled 3
>> > cm towards E,
>>
>> Light traveled one light second toward E (not 3cm).. but E also moved
>> away.
>
> No you stupid D and E, ****ARE AT RELATIVE REST WORTH EACHOTHER****
I didn't say they weren't, you moron. In the frame of the diagram, E moved
away
>> > where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go,
>>
>> There is no missing 299 999,99997 km. That is how far E moved after D
>> emitted the pulse.
>
> No you stupid fuck they are relative at rest
I know. E still moved (and so did D) after the pulse was emitted (in the
frame of our discussion, which is that of A and B)
> both have velocity
> 0,9999999999 worth system A and B.
I know.
> Light should however travel at c between them
It does travel at c .. in every frame of reference.
If you want to change frames to the frame of reference of D and E, then
light still travels at c there. Like most novices, you confuse velocity
relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
objects in a frame.
> not 3 cm per second,
> light travel 300 000 km between spatially separated and relative at
> rest A and B, i demand light to travel 300 000 km between spatially
> separated and relative at rest D and E
> otherwise it is not invariant. Do you understand?
The question is .. do you. The answer is. No, you don't
>> > light should
>> > travel at c to be invariant
>>
>> It does
>
> No anyone can see what i wrote above... it is that simple. 3 cm is not
> equal to 300 000 km
Noone says it is. But your claim that light travels at anything other than
c in any inertial frame is wrong. Like most novices, you confuse velocity
relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
objects in a frame.
>
>> > not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
>>
>> It doesn't. D and E are moving. Light is travelling at c
>
> So now light do not longer travel at c between two objects ***relative
> at rest*** separated by 300 000 km,
Yes it does .. in their frame. But not in a frame where they are both
moving. Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with
the separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
> where are your references to this
SR .. try studying it one day. Or better .. for MORE than one day.
> i have not seen it mentioned that 3 cm towards other object during the
> second should be OK???????????????????
Then you've not understood much
>> [snip turd nonsense]
>>
>> > Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
>>
>> Nope. Doesn't make any difference. SR still works
>
> Anyone can read the thread and see it doesn't so why pretend?
I'm not pretending. . you are pretending to understand what SR says .. and
failing badly
>> > Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own lightpulses****
>>
>> They can have different separation speeds depending on who is measuring
>> them. The speed of light realtive to the emitter is always c
>
> Well c is not defined 3 cm/s..............................
Noone says it is.
> both object
> D and E is relative at rest 300 000km apart... how come light only
> move 3 cm towards E during a second?????????????
Because E (and D) move in the frame where light only closes by 3cm on E.
Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
>> > if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
>> > inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000 km
>> > relative it in one second to be invariant,
>>
>> It does
>
> No it does not travel 300 000 km towards relative at rest object E,
Yes it does, in the frame of A and B. E moves while it is doing so, so the
net distance is 3CM
If you look at things from the frame of D and E, then the light travels one
light-second from D toward E in one second.
Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
> ********ONLY 3 CM-********
Only in the frame of A and B.
>> > problem for SR is that it
>> > is a logical fallacy.
>>
>> The logical fallacy is your 'logic;
>
> Fuck you are a stupid bot inertial.
Nope. You just can't think logically .. or do not understand SR .. or both.
JT
Well if it is diagram and the origo was around A, now we put origo
around D it doesn't change anything light still only moved 3 cm/s
relative E.
> >> > where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go,
>
> >> There is no missing 299 999,99997 km. That is how far E moved after D
> >> emitted the pulse.
>
> > No you stupid fuck they are relative at rest
>
> I know. E still moved (and so did D) after the pulse was emitted (in the
> frame of our discussion, which is that of A and B)
Are you fucking dense in the head emitters do not move versus
lightpulses if not accelerated.
> > both have velocity
> > 0,9999999999 worth system A and B.
>
> I know.
Well you could had fooled me.
> > Light should however travel at c between them
>
> It does travel at c .. in every frame of reference.
