Understanding Einstein
CoreyWhite
much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
bomb. But what was he really on to?
He is on to the fact that time is a line, or maybe a ray. He doesn't
mean time exactly, like a clock, because that doesn't really explain
what time is. He is talking about our entire experience, everything.
The world is just fate, and destiny, and doesn't have any real
experience to it other than continuation. That's what Zen Buddhism
seems to be about, so Einstein is kind of like east meets west.
So why don't we perceive time? The answer is because it is external
to our experience. There is also the internal experience, where we
percieve space, mass, and all the other forces in physics, like light
& sound. In reality though these internal experiences are all non-
reality. Every persons experience of reality is unique. Reading this
you are probably actually reading something completely different than
what I'm writing, in many different ways.
We have to always assume that our conscious experience is not
accurate. We are all literally crazy. This can be shown in many
different ways. Probably one of the most simple ways is to have a
group of people read a book, and report on what they have read. Their
memories of the book will all be completely different. It's hard to
test this theory out in practice however to show that there are
drastic differences in perceptions. Unless you single out someone who
is obviously mentally ill.
That's what Einstein was given credit for, however. He showed that
reality was all an internal experience, and the physical reality of
physics was only the single dimension of time. That's why we can
actually time travel now. It is just that when we do, the time
traveler appears to be mentally ill when he returns, because everyone
else was just traveling around with him in a different time zone.
Our inner world is a sort of metaphysical space, that exists as a
connected dimmension to the invisible external reality of time. But
the external reality isn't completely independent. That's why when we
consciouslly expereince hi acceleration, we begin to overlap on the
invisible experience of time. Almost like there is a ray shooting out
of our chest that we can't see, which energizes our internal realities
with our experience. Even our bodies are made like a part of the
line.
This ties into dreaming. When you lay down flat on your back long
enough this invisble ray called time, shoots up into outer space, and
into the astral plane. The vibrations it sends us create our dreams,
and allow us to recharge. It isn't sleep itself exactly that causes
this to happen but alignment in a sleeping position with the energy of
the 4th dimension. During the day the fourth dimension is being
twisted, and warped, and pushed around by our internal experience, but
when we align into a natural sleeping position and lie in bed, it
attunes to higher frequencies.
You only have to let go, and experience what destiny and fate feel
like, while lying in bed, and you can be literally transported to an
alternate dimension in dreams. I do it every night now, after I
reconnected with source by lying in bed for 3 days straight.
Something about good nutrition helps too, your emotional state, your
health, and your dreams. So taking a lot of extra protien suppliments
in your diet is a good idea, because that's what the body needs but
isn't getting enough of. Whenever I wasn't feeling good as a kid, my
mother always asked if it was because I hadn't eaten anything, and she
was usually right. Now that I take extra protien I feel wonderful,
when I use it in my diet. You can even get pills with protien in them
called Amino Acids, or buy whey protien to mix into drinks.
Sometimes when you don't have good nutrition, you feel tired and
drained all day, and without good exercise you can't get to sleep. So
getting good nutrition is the key to getting good exercise, and
getting on a healthy sleeping cycle. No one wants to hear my preach,
but I'm trying to explain Einstein, because he was a philosopher as
interested in dreaming as any other kind of physics. He didn't
believe that God played dice with the world, and quantum mechanics
were significant. This is because he already proved that our internal
realities operated independently of the external realities. We are
just experiencing the frequency of time, in something like a dream we
are having while awake, that we have no control over.
Once we realize this though we have more power, because then we
understand that in daily life we are dealing with metaphors and
archetypes of reality, and not the real thing. It's not hard to
imagine one of your mistakes leading to problems you have later in
life that are completely unrelated, or for a good deed to be rewarded
spontaneously without any reason. When a stranger smiles at you, it
might really be your grandmother who past on years ago, but you are
just too blind to see. That's what Einstein was really trying to say.
Androcles
"CoreyWhite" <Corey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188154676....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
: much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
: governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
: shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
: designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
: bomb. But what was he really on to?
:
: He is on to the fact that time is a line, or maybe a ray. He doesn't
: mean time exactly, like a clock, because that doesn't really explain
: what time is. He is talking about our entire experience, everything.
What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
'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' . -- Rabbi Albert Einstein.
"If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Tom Roberts.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid rect-Al the dumb Yid.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have
allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at
the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
Daryl McCullough
>What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
Good point, and an apt self-description.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
PerfectReign
and etched into the cave:
>
> "CoreyWhite" <Corey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188154676....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> : Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
> : much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
> : governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
> : shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
> : designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
> : bomb. But what was he really on to?
> :
> : He is on to the fact that time is a line, or maybe a ray. He doesn't
> : mean time exactly, like a clock, because that doesn't really explain
> : what time is. He is talking about our entire experience, everything.
>
> What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
Nothing. However, Einstein wasn't arrogant. Quite the opposite.
>
> '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' . -- Rabbi Albert Einstein.
Who's that?
>
> "If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
> relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
> replacement." -- Tom Roberts.
Somewhat true. Relativity - taken in the context of the early 1900's made
sense. We realize now that it may not be entirely true. However, we can
thank the theory for much of what we enjoy today, including the computer on
which I'm writing.
> "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
> evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid rect-Al the dumb Yid.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
> Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have
> allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at
> the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
They had the SAT in Switzerland in the 1890s? Wow. Never knew that.
Oh, and as for the SAT's importance - I manage people who got way better SAT
scores than I.
Koobee Wublee
> Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
> much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
> governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
> shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
> designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
> bomb. But what was he really on to?
>
> [...]
Thee is nothing that is anything remotely considered as originally
that came out of Einstein. He was not an original thinker. So,
labeling him as a crackpot is very much inappropriate.
** Lorentz transform was already presented by Larmor and Lorentz
before Einstein's own publication. Einstein worshippers better known
as Einstein Dingleberries would claim Einstein's derivation as
independently derived. Upon a thorough study of Einstein's derivation
of the Lorentz transform, we find total nonsense. 15 years later,
Einstein would try again to derive the same Lorentz transform. This
time it was even more of a nonsense. His derivation take us to the
matheMagical wonderland of pulling out the Lorentz transform from 2
equations equating zero with zero. Einstein knew the answer --- the
Lorentz transform --- before plagiarizing.
** After years of studying Newtonian physics, Einstein being a little
bit slow finally understood the law of gravity, and voila, Einstein
reverse-engineered it. He discovered the principle of equivalence.
This is great. Unfortunately, the principle of equivalence was the
foundation of Newton's law of gravity. The principle of equivalence
was already discovered by Galileo more than 300 years ago. Einstein
was a little late for that.
** Gravity can only properly be characterized by observing an object
under the influence of gravity such as that falling apple witnessed by
Newton long ago. This should be a no brainer. However, Einstein was
stupid enough to picture himself as the falling apple trying to study
gravity. Naturally, he got nowhere. The Einstein field equations can
only be derived after identifying the Lagrangian to the Einstein-
Hilbert Action. It was Hilbert who pulled out this Lagrangian, which
does not even satisfy as a Lagrangian, out of his ass. It was Hilbert
who derived the Einstein field equations by taking the partial
derivative of this Lagrangian with respect to each element of the
inverse of the metric.
** OK, how about the Cosmological constant? That is another joke
reserved for another chapter.
You can simply sum up Einstein in a sentence below.
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
This is going to piss off a lot of folks that worship Einstein as an
idol for no special reasons. Well, the truth really hurts. <shrug>
Onideus Mad Hatter
>> the Eidgen?sche Technische Hochschule in Zurich
>> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
>
>They had the SAT in Switzerland in the 1890s? Wow. Never knew that.
>
>Oh, and as for the SAT's importance - I manage people who got way better SAT
>scores than I.
I got a near perfect score on the SAT and I pretty much wasn't the
fuck even trying at the time. Really, as tests go, the SAT is pretty
pathetic. The only reason most people don't do that well is because
they get all uber stressed out about it. If they just chilled their
stupid asses down a notch or six they would get far better scores.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
>much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
>governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
>shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
>designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
>bomb. But what was he really on to?
>
>He is on to the fact that time is a line, or maybe a ray. He doesn't
>mean time exactly, like a clock, because that doesn't really explain
>what time is. He is talking about our entire experience, everything.
>The world is just fate, and destiny, and doesn't have any real
>experience to it other than continuation. That's what Zen Buddhism
>seems to be about, so Einstein is kind of like east meets west.
>
>So why don't we perceive time? The answer is because it is external
>to our experience. There is also the internal experience, where we
>percieve space, mass, and all the other forces in physics, like light
>& sound. In reality though these internal experiences are all non-
>reality. Every persons experience of reality is unique. Reading this
>you are probably actually reading something completely different than
>what I'm writing, in many different ways.
WRONG! Time doesn't exist, period. The only relevant point is rate
at which molecules change/move. You can essentially "go into the
future" by slowing down the rate of molecular change within a given
space while the rest of the matter around you will change/move much
faster. This is also how you can "travel faster than the speed of
light", by speeding up the rate of molecular change in a kind of
envelope shape around a ship. The ship isn't technically traveling
faster the speed of light in relation to itself and its own rate of
molecular change, however in relation to the rest of the universe
whose molecules are moving much slower, the end result is faster than
light travel without actually going faster than the speed of light.
