Are h's equations right?
Garry Denke
h = e^2 * z0 / (2 alpha)
h = [(1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s)^2] * (3.767303134... x 10^2 kg-m^2/
A^2-s^3) / [(2.00000000 x 10^0 rad/sr) * (7.2973525(68) x 10^-3 sr)]
h = (2.5669696(36) x 10^-38 A^2-s^2) * (3.767303134... x 10^2 kg-m^2/
A^2-s^3) / (1.4594705(14) x 10^-2 rad)
h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad
h = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c
h = [(1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s)^2] / [(2.00000000 x 10^0 rad/sr) *
(7.2973525(68) x 10^-3 sr)] * (8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3)
* (2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s)
h = (2.5669696(36) x 10^-38 A^2-s^2) / (1.4594705(14) x 10^-2 rad) *
(8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3) * (2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s)
h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad
h = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
h = [(1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s)^2] * (1.256637061... x 10^-6 kg-m/
A^2-s^2) * (2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s) / [(2.00000000 x 10^0 rad/sr) *
(7.2973525(68) x 10^-3 sr)]
h = (2.5669696(36) x 10^-38 A^2-s^2) * (1.256637061... x 10^-6 kg-m/
A^2-s^2) * (2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s) / (1.4594705(14) x 10^-2 rad)
h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad
Are h's equations right, I cannot find h anywhere.
Thanks!
Garry Denke
h = e^2 * mu0 * c / (2 alpha)
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?z0
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0
Androcles
"Garry Denke" <Garry...@denocoinc.com> wrote in message news:1172944728.6...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
It's a dead giveaway when someone says
Standard uncertainty (exact)
Relative standard uncertainty (exact)
because it is obviously not measured. So no.
Besides which, they are properties of aether and therefore nonsense.
Anything involving c (= 2AB/(t'A-tA) )
is merely division by zero, you can have any result you want.
Garry Denke
but I have not been able to locate the first and last.
h = e^2 * z0 / (2 alpha)
h = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c
h = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
gravity and electric force,
F = e^2 * c^3 / h * (2 alpha) * G * e0
F = (1.6021 x 10^-19 A-s)^2 * (2.9979 x 10^8 m/s)^3 / (6.6260 x 10^-34
kg-m^2/s-rad) * [(2.0000 x 10^0 rad/sr) * 7.2973 x 10^-3 sr)] *
(6.6742 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2) * (8.8541 x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3)
F = 1.21 x 10^44 kg-m/s^2
gravity and magnetic force,
F = h * (2 alpha) * c^3 / e^2 * G * u0
F = (6.6260 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad) * [(2.0000 x 10^0 rad/sr) * 7.2973
x 10^-3 sr)] * (2.9979 x 10^8 m/s)^3 / (1.6021 x 10^-19 A-s)^2 *
(6.6742 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2) * (1.2566 x 10^-6 kg-m/A^2-s^2)
F = 1.21 x 10^44 kg-m/s^2
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?z0
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0
NIST wrong, Androcles right?
Androcles
"Garry Denke" <Garry...@garrydenke.com> wrote in message news:1172958341.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:13:12 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 20 2005 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation
Stan Byers wrote:
> I wish to have English web pages (~9) translated into German. The title and
> URL of the material is; "Light Speed versus Special Relativity",
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
That page is useless. It only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and does
not include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely likely
that when the errorbars of those measurements are included, they will be
consistent with modern measurements.
Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars. "
Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com
Roberts is correct: amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.
Roberts goes on to mumble:
"That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in
many different situations. "
What he forgets to mention is the many more situations where it doesn't,
such as MMX and Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
The problem is compounded because there is a mu1, mu2, mu3 etc.,
for matter that is transparent such as air, water, diamond and so on
where light will travel at a slower speed wrt the medium, there is just no
mu0 for aether. Relativists pay lip service to the PoR, but they
do not understand it.