No now you try to change Einsteins postulate light moves at c
****thrus space regardless velocity of emitter*** there is 300 000 km
of space that the D and E are at rest within, yet light only moved 3
cm during one elapsed second.
Are you aware of that it takes ********317 years for your invariant
light at 3 cm******* to move the 300 000 km between D and E,
300 000 00000/3 =100 000 00000 seconds that is 317 years.
Did you know that the D and E are 317 lightyear away from system A and
B when the light pulse fired between the two relative stationary
objects D and E reach E?
For me a light that takes 317 years to travel 300 000 km between two
objects that are relative at rest hardly invariant.
And i do not like your tries to define absolute motion for velocity,
that is not part of special relativity, all objects can be considered
inertial.
Your ECDT do not measure shit.
> If you want to change frames to the frame of reference of D and E, then
> light still travels at c there. Like most novices, you confuse velocity
> relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
> objects in a frame.
No fuck of course i should accept that the 317 years the light takes
to travel from D to E to be the same as the one second it took between
A and B. It is the same invariant velocity, no fuck RoS fuck ECDT,
fuck your worthless math.
>
> > not 3 cm per second,
> > light travel 300 000 km between spatially separated and relative at
> > rest A and B, i demand light to travel 300 000 km between spatially
> > separated and relative at rest D and E
> > otherwise it is not invariant. Do you understand?
>
> The question is .. do you. The answer is. No, you don't
Oh i understand that 300 000 km/317 years<>300 000 km/s.
But you are so fucking dent you have no clue.
> >> > light should
> >> > travel at c to be invariant
>
> >> It does
>
> > No anyone can see what i wrote above... it is that simple. 3 cm is not
> > equal to 300 000 km
>
> Noone says it is. But your claim that light travels at anything other than
> c in any inertial frame is wrong. Like most novices, you confuse velocity
> relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
> objects in a frame.
I have fucking not mentioned your turd frame i said thru empty space.
>
>
> >> > not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
>
> >> It doesn't. D and E are moving. Light is travelling at c
>
> > So now light do not longer travel at c between two objects ***relative
> > at rest*** separated by 300 000 km,
>
> Yes it does .. in their frame. But not in a frame where they are both
> moving. Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with
> the separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
No fuck you lie about Einsteins intention invariant thru space is
quite different then within a ECDT turdframe.
> > where are your references to this
>
> SR .. try studying it one day. Or better .. for MORE than one day.
Would never study a theory that can not handle units.
> > i have not seen it mentioned that 3 cm towards other object during the
> > second should be OK???????????????????
>
> Then you've not understood much
>
> >> [snip turd nonsense]
>
> >> > Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
>
> >> Nope. Doesn't make any difference. SR still works
>
> > Anyone can read the thread and see it doesn't so why pretend?
>
> I'm not pretending. . you are pretending to understand what SR says .. and
> failing badly
>
> >> > Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own lightpulses****
>
> >> They can have different separation speeds depending on who is measuring
> >> them. The speed of light realtive to the emitter is always c
>
> > Well c is not defined 3 cm/s..............................
>
> Noone says it is.
Oh you did see above.
> > both object
> > D and E is relative at rest 300 000km apart... how come light only
> > move 3 cm towards E during a second?????????????
>
> Because E (and D) move in the frame where light only closes by 3cm on E.
> Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
> separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
No fuck now you are dreaming that is not invariant end of story, no
invariant units no invariant light.
> >> > if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
> >> > inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000 km
> >> > relative it in one second to be invariant,
>
> >> It does
>
> > No it does not travel 300 000 km towards relative at rest object E,
>
> Yes it does, in the frame of A and B. E moves while it is doing so, so the
> net distance is 3CM
By the time it reach E both A and B is 317 ly away bwahahahahahah
invariant.
> If you look at things from the frame of D and E, then the light travels one
> light-second from D toward E in one second.