The only way to travel back in time would be to take a kind of snap
shot of all the molecules within a given space/time and to then
recreate that space and it's complete molecular configuration. But
again, that's not really "traveling through time", since that's likely
impossible, but it's the closest thing.
The only way that time travel would be possible is if there is some
sort of super sub-atomic system in place in which molecular change is
tracked and recorded, in which case it might be possible to tap into
that and force a given space to revert into a previous state...but
that's just blind theory.
>We have to always assume that our conscious experience is not
>accurate. We are all literally crazy. This can be shown in many
>different ways. Probably one of the most simple ways is to have a
>group of people read a book, and report on what they have read. Their
>memories of the book will all be completely different. It's hard to
>test this theory out in practice however to show that there are
>drastic differences in perceptions. Unless you single out someone who
>is obviously mentally ill.
Like say...YOU for example. ^_^
>That's what Einstein was given credit for, however. He showed that
>reality was all an internal experience, and the physical reality of
>physics was only the single dimension of time. That's why we can
>actually time travel now.
No Corey, you can't travel through time and the magnets you carved
into your filthy body don't give you any super sekrat magixal powers
you fuckin fruit loop.
>It is just that when we do, the time
>traveler appears to be mentally ill when he returns, because everyone
>else was just traveling around with him in a different time zone.
Fruit loops like Corey are NEVER able to understand just what the fuck
a time zone actually is. Free cl00 dipshit, moving from state to
state and crossing a time zone doesn't mean you're traveling through
time you fuckin retard.
>Our inner world is a sort of metaphysical space, that exists as a
>connected dimmension to the invisible external reality of time.
Spit in one hand, dream in the other, tell me whatcha got more of,
Kooky.
> But the external reality isn't completely independent. That's why when we
>consciouslly expereince hi acceleration, we begin to overlap on the
>invisible experience of time. Almost like there is a ray shooting out
>of our chest that we can't see, which energizes our internal realities
>with our experience. Even our bodies are made like a part of the
>line.
Earth to Corey, reality calling, come back Corey, come back!
>This ties into dreaming.
Uh huh, of *course* it does. *nods*
>When you lay down flat on your back long
>enough this invisble ray called time, shoots up into outer space, and
>into the astral plane.
...no Corey, you have no magixal "rays" beaming out of your chest and
into the "astral plane" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I
don't know what the fuck you've been smokin, Corey, but you need to
cut back.
>The vibrations it sends us create our dreams,
...right...so our dreams are vibrations, huh? And just how exactly
did you come to this conclusion? Are you hearing voices Corey? Are
they telling you the sekrats of the universe?
>and allow us to recharge. It isn't sleep itself exactly that causes
>this to happen but alignment in a sleeping position with the energy of
>the 4th dimension.
Oh, the FOURTH dimension, I see. Hey, Corey, I realize you're all
kooky and wearing a tin foil hat crazy and all into the whole pseudo
science make believe bullshit, but really, why don't you try NOT being
a fruit loop...like, just for a day, try it out, see what it's like.
>During the day the fourth dimension is being
>twisted, and warped, and pushed around by our internal experience, but
>when we align into a natural sleeping position and lie in bed, it
>attunes to higher frequencies.
Oh it's "frequencies" now, is it Corey? Which "frequencies" would
those be? Are they the ones the aliens are using to collect data from
your anal probe?
>You only have to let go, and experience what destiny and fate feel
>like, while lying in bed, and you can be literally transported to an
>alternate dimension in dreams.
Only if you're loony tunes, Corey. NORMAL people who aren't
completely the fuck out of their mind can't do that.
> I do it every night now, after I
>reconnected with source by lying in bed for 3 days straight.
*bangs head on keyboard*
Corey, Corey, Corey...do you EVER stop doing utterly stupid ass
moronic idiot shit? I mean first yer carvin fuckin magnets into yer
body and now you're laying in bed for three days straight...then
again, maybe your stupid ass nearly killed yourself from hackin into
yer body and that's why you wound up bed ridden. Either that or maybe
you family had finally had enough of your crazy stupidity and they
checked into a psych ward for three days straight.
>Something about good nutrition helps too, your emotional state, your
>health, and your dreams.
And that crystal you bought in the mall last week...oh and your
horoscope in the Weekly World News...and those magnets you carved the
fuck into yer dumbass.
>So taking a lot of extra protien suppliments
>in your diet is a good idea, because that's what the body needs but
>isn't getting enough of.
If you were taking "extra", then you would be going OVER what your
body needs you fuckin retard.
>Whenever I wasn't feeling good as a kid, my
>mother always asked if it was because I hadn't eaten anything, and she
>was usually right.
Maybe your stupid ass is just diabetic, Corey. Were you a fatty as a
child?
>Sometimes when you don't have good nutrition, you feel tired and
>drained all day, and without good exercise you can't get to sleep.
Oh trust me Corey, you don't need good exercise to sleep. Hell if
that were true 95% of the population would be insomniacs you
shortsighted imbecile.
>So getting good nutrition is the key to getting good exercise, and
>getting on a healthy sleeping cycle.
Is that what your therapist tells you?
>No one wants to hear my preach,
Wow, that's the first REAL thing you've said in this entire post,
Corey!
>but I'm trying to explain Einstein, because he was a philosopher as
>interested in dreaming as any other kind of physics. He didn't
>believe that God played dice with the world, and quantum mechanics
>were significant. This is because he already proved that our internal
>realities operated independently of the external realities. We are
>just experiencing the frequency of time, in something like a dream we
>are having while awake, that we have no control over.
There is no "we" in your delusional stupidity, Corey, there's only
you...and your hat made of tin foil to block out the "frequencies".
*rolls eyes*
>Once we realize this though we have more power, because then we
>understand that in daily life we are dealing with metaphors and
>archetypes of reality, and not the real thing. It's not hard to
>imagine one of your mistakes leading to problems you have later in
>life that are completely unrelated, or for a good deed to be rewarded
>spontaneously without any reason. When a stranger smiles at you, it
>might really be your grandmother who past on years ago, but you are
>just too blind to see. That's what Einstein was really trying to say.
Einstein is rolling over in his grave right now. Trust me, the man
would not have wanted some idiot stick fruit loop who carves up his
fuckin body to be explaining what he was "really trying to say", you
drooling, borderline retarded monkey fuck.
Low_Carb_Lover
Er, Um, yeah - sure...
Now you just sit down and wait until someone comes for you. Don't worry, I
am sure that they'll be along soon. They can't be that far behind you.
Bye.
Tony
(This sometimes happens when those of limited intellect try to understand
the more complex areas of physics.)
Androcles
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fat7r...@drn.newsguy.com...
: Androcles says...
:
: >What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
:
: Good point, and an apt self-description.
You are hypocrite, arrogant troll and Einstein Dingleberry, McCullough;
you don't know what a minus sign is, let alone simple algebra.
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Tom Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
Androcles
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5jeu2kF...@mid.individual.net...
: on Sunday 26 August 2007 12:14 pm, someone posing as Androcles took a rock
: and etched into the cave:
:
: >
: > "CoreyWhite" <Corey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:1188154676....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > : Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
: > : much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
: > : governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
: > : shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
: > : designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
: > : bomb. But what was he really on to?
: > :
: > : He is on to the fact that time is a line, or maybe a ray. He doesn't
: > : mean time exactly, like a clock, because that doesn't really explain
: > : what time is. He is talking about our entire experience, everything.
: >
: > What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
:
: Nothing. However, Einstein wasn't arrogant. Quite the opposite.
Lying pile of nym-shift shit.
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Tom Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
Get another new name. *plonk*
Jeckyl
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:kXwAi.11513$g.5...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fat7r...@drn.newsguy.com...
> : Androcles says...
> :
> : >What's to understand about an arrogant idiot?
> :
> : Good point, and an apt self-description.
>
> You are hypocrite, arrogant troll and Einstein Dingleberry, McCullough;
> you don't know what a minus sign is, let alone simple algebra.
>
> '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 and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over
without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for
light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the
same distance from B to A
The only one showing themselves to be STOOOPID here is you .. at best
obsessed.
Jeckyl
Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over
Don Stockbauer
Sad to see a potentially useful tool, usenet, being abused like a
bunch of fucking spoiled brat children playing on the telephone.
Other than that - have a nice day.
- Don
Pmb
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188213596....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Time is (equivalent to) change.
Its a bit more than that. Time refers to changes that occurr at the same
spatial location. Otherwise you can have spatial changes which remain fixed
in time.
[snip bad language]
Pete
PD
> Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have
> allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at
> the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
For what it's worth, Einstein did very well on the math and science
portions of the exam. It was in the sections on history, arts,
literature, philosophy, and government that he did poorly.
PD
postm...@localhost.localdomain.invalid
Was there a SAT in Germany in 1895?
--
Mark Ess
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
>
> wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
I snipped because I didn't see the point of quoting statements I have
no problem with. However, I did leave the comment which was ridiculous
and about which I commented - namely this:
PerfectReign
My point proven.
> and I pretty much wasn't the
> fuck even trying at the time. Really, as tests go, the SAT is pretty
> pathetic. The only reason most people don't do that well is because
> they get all uber stressed out about it. If they just chilled their
> stupid asses down a notch or six they would get far better scores.