Garry Denke
h = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c
h = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
h's gravity and electro-magnetic key,
"h" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h
"e" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e
"z0" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?z0
"alpha" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph
"e0" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0
"c" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
"u0" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0
"G" = http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg
gravity and electric force,
F = e^2 * c^3 / h * (2 alpha) * G * e0
F = (1.602176 x 10^-19 A-s)^2 * (2.997924 x 10^8 m/s)^3 / (6.626069 x
10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad) * [(2.000000 x 10^0 rad/sr) * 7.297352 x 10^-3
sr)] * (6.674200 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2) * (8.854187 x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-
m^3)
F = 1.21027 x 10^44 kg-m/s^2
gravity and magnetic force,
F = h * (2 alpha) * c^3 / e^2 * G * u0
F = (6.626069 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad) * [(2.000000 x 10^0 rad/sr) *
7.297362 x 10^-3 sr)] * (2.997924 x 10^8 m/s)^3 / (1.602176 x 10^-19 A-
s)^2 * (6.674200 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2) * (1.256637 x 10^-6 kg-m/A^2-
s^2)
F = 1.21027 x 10^44 kg-m/s^2
Are h's equations right?
Thanks!
Androcles
"Garry Denke" <Garry...@denocoinc.com> wrote in message news:1172967662....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
The answer is still no and will remain no regardless of
how many times you ask or how many people disagree.
"I frame no hypotheses" - Sir Isaac Newton.
hanson
news:1172958341.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> but I have not been able to locate the first and last.
>
> h = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c ..... [2]
> h = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha) ..... [3]
>
[hanson]
combine [2] & [3]
e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
e^2 / (2 alpha) * c * e0 = e^2 / (2 alpha) * c * u0
**** e0 = u0 ****
or
combine [1] & [3]
e^2 * z0 / (2 alpha) = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
z0 = u0 * c
or
combine [1] & [2]
e^2 * z0 / (2 alpha) = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c
z0 = e0 * c
or
u0 * c = e0 * c
**** e0 = u0 ****
>
.... wow, now what?.... ahahahaha... ahahaha...
why all the huge calcs below to show F1 = F2
when e0 = u0. What is your incessant trashing
all about?.. What's eating you?
ahaha... ahahahanson
>
[Garry]
John C. Polasek
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Garry Denke" <Garry...@denocoinc.com> wrote in message news:1172967662....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>h = e^2 * z0 / (2 alpha)
>> h = e^2 / (2 alpha) * e0 * c
>> h = e^2 * u0 * c / (2 alpha)
>>
>snip
Given #2, use
u0*e0 = 1/c^2 and
z0 = sqrt(u0/e0)
z0 = sqrt(u0/e0 = u0*e0/e0*e0 =1/[c^2*e0^2])
z0 = 1/e0c Put in #2 to get #1
z0 = sqrt(u0/e0 = u0*u0/e0*u0 = u0^2*c^2) So
z0 = u0*c put into #1 to get #3.
John Polasek
Androcles
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:olvlu2d52go2j8vlj...@4ax.com...
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
unless you happen to be Bilewacky.
[an error in *special* relativity] "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172078787....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story.
Your assessment is "equally trivial".
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
>...........
>c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0
I always wonder why you consider that beeing 0/0,
especially why you set ( t'-t) = 0
w.
hanson
message news:245mu2pnqod691kb2...@4ax.com...[Wabbie]
> I always wonder why you. Andro, consider that beeing 0/0,
> especially why you set ( t'-t) = 0
> w.
>
Andro, you the engineer, try to explain that to Wabbie who is
some sort of engineer also. He asked you kindly. So explain it
to him slowly, in baby steps, and gently. Consider that Wabbie
has been the victim of Einstein Dingleberryism for a long time.
Have patience with him and light a candle for/in/on Wabbie's
darkmess. He will be grateful to you. Take care guys.
hanson
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
thanks, hanson.
I really would like to know why Androcles says:
"Light travels from A to A in time T'A-TA = c = 0/0"
contradicting his own GIF animation of the two-way-speed of light.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
w.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:VOhHh.4459$kh.2283@trnddc06...