It is still not invariant light, D could have fired a pulse backwards
also when passing A that light pulse is 317 ly away the forward pulse
is one ls away. That is not invariant either i can go on all day.
> Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
> separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
>
> > ********ONLY 3 CM-********
>
> Only in the frame of A and B.
Well you do not use units, how can i prove you wrong see above regard
separation distance bacwards you claim
(300 000 km)1 ls=317 lightyears
How could i ever prove anyone wrong who with a straight face can state
that the moon is made of cheese basicly you are a lunatic.
Everyone can see it but there is no way to convince you....
JT
> >> > problem for SR is that it
> >> > is a logical fallacy.
>
> >> The logical fallacy is your 'logic;
>
> > Fuck you are a stupid bot inertial.
>
> Nope. You just can't think logically .. or do not understand SR .. or both.- Dölj citerad text -
JT
Sorry i was wrong is should be 634 ly since bacward lightpulse moved
317 years relative a also.
It does not exacly improve your case though.............. 1 ls does
not equal 634 ly
JT
Inertial
You have admitted you have never studied SR, so you are speaking out of
total ignorance. Study it first .. see what SR *ACTUALLY* says, and then
come back. If you can't (or wont') then you are simply dishonest and a
fraud in claiming to refute SR.
Inertial
WRONG .. changing the frame of reference changes things in SR. If you say
otherwise, you are no longer talking about SR, but your
misinterpration-of-SR (and that misinterpretation is most certainly
nonsense)
>> >> > where did the missing 299 999,99997 km go,
>>
>> >> There is no missing 299 999,99997 km. That is how far E moved after D
>> >> emitted the pulse.
>>
>> > No you stupid fuck they are relative at rest
>>
>> I know. E still moved (and so did D) after the pulse was emitted (in the
>> frame of our discussion, which is that of A and B)
>
> Are you fucking dense in the head emitters do not move versus
> lightpulses if not accelerated.
'head'? Of course emitters can move .. we have moving light sources all the
time. And if they are moving (at < c of course), they are certainly moving
wrt the light pulses.
>> > both have velocity
>> > 0,9999999999 worth system A and B.
>>
>> I know.
>
> Well you could had fooled me.
That is not hard
>> > Light should however travel at c between them
>>
>> It does travel at c .. in every frame of reference.
>
> No now you try to change Einsteins postulate
Nope. No change at all.
> light moves at c
> ****thrus space regardless velocity of emitter***
That's right.
> there is 300 000 km
> of space that the D and E are at rest within,
Yes .. and in one second it covers that distance.
> yet light only moved 3
> cm during one elapsed second.
No .. it moves 300 000 km. Hadn't you heard that light travels at c?
> Are you aware of that it takes ********317 years for your invariant
> light at 3 cm******* to move the 300 000 km between D and E,
No .. it takes one second to travel between D and E in a frame where they
are not moving
If they are moving, then it takes much longer because the distance light has
to travel is much longer
> 300 000 00000/3 =100 000 00000 seconds that is 317 years.
>
> Did you know that the D and E are 317 lightyear away from system A and
> B when the light pulse fired between the two relative stationary
> objects D and E reach E?
That's right. 317 lightyears in 317 years means it travelled at c. Thanks
for confirming that.
> For me a light that takes 317 years to travel 300 000 km between two
> objects that are relative at rest hardly invariant.
It does.. you just said it travels 317 light years. Can't you make up your
mind?
> And i do not like your tries to define absolute motion for velocity,
I didn't
> that is not part of special relativity,
I know
> all objects can be considered
> inertial.
If not accelerating
[snip ECDT nonsense]
>> If you want to change frames to the frame of reference of D and E, then
>> light still travels at c there. Like most novices, you confuse velocity
>> relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
>> objects in a frame.
>
> No fuck of course i should accept that the 317 years the light takes
> to travel from D to E to be the same as the one second it took between
> A and B.