>
I got bored about halfway through. I ended up with almost perfect on verbal
and something like 200 or 300 on math.
Yet - oddly enough - I never use any of the two non-english languages I
speak or various programming languages, and I'm entrusted with a $7M
budget.
Go figure.
Androcles
<postm...@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote in message
news:fauonn$kn0$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
:> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
:
: Was there a SAT in Germany in 1895?
A Student Assessment Test was what he took, and it was in Zurich
which is in Switzerland.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
You are thick, aren't you?
*plonk*
Androcles
On Aug 27, 10:05 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
>
> wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
: I snipped
Yes, we all know that, just as we know you are an ignorant bigot who
can't handle the truth of his religion, so you snipped what Einstein said.
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188227755.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 27, 10:05 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
>
> > wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
>
> : I snipped
>
> Yes, we all know that, just as we know you are an ignorant bigot who
> can't handle the truth of his religion,
Sure I can.
> so you snipped what Einstein said.
>
I already told you I snipped the part I have no problem with. I only
quoted that which I wanted to ridicule. That would be the part you
wrote.
PD
Androcles
: On Aug 27, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1188227755.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > On Aug 27, 10:05 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >
: > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > >news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > > On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
: >
: > > wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
: >
: > : I snipped
: >
: > Yes, we all know that, just as we know you are an ignorant bigot who
: > can't handle the truth of his religion,
:
: Sure I can.
:
: > so you snipped what Einstein said.
: >
:
: I already told you I snipped the part I have no problem with.
That's part I do have a problem with, I can't program it no matter
how I try:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Being a bigot, you can't address the issue and continue to rant hoping
12 = 4 according to Einstein will go away.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188229956....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> : On Aug 27, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> : > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : >
> : >news:1188227755.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> : > On Aug 27, 10:05 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> : >
> : > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : >
> : > >news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> : > > On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
> : >
> : > > wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
> : >
> : > : I snipped
> : >
> : > Yes, we all know that, just as we know you are an ignorant bigot who
> : > can't handle the truth of his religion,
> :
> : Sure I can.
> :
> : > so you snipped what Einstein said.
> : >
> :
> : I already told you I snipped the part I have no problem with.
>
> That's part I do have a problem with, I can't program it no matter
> how I try:
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
> Being a bigot, you can't address the issue and continue to rant hoping
> 12 = 4 according to Einstein will go away.
> --
>
Your inability to program according to reality, no matter how hard you
try, is not an issue I need to address. I don't think it's
particularly bigoted to take that stance, either.
PerfectReign
Who the fuck is Tom Roberts?
>
> Rabbi Albert Einstein
Who the fuck is Rabbi Albert Einstein?
> in 1895 failed an examination that would
> have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
> at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
>
> Get another new name. *plonk*
Um, I've been using this nym for about four years now. Plonk me all you
want. I don't really give a shit.
--
www.perfectreign.com
PerfectReign
etched into the cave:
> On Aug 27, 11:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
You know - and here I thought a.2600 had freaks...
Pmb
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have
> allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at
> the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
So what?
>For what it's worth, Einstein did very well on the math and science
>portions of the exam. It was in the sections on history, arts,
>literature, philosophy, and government that he did poorly.
Makes sense. I recall that he failed a magnetics lab when he was studying
for his physics degree. Yipes! :)
Pete
Pmb
I'd say androcles was the worst troll here and as they say "Please don't
feed the trolls!" lol!! :)
Pete
Pmb
I'd say androcles was the worst troll here and as they say "Please don't
Androcles
Oh, I see, in reality 12 = 4, does it?
: no matter how hard you
: try, is not an issue I need to address.
You really believe 12 = 4 because Einstein says so and don't need
to address it.
: I don't think
We already know that, no need to advertise it.
: it's
: particularly bigoted to take that stance, either.:
bigot:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and
prejudices.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot
You are a bigot.
Tom
<postm...@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote in message
news:fauonn$kn0$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
>
> Was there a SAT in Germany in 1895?
Well, sure. They even had it in ancient Rome. "Verbum sapiente SAT."
The "Me" Princess
Wait, I'm figuring ...
Still figuring .....
Nearly there ...........
I got it!
You are full of shit and your budget would need its decimal point shifting
six places to the left to be within the realms of accuracy.
Did I do good? Huh? Did I get it right?
Did I?
Me
Androcles
"The "Me" Princess" <olympiada2OO7@motzarella.ørg> wrote in message
news:16s54h....@news.alt.net...
Many people get rich by theft, it's just a sad fact of life.
I happened not to be around when Einstein was conning
the world, that's also a fact of life. The arsehole "PerfectReign"
is just one more useless con artist. <shrug>
PerfectReign
and etched into the cave:
<snip>
> : > I got bored about halfway through. I ended up with almost perfect on
> verbal
> : > and something like 200 or 300 on math.
> : >
> : > Yet - oddly enough - I never use any of the two non-english languages
> : > I speak or various programming languages, and I'm entrusted with a $7M
> : > budget.
> : >
> : > Go figure.
> :
> : Wait, I'm figuring ...
> :
> : Still figuring .....
> :
> : Nearly there ...........
> :
> : I got it!
> :
> : You are full of shit and your budget would need its decimal point
> : shifting six places to the left to be within the realms of accuracy.
> :
> : Did I do good? Huh? Did I get it right?
> :
> : Did I?
Erm, no. Not close.
I'm a division manager for an IT group with a staff of about 40 and a budget
(including staffing) of $7.1M.
You can come by anytime and check out my budget. Not that hard to do.
> :
> :
> : Me
>
> Many people get rich by theft, it's just a sad fact of life.
> I happened not to be around when Einstein was conning
> the world, that's also a fact of life. The arsehole "PerfectReign"
> is just one more useless con artist. <shrug>
arsehole?
At least if you are going to attempt to insult me you can use correct
English. You might want to get a spelling checker on that newsreader of
yours. The correct term is "asshole."
Oh, wait. Checking headers...
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
...I see. You're a Windows user and still using OE.
You're probably too stupid to even know what a spell checker is.
Nevermind.
JanPB
> On Aug 26, 11:57 am, CoreyWhite wrote:
>
> > Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
> > much at all. He may have however been an activist who got into the
> > governments top-secret programs during WWII. I think his goal was to
> > shut down the governments nuclear bomb program, but they wound up
> > designating him the worlds smartest genius & giving him credit for the
> > bomb. But what was he really on to?
>
>
> Thee is nothing that is anything remotely considered as originally
> that came out of Einstein. He was not an original thinker. So,
> labeling him as a crackpot is very much inappropriate.
>
> ** Lorentz transform was already presented by Larmor and Lorentz
> before Einstein's own publication. Einstein worshippers better known
> as Einstein Dingleberries would claim Einstein's derivation as
> independently derived. Upon a thorough study of Einstein's derivation
> of the Lorentz transform, we find total nonsense. 15 years later,
> Einstein would try again to derive the same Lorentz transform. This
> time it was even more of a nonsense. His derivation take us to the
> matheMagical wonderland of pulling out the Lorentz transform from 2
> equations equating zero with zero. Einstein knew the answer --- the
> Lorentz transform --- before plagiarizing.
>
> ** After years of studying Newtonian physics, Einstein being a little
> bit slow finally understood the law of gravity, and voila, Einstein
> reverse-engineered it. He discovered the principle of equivalence.
> This is great. Unfortunately, the principle of equivalence was the
> foundation of Newton's law of gravity. The principle of equivalence
> was already discovered by Galileo more than 300 years ago. Einstein
> was a little late for that.
>
> ** Gravity can only properly be characterized by observing an object
> under the influence of gravity such as that falling apple witnessed by
> Newton long ago. This should be a no brainer. However, Einstein was
> stupid enough to picture himself as the falling apple trying to study
> gravity. Naturally, he got nowhere. The Einstein field equations can
> only be derived after identifying the Lagrangian to the Einstein-
> Hilbert Action. It was Hilbert who pulled out this Lagrangian, which
> does not even satisfy as a Lagrangian, out of his ass. It was Hilbert
> who derived the Einstein field equations by taking the partial
> derivative of this Lagrangian with respect to each element of the
> inverse of the metric.
>
> ** OK, how about the Cosmological constant? That is another joke
> reserved for another chapter.
>
> You can simply sum up Einstein in a sentence below.
>
> Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
>
> This is going to piss off a lot of folks that worship Einstein as an
> idol for no special reasons. Well, the truth really hurts. <shrug>
Since 99% of what you wrote above is incorrect, I don't really see why
the last sentence would be applicable.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188261727....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Go to an optician. They have this big white board with letters
on it for you to read and will provide you with the right glasses
so that you can see 99% of the above is correct and you can
get your fellow Poles to help change a light bulb for you.
Jeckyl
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188220798.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
>
> wrote and Phuckwit Duck snipped to bury his head back in his arse:
>
> --
> '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 and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Your worhsip of Einstein and the way you so enjoy posting quote from him is
touching.
Jeckyl
> '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 and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
You really must love Einstein so very much. I'm beginning to think this is
an unhealthy obsession .. is it something sexual?
Jeckyl
> '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 and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
You admiration for the great man is heart-warming
JanPB
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What Koobee wrote (those weirdos always use fake names) is all pure
loony-tunes.
--
Jan Bielawski
Jeckyl
Maybe you an Einstein should run off together somewhere .. although him
being dead now would probably make that difficult. But your love for him
and all he says is a beautiful thing
Androcles
What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
c = dx'/dt
Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
t <> t.
What you write is all pure blind faith. As you continue to assert,
"I don't really see" -- Jan Bilewacky, assistant light bulb changer.
Joe Jared
I personally see Einstein as someone who accomplished something special in
spite of obstacles. The jury's still out on the Hawking paradox and M
theory, however.
The Magpie
> <postm...@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fauonn$kn0$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
> :> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
> :
> : Was there a SAT in Germany in 1895?
>
>
> A Student Assessment Test was what he took, and it was in Zurich
> which is in Switzerland.
>
Androcles
"The Magpie" <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb18cm$cqd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Zurich isn't in Switzerland?
Einstein wasn't a student?
He didn't take a test?
It wasn't an aptitude test?
You are as much use as codeine in a guillotine basket, fuckhead.
*plonk*
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Hans van Eynsbergen
major problem could be solved just with potatoes, wrote:
<snip>
> arsehole?
>
> At least if you are going to attempt to insult me you can use correct
> English. You might want to get a spelling checker on that newsreader of
> yours. The correct term is "asshole."
<snip>
Just to nag you :
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arsehole
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/asshole (Noun, number 2)
ROTFLMAO !
--
Hans
"Forty-two!"
"Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years of
work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly", said the computer...
JanPB
> What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
>
> c = dx'/dt
> Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
>
> t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
> t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
> t <> t.
What you wrote above is random nonsense.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
Einstein wrote random nonsense. - Jan Bielawski the kooky assistant
light bulb changer, August 28, 2007 6:41 PM UTC.
Agreed!
Michael Lewis
> : > What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
> : >
> : > c = dx'/dt
> : > Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
> : >
> : > t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
> : > t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
> : > t <> t.
> :
> : What you wrote above is random nonsense.
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
>
> Einstein wrote random nonsense. - Jan Bielawski the kooky assistant
> light bulb changer, August 28, 2007 6:41 PM UTC.
Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant. Moving fast,
or stationary, it always seemed to be traveling at the same speed. What
Einstein did was assume that the speed of light is a constant, then argued
a reason as to why it was constant. Thus "proving" his assumption with
circular reasoning.
The "problem," however, is that he seems to be right. Light still seems
to be constant. They have done experiments with time dilation, with the
Space Shuttle, and it matches what the mathematics says it should be.
In that same style, I pi$$ed off my Physics instructor by "proving" the
Universe was the surface area of a 4+ dimensional hypersphere. The
resulting "theory" permitted for absolute stationary objects in 3-d space
(while still moving away from eachother), and all the dilation formulas
still worked. He handed it back to me, and said simply "don't do that
again."
Koobee Wublee
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Androcles wrote:
> Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant. Moving fast,
> or stationary, it always seemed to be traveling at the same speed. What
> Einstein did was assume that the speed of light is a constant, then argued
> a reason as to why it was constant. Thus "proving" his assumption with
> circular reasoning.
What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
the speed of light?
Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
in the speed of light and the principle of relativity. His derivation
of the Lorentz transform in 1905 was a total gibberish. His re-
derivation in 1920 was equally nonsense. <shrug>
> The "problem," however, is that he seems to be right. Light still seems
> to be constant. They have done experiments with time dilation, with the
> Space Shuttle, and it matches what the mathematics says it should be.
What experiment is this on the shuttle to verify time dilation?
> In that same style, I pi$$ed off my Physics instructor by "proving" the
> Universe was the surface area of a 4+ dimensional hypersphere.
I don't think you have pissed your physics instructor off. He/she
just did not want to continue the conversation with a crackpot.
> The
> resulting "theory" permitted for absolute stationary objects in 3-d space
> (while still moving away from eachother), and all the dilation formulas
> still worked. He handed it back to me, and said simply "don't do that
> again."
See what I mean?
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
The greatest thing Einstein ever did and will continue to do...is to
inspire people. Whether his THEORIES are eventually found to be law
or debunked is completely irrelevant.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>: Your inability to program according to reality,
>Oh, I see, in reality 12 = 4, does it?
Sure it does, 12 tablespoons of water is equal to 4 1/4th cups of
water.
>: I don't think
>We already know that, no need to advertise it.
I think yer Ritalin wore off a lil too quick there, Kiddo. Next time
try it in context...if you can. Maybe that's the problem you're
having with good 'ol Einstein...always taking his material out of
context. *nods*
>: it's
>: particularly bigoted to take that stance, either.:
>bigot:
>a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and
>prejudices.
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot
>
>You are a bigot.
I guess that'd make you the pot then, wouldn't it Mr. Black?
Onideus Mad Hatter
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
><postm...@localhost.localdomain.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fauonn$kn0$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
>:> (couldn't even pass the SATs).
>:
>: Was there a SAT in Germany in 1895?
>
>
>A Student Assessment Test was what he took, and it was in Zurich
>which is in Switzerland.
>
>Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
>have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
>at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
>(couldn't even pass the SATs).
>
>You are thick, aren't you?
>*plonk*
Ahhh, Usenet blinders. Do be sure and plonk as many people as
possible, that way you can limit the number of possible posts you can
to reply to with your inane stupidity. Shutting yourself the fuck up
really *IS* the best solution to your little..."problem"...as it were.
*nods*
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fnord Prefect Fnord
>
> Sure it does, 12 tablespoons of water is equal to 4 1/4th cups of
> water.
>
There are 16 tablespoons to a cup, therefore your numbers are wrong.
12 tablespoons= 3/4 cups
Im not sure whwther you meant 4 1/4 cup measures of 4.25 cups. either way
it's wrong.
I have cookbooks and I'm not afraid to use them.
Onideus Mad Hatter
LOL, even quicker than expected. The human WANT, the NEED to "be
right" will never cease to amuse me. You, as have many others no
doubt, very much missed the point I was making. ^_^
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
huey.c...@gmail.com
> <fnord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Oh, I see, in reality 12 = 4, does it?
> >> Sure it does, 12 tablespoons of water is equal to 4 1/4th cups of
> >> water.
> >There are 16 tablespoons to a cup, therefore your numbers are wrong.
> >12 tablespoons= 3/4 cups
> >Im not sure whwther you meant 4 1/4 cup measures of 4.25 cups. either way
> >it's wrong.
> >I have cookbooks and I'm not afraid to use them.
> LOL, even quicker than expected. The human WANT, the NEED to "be
> right" will never cease to amuse me. You, as have many others no
> doubt, very much missed the point I was making. ^_^
Yup. Starfleet Captain James "Timmy" Kirk said that.
--
Huey
Onideus Mad Hatter
Have you been free basing the Kool-aid powder again, Kiddo?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
dw
> Einstein was really just a kooky character, who didn't really do very
> much at all.
On the bright side, because of relativity, when you take your trip to
the lala vacation spot with the big wire fence, time will appear to
stand still for you, while out here it will pass normally.
Michael Lewis
>> The "problem," however, is that he seems to be right. Light still seems
>> to be constant. They have done experiments with time dilation, with the
>> Space Shuttle, and it matches what the mathematics says it should be.
>
> What experiment is this on the shuttle to verify time dilation?
Atomic clocks... One on the shuttle, one on Earth. I cannot tell you the
exact year, I graduated in 95, so it must have taken place before then...
> I don't think you have pissed your physics instructor off. He/she
> just did not want to continue the conversation with a crackpot.
Crackpot? No no no, I'm not a crackpot, just a smarta$$... There IS a
difference... :)
Fnord Prefect Fnord
>
> LOL, even quicker than expected. The human WANT, the NEED to "be
> right" will never cease to amuse me. You, as have many others no
> doubt, very much missed the point I was making. ^_^
>
You have no idea whether I missed the point, which was not interesting
enough for me to comment on,
And I'm not human.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fnord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> LOL, even quicker than expected. The human WANT, the NEED to "be
>> right" will never cease to amuse me. You, as have many others no
>> doubt, very much missed the point I was making. ^_^
>You have no idea whether I missed the point, which was not interesting
>enough for me to comment on,
*pats you on the head*
Sure kiddo, sure.
>And I'm not human.
Oh now come on, just because you're a retard doesn't mean you're not
human. Honestly, don't be so hard on yourself.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
PerfectReign
took a rock and etched into the cave:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:59:52 -0700, PerfectReign who thought that every
> major problem could be solved just with potatoes, wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> arsehole?
>>
>> At least if you are going to attempt to insult me you can use correct
>> English. You might want to get a spelling checker on that newsreader of
>> yours. The correct term is "asshole."
>
> <snip>
>
> Just to nag you :
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arsehole
Exactly!!
arsehole -
Noun 1.arsehole arsehole - vulgar slang for anus
bunghole, arse, asshole
anus - the excretory opening at the end of the alimentary canal
jargon, lingo, patois, argot, vernacular, slang, cant - a characteristic
language of a particular group (as among thieves); "they don't speak our
lingo"
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/asshole (Noun, number 2)
asshole -
ass·hole (shl)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. The anus.
2. A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.
3. The most miserable or undesirable place in a particular area.
The second term should have been used.
> ROTFLMAO !