It isn't .. its a different distance
[snip ECDT nonsense]
>> > not 3 cm per second,
>> > light travel 300 000 km between spatially separated and relative at
>> > rest A and B, i demand light to travel 300 000 km between spatially
>> > separated and relative at rest D and E
>> > otherwise it is not invariant. Do you understand?
>>
>> The question is .. do you. The answer is. No, you don't
>
> Oh i understand that 300 000 km/317 years<>300 000 km/s.
No .. its 317 light years / 317 years = c. Do try to keep up.
> But you are so fucking dent you have no clue.
'dent'?
>> >> > light should
>> >> > travel at c to be invariant
>>
>> >> It does
>>
>> > No anyone can see what i wrote above... it is that simple. 3 cm is not
>> > equal to 300 000 km
>>
>> Noone says it is. But your claim that light travels at anything other
>> than
>> c in any inertial frame is wrong. Like most novices, you confuse
>> velocity
>> relative to a frame with the separation and closing speeds between two
>> objects in a frame.
[snip turd nonsense]
>> >> > not 3 cm between D and E in one second?
>>
>> >> It doesn't. D and E are moving. Light is travelling at c
>>
>> > So now light do not longer travel at c between two objects ***relative
>> > at rest*** separated by 300 000 km,
>>
>> Yes it does .. in their frame. But not in a frame where they are both
>> moving. Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with
>> the separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
>
> No fuck you lie about Einsteins intention
no .. didn't lie about it at all
[snip turd nonsense]
>> > where are your references to this
>>
>> SR .. try studying it one day. Or better .. for MORE than one day.
>
> Would never study a theory that can not handle units.
No wonder you know nothing about it then. You're simply ignorant
>> > i have not seen it mentioned that 3 cm towards other object during the
>> > second should be OK???????????????????
>>
>> Then you've not understood much
>>
>> >> [snip turd nonsense]
>>
>> >> > Or do you want to prevent E from being at relative rest to D?
>>
>> >> Nope. Doesn't make any difference. SR still works
>>
>> > Anyone can read the thread and see it doesn't so why pretend?
>>
>> I'm not pretending. . you are pretending to understand what SR says ..
>> and
>> failing badly
>>
>> >> > Well idiot ***emitters do not move relative their own
>> >> > lightpulses****
>>
>> >> They can have different separation speeds depending on who is
>> >> measuring
>> >> them. The speed of light realtive to the emitter is always c
>>
>> > Well c is not defined 3 cm/s..............................
>>
>> Noone says it is.
>
> Oh you did see above.
I read all you nonsense
>> > both object
>> > D and E is relative at rest 300 000km apart... how come light only
>> > move 3 cm towards E during a second?????????????
>>
>> Because E (and D) move in the frame where light only closes by 3cm on E.
>> Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
>> separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
>
> No fuck now you are dreaming that is not invariant end of story,
No .. it is invariant
> no
> invariant units no invariant light.
You really are confused. Would you like to go have a little lie down?
>> >> > if not accelerated after the pulse any object can consider itself as
>> >> > inertial any object emitting light should have light travel 300 000
>> >> > km
>> >> > relative it in one second to be invariant,
>>
>> >> It does
>>
>> > No it does not travel 300 000 km towards relative at rest object E,
>>
>> Yes it does, in the frame of A and B. E moves while it is doing so, so
>> the
>> net distance is 3CM
>
> By the time it reach E both A and B is 317 ly away bwahahahahahah
> invariant.
317 ly in 317 years = c. Thanks for playing
>> If you look at things from the frame of D and E, then the light travels
>> one
>> light-second from D toward E in one second.
>
> It is still not invariant light,
Yes it is.
> D could have fired a pulse backwards
Yes it could. And it would travel at c in every inertial frame
> also when passing A that light pulse is 317 ly away the forward pulse
> is one ls away
According to A .. yes. Because D moved after emitting the light.
> That is not invariant either i can go on all day.