PerfectReign
took a rock and etched into the cave:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:54:31 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Yeah, yeah...
...that's what all the freaks say.
C'mon lemming. Fess up - you're just trying to be wierd like everyone else
in your short bus.
JanPB
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188326486.3...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> : On Aug 28, 12:55 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> :
> : > What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
> : >
> : > c = dx'/dt
> : > Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
> : >
> : > t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
> : > t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
> : > t <> t.
> :
> : What you wrote above is random nonsense.
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
That's different, it says x'/(c-v)=t. Write your objection clearly,
your original equations (above) are nonsensical.
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:to19d3t3e95pc6uo5...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:07:45 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >: Your inability to program according to reality,
:
: >Oh, I see, in reality 12 = 4, does it?
:
: Sure it does, 12 tablespoons of water is equal to 4 1/4th cups of
: water.
:
: >: I don't think
:
: >We already know that, no need to advertise it.
:
: I think
*plonk*.
Androcles
"Michael Lewis" <cmos...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@sdf.lonestar.org...
: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Androcles wrote:
:
: > : > What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
: > : >
: > : > c = dx'/dt
: > : > Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
: > : >
: > : > t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
: > : > t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
: > : > t <> t.
: > :
: > : What you wrote above is random nonsense.
: >
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
: >
: > Einstein wrote random nonsense. - Jan Bielawski the kooky assistant
: > light bulb changer, August 28, 2007 6:41 PM UTC.
:
: Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant.
Experimentally it seems pencils are broken in water.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Moving fast,
: or stationary, it always seemed to be traveling at the same speed. What
: Einstein did was assume
Yes, that is true. "Assume" makes an "ass" out if "u" and [not] "me".
: that the speed of light is a constant, then argued
: a reason as to why it was constant. Thus "proving" his assumption with
: circular reasoning.
Very good. One can always prove what is ASSumed.
:
: The "problem," however, is that he seems to be right.
Seems?
: Light still seems
: to be constant.
Ok, pencils really are broken in water, or so it seems.
: They
Who are "they"?
: have done experiments with time dilation, with the
: Space Shuttle, and it matches what the mathematics says it should be.
You've checked the mathematics and the experimental data, it seems,
because you are convinced, it seems. Now I haven't checked the data
that you have, so it seems you should provide it so that we can
check it together, it seems.
:
: In that same style, I pi$$ed off my Physics instructor by "proving" the
: Universe was the surface area of a 4+ dimensional hypersphere.
Ok... well done. Every idiot should get pissed off once in a while, it
seems.
Life is like a pubic hair on a toilet seat. Sometimes it seems you get
pissed off. Am I pissing you off?
The
: resulting "theory" permitted for absolute stationary objects in 3-d space
: (while still moving away from eachother), and all the dilation formulas
: still worked. He handed it back to me, and said simply "don't do that
: again."
You were easily crushed by the fuckhead, it seems.
If you have a proof, stick to your guns, son. Keep firing.
Else shut the fuck up, lay down and play dead.<shrug>
It seems I'm not going to until I AM dead and I've been
blasting away on usenet since 1999, still firing on all
eight cylinders.
http://tinyurl.com/mxhm6 Wed, Mar 17 1999 9:00 am
Still, it seems I don't have much longer to go. Maybe you can
teach an old dog a new trick before I pop my clogs and kick
the bucket, if we assume, it seems.
PD
> On Aug 28, 1:06 pm, Michael Lewis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Androcles wrote:
> > Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant. Moving fast,
> > or stationary, it always seemed to be traveling at the same speed. What
> > Einstein did was assume that the speed of light is a constant, then argued
> > a reason as to why it was constant. Thus "proving" his assumption with
> > circular reasoning.
>
> What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
> the speed of light?
1. Maxwell's electrodynamics.
2. Assuming that Maxwell's dynamics obey the same invariance of form
in transforms between inertial frames, the same way that all other
dynamics known to that point did.
Those were his reasons.
>
> Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
> reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
> in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
Bullshit. Nice of you to read into it your own little Perry Mason
scenario, though.
JanPB
> On Aug 28, 1:06 pm, Michael Lewis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Androcles wrote:
> > Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant. Moving fast,
> > or stationary, it always seemed to be traveling at the same speed. What
> > Einstein did was assume that the speed of light is a constant, then argued
> > a reason as to why it was constant. Thus "proving" his assumption with
> > circular reasoning.
>
> What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
> the speed of light?
>
> Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
> reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
> in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
Whatever. Point is he showed the Lorentz transform could be derived
from defining time coordinate by means of certain clock
synchronisation convention implementing the notion of light speed
constancy (where "speed" of an object is a _defined quantity_ as the
quotient of distance by the _time difference resulting from the
assumed clock sync convention_). The idea is that these definitions
turn out to mimic the Newtonian time very accurately for everyday
speeds while at the same time they produce the Lorentz transform which
had already been known at that time to correctly model
electrodynamics.
It was a very elegant and at that time totally unexpected thing to
notice that such reconciliation between Newtonian mechanics and
Maxwellian electrodynamics could be achieved from a small set of
assumptions.
One might object that Einstein (or SR) never provided any
justification for this particular set of assumptions (notably, the
speed of light constancy) but then SR never had the like ambition. Any
physical theory that ever was had to stop justifying its axioms at
some level anyway.
It is just that SR happens to stop justifying its axioms at the level
which seems to many people rather "easy" and "obvious" - after all the
intuitive idea of "speed" seems obvious to everyone - hence the
unending onslaught by amateurs. Other physics theories, notably
quantum mechanics, use a far stranger and ad hoc set of axioms as
their "unjustifiable" base but being more sophisticated mathematically
it is assaulted by the armchair critics and amateurs far less than SR.
> His derivation
> of the Lorentz transform in 1905 was a total gibberish.
No, it's total correctness actually. It's technically easy to
doublecheck it and I find it frankly surprising that a person
pontificating on field Lagrangians day in day out would have such
enormous difficulty following an algebraic argument in 4 coordinates.
Einstein's argument is technically quite easy but conceptually _very_
subtle. Almost every armchair SR critic here misses the whole point of
Einstein's 1905 work, misled as they are by the fact that they can
comprehend the easy high school algebra the theory happens to be
presented in.
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Onideus Mad Hatter
He probably thinks he's an "otherkin" or some other furry type. Or
maybe one of those freakos who think the world is overrun by lizard
people. Or a vampire/werewolf wannabe...although by today's freak
standards even THAT is a bit too cliche.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
Yeah if I were you I'd shut myself the fuck up too. Ahhh...one less
retard to have replying to my posts with their dribbling
stupidity...makes me feel all warm and smiley inside, ya'know? ^_^
Onideus Mad Hatter
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>"Michael Lewis" <cmos...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@sdf.lonestar.org...
>: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Androcles wrote:
>:
>: > : > What Einstein wrote is all pure loony-tunes.
>: > : >
>: > : > c = dx'/dt
>: > : > Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,
>: > : >
>: > : > t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
>: > : > t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
>: > : > t <> t.
>: > :
>: > : What you wrote above is random nonsense.
>: >
>: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
>: >
>: > Einstein wrote random nonsense. - Jan Bielawski the kooky assistant
>: > light bulb changer, August 28, 2007 6:41 PM UTC.
>:
>: Experimentally, the measured speed of light seemed constant.
>
>Experimentally it seems pencils are broken in water.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
...how does that look broken, Fruit Loop?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fnord Prefect Fnord
So did you plant a mistake on purpose just to amuse me? If not, you have
my permission to pretend I did.
>
>>And I'm not human.
>
> Oh now come on, just because you're a retard doesn't mean you're not
> human. Honestly, don't be so hard on yourself.
>
If only I *could* be hard on myself. It sounds like fun!
Ok, would anyone like to explain?
Fnord Prefect Fnord
me by writing:
>
> He probably thinks he's an "otherkin" or some other furry type. Or
> maybe one of those freakos who think the world is overrun by lizard
> people. Or a vampire/werewolf wannabe...although by today's freak
> standards even THAT is a bit too cliche.
Be a wannabe of any kind does not require that the wannabe be human or
not-human.
I have been called a useless reptile.
Fnord Prefect Fnord
continue the conversation with a crackpot.
>
> Crackpot? No no no, I'm not a crackpot, just a smarta$$... There IS a
> difference... :)
I'm a little crockpot, short and stout, I'm full of beef stew. With
potatoes and carrots.
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188338516.0...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
x' = x-vt, (Einstein)
so
(x-vt)/(c-v) = t (Einstein)
and
'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' -- Idiot Einstein
so
(x-vt)/(c+v) = t (Einstein)
hence
t <> t.
Einstein's original equations (above) are nonsensical.
They are not MY equations, you LYING piece of shit
all round idiot troll.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Yeah, yeah, sure kid, sure. And I've been called the full embodiment
of the antichrist (amongst various other things), but it's not like
you see me buying into the kooky ass bull crap.
Maybe if you weren't so pathetic in real life you wouldn't have such a
need to retard back into fantasy land at the nearest convenience.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fnord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Your point was something about the arbitraryness of measurement, wasn;t it?
As the Rock Man once said to Little Oblio, "You don't have to have a
point, to have a point, you dig?"
>So did you plant a mistake on purpose just to amuse me? If not, you have
>my permission to pretend I did.
...you uh, you mix your pronouns up often?
>>>And I'm not human.
>> Oh now come on, just because you're a retard doesn't mean you're not
>> human. Honestly, don't be so hard on yourself.
>If only I *could* be hard on myself. It sounds like fun!
>
>Ok, would anyone like to explain?
It involves facing the real world, OUTSIDE of your fantasy that you're
some all powerful, all knowing creature of other worldly being. See
the thing of it is, kid, you're USING this fantasy of yours as a
CRUTCH so you DON'T have to be "hard on yourself"...cause that's just
too much for you to handle, innt? But yer fantasy, your alter ego as
it were, well he can do ANYTHING, huh? *nods*
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Jeckyl
> The greatest thing Einstein ever did and will continue to do...is to
> inspire people. Whether his THEORIES are eventually found to be law
> or debunked is completely irrelevant.
Nicely put
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 28, 1:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
> > reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
> > in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
>
> Whatever. Point is he showed the Lorentz transform could be derived
> from defining time coordinate by means of certain clock
> synchronisation convention implementing the notion of light speed
> constancy (where "speed" of an object is a _defined quantity_ as the
> quotient of distance by the _time difference resulting from the
> assumed clock sync convention_). The idea is that these definitions
> turn out to mimic the Newtonian time very accurately for everyday
> speeds while at the same time they produce the Lorentz transform which
> had already been known at that time to correctly model
> electrodynamics.
Whatever. This is total bullshit. Einstein's derivation of the
Lorentz transform in 1905 was utterly garbage. Realizing that
weakness, his derivation of the same Lorentz transform in 1920 is also
nonsensical.
> It was a very elegant and at that time totally unexpected thing to
> notice that such reconciliation between Newtonian mechanics and
> Maxwellian electrodynamics could be achieved from a small set of
> assumptions.
You are welcome to call any piece of garbage as tainting with
elegant. <shrug>
> One might object that Einstein (or SR) never provided any
> justification for this particular set of assumptions (notably, the
> speed of light constancy) but then SR never had the like ambition. Any
> physical theory that ever was had to stop justifying its axioms at
> some level anyway.
There is no objection to Einstein's assumptions. Hey, have you not
been following my argument. Einstein deducted the importance of the
constancy in the speed of light by reverse-engineering the Lorentz
transform.
> It is just that SR happens to stop justifying its axioms at the level
> which seems to many people rather "easy" and "obvious" - after all the
> intuitive idea of "speed" seems obvious to everyone - hence the
> unending onslaught by amateurs. Other physics theories, notably
> quantum mechanics, use a far stranger and ad hoc set of axioms as
> their "unjustifiable" base but being more sophisticated mathematically
> it is assaulted by the armchair critics and amateurs far less than SR.
I don't know what you are babbling about.
> > His derivation
> > of the Lorentz transform in 1905 was a total gibberish.
>
> No, it's total correctness actually. It's technically easy to
> doublecheck it and I find it frankly surprising that a person
> pontificating on field Lagrangians day in day out would have such
> enormous difficulty following an algebraic argument in 4 coordinates.
> Einstein's argument is technically quite easy but conceptually _very_
> subtle. Almost every armchair SR critic here misses the whole point of
> Einstein's 1905 work, misled as they are by the fact that they can
> comprehend the easy high school algebra the theory happens to be
> presented in.
Yes, Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform in 1905 appears to
be elegantly sound to a second-rated film maker. Your bluffing is so
amusing.
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 28, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
> > the speed of light?
>
> 1. Maxwell's electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics calls out for light to travel in a medium
called the Aether where the wavelength is invariant. The speed of
light is only a constant to someone at rest in the background of the
Aether. The classical Doppler was thought to have taken place with
electrodynamics. <shrug>
> 2. Assuming that Maxwell's dynamics obey the same invariance of form
> in transforms between inertial frames, the same way that all other
> dynamics known to that point did.
>
> Those were his reasons.
>
> > Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
> > reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
> > in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
>
> Bullshit. Nice of you to read into it your own little Perry Mason
> scenario, though.
I can assure that there is nothing of what I was saying that would
have been remotely related to Perry Mason. Who? Please allow me to
repeat.
JanPB
As I said in another posting, you are all mixed up with respect to the
two clock systems present in this setup.
Firstly, there is the K ("stationary") system: according to its E-
synced clocks the relevant elapsed times are (x-vt)/(c-v) and (x-vt)/(c
+v). These are NOT equal (obviously). That they are NOT equal is in
fact the whole point of the demonstration in paragraph 2 of E's paper.
Secondly, there is also the k ("moving") system: according to its E-
synced clocks the relevant elapsed times ARE equal. These two elapsed
times are equal to:
tau(x-vt,0,0,t+(x-vt)/c-v)) - tau(0,0,0,t)
and:
tau(0,0,0,t+(x-vt)/(c-v)+(x-vt)/(c+v)) - tau(x-vt,0,0,t+(x-vt)/c-
v)).
*These* two differences are equal because it is *these* two
differences that embody the statement "the time required by light to
travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A".
The expressions (x-vt)/(c-v) and (x-vt)/(c+v) are *not* the
mathematical embodiment of that statement.
The reason why the former *is* such embodiment while the latter *is
not* is that A and B (emission and reflection) *are* stationary in the
former system but not stationary in the latter. Einstein's requirement
"the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A" *presumes* A and B are stationary in
the system of clocks under consideration.
> Einstein's original equations (above) are nonsensical.
> They are not MY equations, you LYING piece of shit
> all round idiot troll.
They are your misinterpretations though.
--
Jan Bielawski
Don Stockbauer
"She came out of the sun in a silk dress running like a watercolour in
the rain."
JanPB
> On Aug 28, 3:24 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 1:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
> > > reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
> > > in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
>
> > Whatever. Point is he showed the Lorentz transform could be derived
> > from defining time coordinate by means of certain clock
> > synchronisation convention implementing the notion of light speed
> > constancy (where "speed" of an object is a _defined quantity_ as the
> > quotient of distance by the _time difference resulting from the
> > assumed clock sync convention_). The idea is that these definitions
> > turn out to mimic the Newtonian time very accurately for everyday
> > speeds while at the same time they produce the Lorentz transform which
> > had already been known at that time to correctly model
> > electrodynamics.
>
> Whatever. This is total bullshit. Einstein's derivation of the
> Lorentz transform in 1905 was utterly garbage. Realizing that
> weakness, his derivation of the same Lorentz transform in 1920 is also
> nonsensical.
In other words, "I have no argument".
Check.
> > It was a very elegant and at that time totally unexpected thing to
> > notice that such reconciliation between Newtonian mechanics and
> > Maxwellian electrodynamics could be achieved from a small set of
> > assumptions.
>
> You are welcome to call any piece of garbage as tainting with
> elegant. <shrug>
Check.
> > One might object that Einstein (or SR) never provided any
> > justification for this particular set of assumptions (notably, the
> > speed of light constancy) but then SR never had the like ambition. Any
> > physical theory that ever was had to stop justifying its axioms at
> > some level anyway.
>
> There is no objection to Einstein's assumptions. Hey, have you not
> been following my argument. Einstein deducted the importance of the
> constancy in the speed of light by reverse-engineering the Lorentz
> transform.
Check.
> > It is just that SR happens to stop justifying its axioms at the level
> > which seems to many people rather "easy" and "obvious" - after all the
> > intuitive idea of "speed" seems obvious to everyone - hence the
> > unending onslaught by amateurs. Other physics theories, notably
> > quantum mechanics, use a far stranger and ad hoc set of axioms as
> > their "unjustifiable" base but being more sophisticated mathematically
> > it is assaulted by the armchair critics and amateurs far less than SR.
>
> I don't know what you are babbling about.
Just that SR is unique among important physics theories in being
expressible in terms of very simple mathematics. That is to say, its
actual content is very difficult and subtle but at the mere technical
level it is very simple. This immediately opens it to attacks by
ignorant people feeling no remorse over their pitiful attempts at
curing their inferiority complexes by throwing mud at Einstein. (I'm
leaving aside the anti-semitic angle to all this which is yet another
issue.)
> > > His derivation
> > > of the Lorentz transform in 1905 was a total gibberish.
>
> > No, it's total correctness actually. It's technically easy to
> > doublecheck it and I find it frankly surprising that a person
> > pontificating on field Lagrangians day in day out would have such
> > enormous difficulty following an algebraic argument in 4 coordinates.
> > Einstein's argument is technically quite easy but conceptually _very_
> > subtle. Almost every armchair SR critic here misses the whole point of
> > Einstein's 1905 work, misled as they are by the fact that they can
> > comprehend the easy high school algebra the theory happens to be
> > presented in.
>
> Yes, Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform in 1905 appears to
> be elegantly sound to a second-rated film maker. Your bluffing is so
> amusing.
Well, just *check* the correctness of the derivation. We are not
speaking poetry here, it's all 100% verifiable mathematics. You sit
down, go over the thing step by step and the result is unequivocal.
Just do it! It's easy.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee
In case if you have not noticed, we are discussing physics and not
riddles. However, please allow me to take a crack at your riddle.
The ideological nonsense as a whole with the nitwit Einstein elevated
into the intellectual leader of that movement cannot hold its
integrity under actual logical interrogations and deductions.