I'm sure you will .. you're still just as wrong.
>> Like most novices, you confuse velocity relative to a frame with the
>> separation and closing speeds between two objects in a frame.
>>
>> > ********ONLY 3 CM-********
>>
>> Only in the frame of A and B.
>
> Well you do not use units,
Yes I did .. cm
> how can i prove you wrong
You can't .. because I'm not
> see above regard
> separation distance bacwards you claim
> (300 000 km)1 ls=317 lightyears
No .. 317 light years = 317 light years. You really are bad at simple math.
[snip cheese nonsense]
> Everyone can see it but there is no way to convince you....
No .. everyone who successfully studied SR as part of physics knows I'm
right. You have admitted you have never studied SR, so you are speaking out
JT
Sorry again tired in the night 317 ly was correct.
Inertial
[snip for brevity]
JT
> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well i have both refuted it in theory and practise, basicly it does
not measure distances, velocities and absolutely not velocity of
light.
It just claim it to be invariant using ECDT that really do not measure
shit.
JT
Inertial
> On 9 mar, 03:07, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7b628595-59cc-4864...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip for brevity]
>>
>> You have admitted you have never studied SR, so you are speaking out of
>> total ignorance. Study it first .. see what SR *ACTUALLY* says, and then
>> come back. If you can't (or wont') then you are simply dishonest and a
>> fraud in claiming to refute SR.
>
> Well i have both refuted it in theory
Nope
> and practise,
Nope
> basicly it does
> not measure distances, velocities and absolutely not velocity of
> light.
Yes .. it does
>
> It just claim it to be invariant
It is
[snip ECDT nonsense]
JT
Lets go back to the main issue regarding the claim move invariant thru
space. To make such a claim you must use invariant units of at least
distance to measure the velocity from the emitter
Otherwise you will not be able to compare the velocity of light from
each of the two emitters. Since v=d/t i have a hard time to prove
anyone wrong that tells me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That the 1 second ***For any emitter regardless velocity*** sending a
pulse
between A and P spatially separated of 300 000 km and relative at
rest.
This to me represent a velocity of c.
But you claim that the 317 years it take the light to travel between D
and E spatially separated by 300 000 km also represent a second.
For me that velocity can not be ***same invariant c*** since you do
not use same time units within your ECDT measurement. An elapsed time
of 1 second can not be represented by 317 year using invariant time
unit.
To get your ********LOCAL********** one second for light to travel
between object D and E, there is something severe wrong with the
tickrate at Set [C,D](d/t=v) and the tickrate is at no instance
invariant to the tickrate at Set [A,B](d/t=v).
For me that you call it dilated time does not prevent your line of
thought from being a logical fallacy. You can not compare two sets
that use both different ***meters*** and different ***seconds*** and
then claim that the velocity coming out from each d/t above is the
same and an invariant velocity.
It is like having a normal litre of milk splitted into x number glass
of milk, and then have a smaller package of milk that use a smaller
glass and also manage to split it into x number glass of milk.
Now you proudly present that there is the same amount of milk because
both had x glass of milk inside.
I can not take this any further but set theorists should really take a
look into SR and see if the invariant velocity really comes out of
invariant sets of d/t.
Because as i proved above it do not, but since you basicly refuse what
is really happen i can not go on. I did took it to the end of line
though comparing sets with members that have different attributes but
same name and then making calculation with the setmembers and produce
a result from it calling it ****c*****.
Even if c have same ratio when calculated within the two compared
sets, it do not matter if the d/t within the sets do not have same
magnitude.
This is my understanding and why i refuse to call your measurements of
light invariant c. Simply because the attributes of members in set
[A,B] d/t do not have the same magnitude as set [C,D] d/t
JT
Inertial
Fine .. always happy to
> To make such a claim you must use invariant units of at least
> distance to measure the velocity from the emitter
Which SR uses. It uses whatever set of well-defined units you want.