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[stupid crossposting to alt.2600, alt.magick, alt.religion.wicca, and
alt.recovery.adult-children removed.]
>On Aug 28, 3:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
>> > the speed of light?
>>
>> 1. Maxwell's electrodynamics.
>
>Maxwell's electrodynamics calls out for light to travel in a medium
>called the Aether where the wavelength is invariant. The speed of
>light is only a constant to someone at rest in the background of the
>Aether. The classical Doppler was thought to have taken place with
>electrodynamics. <shrug>
Where is the ether in the following equations:
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
del x E = -dB/dt
del x B = dE/dt * 1/c^2 + mu_0*J
Oh what am I thinking...I'm quoting Maxwell's equations to a guy who
can't see the problem in Androcles saying Faraday's law is E = -dB/dt.
>
>> 2. Assuming that Maxwell's dynamics obey the same invariance of form
>> in transforms between inertial frames, the same way that all other
>> dynamics known to that point did.
>>
>> Those were his reasons.
>>
>> > Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
>> > reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
>> > in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
>>
>> Bullshit. Nice of you to read into it your own little Perry Mason
>> scenario, though.
>
>I can assure that there is nothing of what I was saying that would
>have been remotely related to Perry Mason. Who? Please allow me to
>repeat.
>
>Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
>reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the constancy
>in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
...and your evidence for this is what, exactly?
No, anti-semitism and jealousy of Einstein's accomplishments do not
count.
Androcles
As I said in another posting, Einstein was all mixed up with respect to
the two clock systems present in this setup.
I don't care what you said in an other posting, you are and
will always be nothing more than an assistant light-bulb changer
as I said another posting.
: Firstly, there is the K ("stationary") system: according to its E-
: synced clocks the relevant elapsed times are (x-vt)/(c-v) and (x-vt)/(c
: +v). These are NOT equal (obviously).
Yes, it is obvious, I agree. So my objection is sustained, obviously.
Let us fix the problem, obviously.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
Now we agree, obviously.
But wait... Einstein's definition DOES apply in the ("moving")
k-system or Einstein would not have gone to all the trouble of
proving it does, so the velocity of light is source dependent in
contradiction to his second crackpot postulate, obviously.
That agrees with experiment, Sagnac and MMX, obviously.
Correct conclusion reached, case closed, obviously.
[rest of garbage snipped, obviously]
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the "stationary" system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski aka JanPB, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Androcles
: On Aug 28, 9:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > On Aug 28, 3:24 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > > On Aug 28, 1:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > > > Einstein did not assume the speed of light was constant. He just
: > > > reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform to come up with the
constancy
: > > > in the speed of light and the principle of relativity.
: >
: > > Whatever. Point is he showed the Lorentz transform could be derived
: > > from defining time coordinate by means of certain clock
: > > synchronisation convention implementing the notion of light speed
: > > constancy (where "speed" of an object is a _defined quantity_ as the
: > > quotient of distance by the _time difference resulting from the
: > > assumed clock sync convention_). The idea is that these definitions
: > > turn out to mimic the Newtonian time very accurately for everyday
: > > speeds while at the same time they produce the Lorentz transform which
: > > had already been known at that time to correctly model
: > > electrodynamics.
: >
: > Whatever. This is total bullshit. Einstein's derivation of the
: > Lorentz transform in 1905 was utterly garbage. Realizing that
: > weakness, his derivation of the same Lorentz transform in 1920 is also
: > nonsensical.
:
: In other words, "I have no argument".
Correct. We can all agree, obviously.
PD
> On Aug 28, 3:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What reasons did Einstein come up with to argue for the constancy in
> > > the speed of light?
>
> > 1. Maxwell's electrodynamics.
>
> Maxwell's electrodynamics calls out for light to travel in a medium
> called the Aether where the wavelength is invariant.
There is nothing in his equations that refers to a medium, requires a
medium, or has properties of a medium. There is certainly nothing in
his models that insist that wavelength is invariant.
> The speed of
> light is only a constant to someone at rest in the background of the
> Aether.
That very statement is inconsistent with the 2nd assumption made by
Einstein, that the form of the equations is invariant regardless of
the choice of inertial reference frame. You've just said that
Maxwell's equations ONLY apply in a reference frame at rest relative
to the aether. Whether Maxwell thought that was true or not, Einstein
insisted that if Maxwell's dynamical equations were right, then they
should be right and in that same form regardless of the choice of
inertial reference frame. He made that assumption because it is true
of other dynamical laws and did not think it should be different for
electrodynamics. When he followed the implications of that assumption,
he arrived at some predictions that matched well with experiment.
You asked for the physical reasons why Einstein argued for the
constancy of the speed of light, and I've just told them to you. If
you'd care to say that, well, he shouldn't have used those reasons
because they are wrong, then that's another matter altogether. But for
you to say that these were not his reasons at all is simply incorrect.
JanPB
It's not really an "objection" - Einstein never claimed (x-vt)/(c-v)
and (x-vt)/(c+v) were equal. What he claimed was that the clock
readings of the _moving_ system would read equal elapsed times at the
corresponding events. These elapsed times are not (x-vt)/(c-v) and (x-
vt)/(c+v), they are instead:
tau(x-vt,0,0,t+(x-vt)/c-v)) - tau(0,0,0,t)
and:
tau(0,0,0,t+(x-vt)/(c-v)+(x-vt)/(c+v)) - tau(x-vt,0,0,t+(x-vt)/c-
v)).
_These_ two numbers are equal.
> Let us fix the problem, obviously.
>
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
>
> Now we agree, obviously.
Obviously, and moreover the requirement for this definition is that A
and B be stationary in the given (stationary) system.
> But wait... Einstein's definition DOES apply in the ("moving")
> k-system or Einstein would not have gone to all the trouble of
> proving it does, so the velocity of light is source dependent in
> contradiction to his second crackpot postulate, obviously.
> That agrees with experiment, Sagnac and MMX, obviously.
No. The requirement that this definition apply to the moving system as
well forces the function tau to be what it is (i.e., a portion of the
Lorentz transform).
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
Yes he did, you simple-minded Polish assistant light-bulb changer.
Go back to assisting in the changing of light-bulbs, you can't read,
obviously.
: > Let us fix the problem, obviously.
: >
: > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
: > light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
: > to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
: >
: > Now we agree, obviously.
:
: Obviously, and moreover the requirement for this definition is that A
: and B be stationary in the given (stationary) system.
There's nothing about "stationary" in the definition, obviously.
You are not reading his paper carefully, obviously, you simple-
minded Polish assistant light-bulb changer.
It's 102 years old, you simple-minded Polish assistant light-bulb
changer, obviously.
: > But wait... Einstein's definition DOES apply in the ("moving")
: > k-system or Einstein would not have gone to all the trouble of
: > proving it does, so the velocity of light is source dependent in
: > contradiction to his second crackpot postulate, obviously.
: > That agrees with experiment, Sagnac and MMX, obviously.
:
: No.
HAHAHA! Oh yes it does, obviously, you simple-minded Polish assistant
light-bulb changer. Your simple denial isn't proof, you simple-minded Polish
assistant light-bulb changer. How many Poles does it take to change a light
bulb?
The five stages of your grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression,
acceptance.
You are still at stage one, denial, grieving for your beloved dead theory.
http://www.businessballs.com/elisabeth_kubler_ross_five_stages_of_grief.htm
: The requirement that this definition apply to the moving system as
: well forces the function tau to be what it is (i.e., a portion of the
: Lorentz transform).
There is no "Lorentz transform", it cannot be derived, obviously.
You are still at stage one, denial, grieving for your beloved dead theory.
Case closed.
: [snip]
Victory is mine, you had to snip where you had no answer, obviously!
Case closed.
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Michael Lewis
> The
> : resulting "theory" permitted for absolute stationary objects in 3-d space
> : (while still moving away from eachother), and all the dilation formulas
> : still worked. He handed it back to me, and said simply "don't do that
> : again."
>
> You were easily crushed by the fuckhead, it seems.
> If you have a proof, stick to your guns, son. Keep firing.
> Else shut the fuck up, lay down and play dead.<shrug>
LOL!
Ok... The universe is the surface of a hypersphere that exists in 4
dimensional space. The surface of the sphere is our 3 dimensional
universe at any given point in time. Time, is measured by the distance
from the 4 dimensional center of the sphere to the current "shell".
All objects are radiating our from this center, and has a constant
velocity of C, the speed of light. As you travel in our 3 dimensional
universe, you are causing an angular shift in the momentum vector, thus
slowing down the rate of travel in "time", but keeping a constant overall
velocity.
Time dilation can now be "proven" using the same simple right triangle
mathematics, but for totally different reasons.
Now, the thing is, the object's velocity never changes, all you do is
alter how much of it is in the 4 dimensions (3 dimensional universe, plus
time). The energy required to "push" the momentum vector is not applied
to the alteration of overall speed. As required by the conservation of
energy, this energy must have gone "someplace", but it definitly didn't go
to speed.
While the overall kenetic energy increases, but since the speed remains
constant, the increase must be accounted for in the mass of the object.
The energy used to alter the momentum vector therefore alters the mass,
not the speed, of the object.
Mass dilation can now be "proven."