> Otherwise you will not be able to compare the velocity of light from
> each of the two emitters. Since v=d/t i have a hard time to prove
> anyone wrong that tells me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which is why that is what we do
> That the 1 second ***For any emitter regardless velocity*** sending a
> pulse
> between A and P spatially separated of 300 000 km and relative at
> rest.
Yes .. any light from A to B in the frame at which they are at rest will
take 1 second, when A and B are a light-second apart.
In a frame in which they are moving, that is not that case, as B moves after
the light leaves A, and so the distance the light travels is greater and so
the time is greater.
> This to me represent a velocity of c.
That's fine
> But you claim that the 317 years it take the light to travel between D
> and E spatially separated by 300 000 km also represent a second.
Nope .. I never made any such claim. Neither does SR.
If D and E are at rest 300000km apart, light takes one second to move
between them
If D and E are at (co-)moving and no longer at rest, and still 300000km
apart, light takes different times to move between them, depending on their
velocity.
SR does NOT claim that closing speed or separation speed are the same as
relative velocity. They are quite different concepts.
Closing and separation speeds are the rate of change of distance between two
objects as measured in a frame of reference.
(Relative) Velocity is the rate of change of position of a single object in
a frame of reference.
The (relative) velocity of light is what is always c. NOT the closing or
separation speeds between light and some moving object
[snip ECDT nonsense]
> To get your ********LOCAL********** one second for light to travel
> between object D and E
You mean in the D and E frame of reference?
>, there is something severe wrong with the
> tickrate at Set [C,D](d/t=v) and the tickrate is at no instance
> invariant to the tickrate at Set [A,B](d/t=v).
WTF is this Set [A,B](d/t=v) .. you are making up terminology without
explaining it.
But yes .. a moving observer will measure the length of an object as a
different value to what a stationary observer will measure. (length
contraction)
But yes .. a moving observer will measure the tick rate of a clock as a
different value to what a stationary observer will measure. (time dilation)
But yes .. a moving observer will measure the difference in clock value as a
different value to what a stationary observer will measure. (relativity of
synchronicity)
If you do not take those into account, you are not discussing SR at all
> For me that you call it dilated time does not prevent your line of
> thought from being a logical fallacy.
Yet it is all logically consistent. Just not the same as the usual geometry
you are familiar with.
> You can not compare two sets
> that use both different ***meters*** and different ***seconds*** and
> then claim that the velocity coming out from each d/t above is the
> same and an invariant velocity.
We use the same meters and seconds in every frame of reference. A metre
long object measured at rest in one frame is the same length as a metre long
object at rest in another frame .. ie a metre long.
It is only when measuring moving object and clocks that we get different
values.
> It is like having a normal litre of milk splitted into x number glass
> of milk, and then have a smaller package of milk that use a smaller
> glass and also manage to split it into x number glass of milk.
>
> Now you proudly present that there is the same amount of milk because
> both had x glass of milk inside.
>
> I can not take this any further but set theorists should really take a
> look into SR and see if the invariant velocity really comes out of
> invariant sets of d/t.
It does
> Because as i proved above it do not,
No .. you didn't. Not for SR. Only for your misinterpretation of SR.
> but since you basicly refuse what
> is really happen i can not go on.
Good .. maybe you can spend your time learning what SR really DOES say.
> I did took it to the end of line
> though comparing sets with members that have different attributes but
> same name and then making calculation with the setmembers and produce
> a result from it calling it ****c*****.
>
> Even if c have same ratio when calculated within the two compared
> sets, it do not matter if the d/t within the sets do not have same
> magnitude.
>
> This is my understanding and why i refuse to call your measurements of
> light invariant c. Simply because the attributes of members in set
> [A,B] d/t do not have the same magnitude as set [C,D] d/t
Well .. what you are doing is simply not related to what SR says. You are
only proving that what you think SR says is not what it does say, and what
you think it says is wrong. But we knew that already.