I honestly don't remember how I came up with the legnth dilation (I did
make the thing over 10 years ago), but I believe it had something to do
with the requirement to measure the legnth of an object to the
"stationary" observer in 3-d space must match the observed legnth of a
moving observer.
Ay any rate, Einstein says that space curves upon itself, traveling in one
direction you will eventually return to the same location you started out
at. Well, for that to be true, the universe MUST be the surface of a
hypersphere... Another "result" is that two objects can be stationary in
3-dimensional space, and still move apart from eachother as the universe
expands.
Now, think of the twin paradox. All motion is relative, yes? Ok, so when
the twip in the space ship goes out then comes back, why is HE the younger
one? To the twin on the ship, the planet went out then came back.
Einstein said the "selector" is the act of acceleration, because there
isn't really any "stationary" anyhow.
In "my universe", the twin paradox still works, but the reason as to why
isn't as lame as acceleration. The twin on the planet (ignoring orbital
mechanics) will travel in 3-dimensional space at a constant speed. The
twin's ship will travel in one direction, then back again. From a true
stationary observer, both twins will "suffer" from time dilation. But for
the twin on the space ship, it will swing wildly.
My universe gets the same results as Einstein's universe, is much simpler
an explination as to why, while violating just about everything Einstein
said. D@mn I'm good... :)
JanPB
No, he didn't. Nobody sensible would claim that even in the Middle
Ages. Obviously c+v is not equal to c-v.
> : > Let us fix the problem, obviously.
> : >
> : > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> : > light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
> : > to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
> : >
> : > Now we agree, obviously.
> :
> : Obviously, and moreover the requirement for this definition is that A
> : and B be stationary in the given (stationary) system.
>
> There's nothing about "stationary" in the definition, obviously.
Not the very word "stationary", no. But reread in Paragraph 1 how to
"compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B". The
definition given there clearly presumes A and B do not move while the
connecting light rays go about their business. The whole thing
obviously becomes entirely vacuous otherwise, it would be like
defining distance by means of rulers made of rubber.
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
comment
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:_ZHAi.12806$g.7...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> Many people get rich by theft, it's just a sad fact of life.
> I happened not to be around when Einstein was conning
> the world, that's also a fact of life. The arsehole "PerfectReign"
> is just one more useless con artist. <shrug>
>
Do you work hard at being a complete moron or does it come naturally
to you?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
Yes he did.
: Nobody sensible would claim that even in the Middle
: Ages. Obviously c+v is not equal to c-v.
Obviously c+v is not equal to c, so why try to claim it is?
:
: > : > Let us fix the problem, obviously.
: > : >
: > : > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
: > : > light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
: > : > to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
: > : >
: > : > Now we agree, obviously.
: > :
: > : Obviously, and moreover the requirement for this definition is that A
: > : and B be stationary in the given (stationary) system.
: >
: > There's nothing about "stationary" in the definition, obviously.
:
: Not the very word "stationary", no.
Ok, so I've made my point.
But reread in Paragraph 1 how to
: "compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B".
Can't be done, there is only one clock at A,
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, no clock at B so an event at B
is ASSUMED to be at time tB = 1/2 (t'A-tA) + tA.
Hence AB/(v-c) = BA/(v+c) or the 1/2 is wrong.
: The
: definition given there clearly presumes
YES!! It PRESUMES.
That's what's wrong. Well done. That's what I've been
telling you all along. And of course it presumes wrong.
Einstein was a fuckhead who presumes and the assistant
bulb changer believes silly presumptions.
: A and B do not move while the
: connecting light rays go about their business.
But they do, or the fuckhead has no paper. And when they do
the half is wrong.
The whole thing
: obviously becomes entirely vacuous otherwise, it would be like
: defining distance by means of rulers made of rubber.
My point, I believe.
Obviously the whole thing is entirely vacuous, it is just like
defining distance by means of rulers made of gamma.
#
--
'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 and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
Jeckyl
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
You're not still on about that are you?
> Now we agree, obviously.
>
> But wait... Einstein's definition DOES apply in the ("moving")
> k-system or Einstein would not have gone to all the trouble of
> proving it does, so the velocity of light is source dependent in
> contradiction to his second crackpot postulate, obviously.
Eh? So by proving that the speed of light is the same ina moving system,
that shows that it is not? Would you care to explain yourself? .. probably
not.
> That agrees with experiment, Sagnac and MMX, obviously.
Sagnac and MMx work just fine with the second posutlate and with the time
for light to travel from A to B being the same as travelling form B to A
(which is a consequence of the second postulate)
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[idiotic headers removed. for fucks sake what does any of the non-SPR
groups have to do with this?]
>"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>news:awbBi.19194$g....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
>> light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
>> to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
>
>You're not still on about that are you?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/7f56abe45811f24b
"yes, yes i am"
He has been "on about that" since day one. He didn't understand in
1999 - probably far earlier, actually - and still doesn't understand
in 2007.
Notice the other idiots in the thread. Eleaticus finally figured out
nobody was reading his spew, so it seems he stopped posting his spam
crap in mid-2006. Unfortunately, eight years later, both O'Barr and
Androcles post to this newsgroup.
[...]
JanPB
Nobody claims c+v equals c (unless v=0). If you were referring to
"velocity addition in SR" then it's not applicable here because
"velocity addition" and the plain number addition "+" we are
discussing here are two different things.
> : > : > Let us fix the problem, obviously.
> : > : >
> : > : > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> : > : > light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
> : > : > to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.'
> : > : >
> : > : > Now we agree, obviously.
> : > :
> : > : Obviously, and moreover the requirement for this definition is that A
> : > : and B be stationary in the given (stationary) system.
> : >
> : > There's nothing about "stationary" in the definition, obviously.
> :
> : Not the very word "stationary", no.
>
> Ok, so I've made my point.
>
> But reread in Paragraph 1 how to
> : "compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B".
>
> Can't be done, there is only one clock at A,
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, no clock at B so an event at B
> is ASSUMED to be at time tB = 1/2 (t'A-tA) + tA.
> Hence AB/(v-c) = BA/(v+c) or the 1/2 is wrong.
You are now changing the subject. We are discussing the notion of
"common ''time'' for A and B" which is what you were quoting up till
now:
"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."
This notion requires two clocks: one at A, one at B. Einstein writes:
"If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A...", etc.
> : The
> : definition given there clearly presumes
>
> YES!! It PRESUMES.
> That's what's wrong. Well done. That's what I've been
> telling you all along. And of course it presumes wrong.
> Einstein was a fuckhead who presumes and the assistant
> bulb changer believes silly presumptions.
What's wrong with stating one's assumptions clearly?
> : A and B do not move while the
> : connecting light rays go about their business.
>
> But they do, or the fuckhead has no paper. And when they do
> the half is wrong.
A and B are, quote, "points of space". They do not move.
> The whole thing
> : obviously becomes entirely vacuous otherwise, it would be like
> : defining distance by means of rulers made of rubber.
>
> My point, I believe.
> Obviously the whole thing is entirely vacuous, it is just like
> defining distance by means of rulers made of gamma.
I said it would be vacuous _if_ Einstein used "moving space
points" (if such thing existed). Of course he did not.
> '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 and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
It's just a definition. It happens to be a useful one.
[snip]
--
Jan Bielawski
Onideus Mad Hatter
>> Many people get rich by theft, it's just a sad fact of life.
>> I happened not to be around when Einstein was conning
>> the world, that's also a fact of life. The arsehole "PerfectReign"
>> is just one more useless con artist. <shrug>
>Do you work hard at being a complete moron or does it come naturally
>to you?
I think he's just a bitter 'ol bitch cause he was too damn stupid to
make it anywhere in the field and got continually laughed out of
discussions. He probably eventually settled into a job in a research
lab as like some kind of janitor or flunkie, light bulb changing lab
tech and has been a nasty, sour, resentful little ass crab ever since.
And of course with the wondrous power of the Internet he's able to
come online as an anonymous coward and share his incredible insight
(read bitter vitriol) with all of us. The best thing everyone can do
is to simply ignore him as he's been ignored through life. Don't give
him the chance to argue, just smile, pat him on the head and say,
"That's nice dear, go play with your toys."
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Androcles
That's good, because the time for light to go from
A to B doesn't equal the time for light to go from B to A
unless v = 0, but some fuckwit said it did and then said
the speed of light was 'c' in all frames of reference.
: If you were referring to
: "velocity addition in SR"
I didn't get that far yet. We are still stuck on the clock at B that doesn't
exist and the clock at A that doesn't move in space but moves in the
stationary K-frame.
" "If at the point A of space there is a clock..." - the clock
sits there and does not move. It's important."-- JanPB
"In the stationary K frame the point A _moves_" -- JanPB
"Inconsistent" - remember it.
[snip]
Randy Poe
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> That's good, because the time for light to go from
> A to B doesn't equal the time for light to go from B to A
> unless v = 0, but some fuckwit said it did
Don't be so harsh on yourself. Yes, you keep making
that statement and thinking you read it somewhere,
but many people are willing to help you past this
misconception.
> and then said
> the speed of light was 'c' in all frames of reference.
In all inertial frames, yes. That's confirmed by
experiment. One would have to be an idiot to hold
to a different belief in the face of overwhelming
evidence.
You do believe empirical evidence over data ab
recto, right?
- Randy