> "Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> asked in
> message news:245mu2pnqod691kb2...@4ax.com...
>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> who wrote:
>>>...........
>>
> [Wabbie]
>> I always wonder why you. Andro, consider that beeing 0/0,
>> especially why you set ( t'-t) = 0
>> w.
>>
> [hanson]
> Andro, you the engineer, try to explain that to Wabbie who is
> some sort of engineer also.
Wabnigga can't be an engineer, he doesn't know how far it is from A to A
or how long it takes to get there, and he thinks velocities go both ways.
An engineer would say
AB/(tB-tA) = c,
BA/(t'A-tB) = -c
or he'd never be able to program a computer.
Computers know all about minus signs, you can't fool them.
What Einstein really says is
AB/(tB-tA) = v-c
BA/(t'A-tB) = v+c
and then, being of average cunning, convinces morons that
that tB is 1/2(t'A-tA).
> He asked you kindly. So explain it
> to him slowly, in baby steps, and gently.
Dumbledore would have to do that, he's the bot I created to deal
with morons like Uncle Schwartz who responded to a bot.
See if you can impress Wabnigga with c + (-c) = 0, he is on my killfile.
Dumbledore is only a tad smarter than Wabbie, you see.
> Consider that Wabbie
> has been the victim of Einstein Dingleberryism for a long time.
Morons that cannot think for themselves I take pity on.
That and a couple of pounds will get them a coffee at Starbucks,
but I'm hanging on to my two quid for MY coffee. Pity is free. :-)
> Have patience with him and light a candle for/in/on Wabbie's
> darkmess. He will be grateful to you. Take care guys.
> hanson
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172078787....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 1:33 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172045378.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 20, 10:54 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172021102.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172010259.6...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > On Feb 20, 1:04 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1171996424.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > On Feb 20, 10:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1171990329.5...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 20, 7:38 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Two way travel time is easy but I can't get past the two way velocity of light,
>> >> >> >> >> >> dumbfuck, and if the introduction is wrong then all that follows is total crap.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Just ask your question precisely.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer.
>> >> >> >> >> Ok, I will anyway.
>> >> >> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... fuckhead?
>>
>> >> >> >> > It obviously depends
>>
>> >> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer. I'll try again.
>>
>> >> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... stupid fuckhead?
>>
>> >> >> > Saying "from A to A"
>>
>> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer. I'll try again.
>>
>> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... stoopid fuckheaded imbecile?
>>
>> >> > The question "How far is it from A to A" has infinitely many answers.
>>
>> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> Three strikes, you are out, stooopid.
>> >> The answer was zero.
>>
>> > No, the answer is not zero.
>>
>> HAHAHA!
>> That's a keeper.
>> "A-A <> 0" - Bilewacky.
>
> Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story.
According to Bielawski, Relativity works because
An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
Let a train go from West London to East London,
then let it return again to West London,
according to Androcles' math the train does it in zero seconds,
and the distance travelled is zero feet, meters, or whatever,
and furthermore, the average speed of the train is zero,
because West to East is v, and east to West is -v
Average Androcles speed = [v + (-v)] = 0 = zero, nil, nothing.
Androcles claims to be a British engineer.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
He does not talk to me, perhaps you ask him politely why he says
>Light travels from A to A in time t'-tA = c = 0/0
time = [seconds]
c = speed = [m/sec]
w.
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
IN NONE WE TRUST.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
hanson
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 --- EINSTEIN 1905.
>>>>
[Wabbie to Andro]
I always wonder why you, Andro, consider that being 0/0,
especially why you set ( t'-t) = 0
>
[hanson to Wabbie]
So you, like JanPB below, cannot see Andro's point that "if the
[1905] introduction [by Einstein] is wrong then all that follows is
total crap". http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Let's be clear Andro is not having issues with the hyperbolic/cosh
geometry/math itself, but how Einstein used and applied it to
physics. Andro rightfully questions the wrongful & questionable
application thereof by Einstein and his Dingleberries.
>
Now, Wabbie, instead of you doubting Andro, by placing your
argument below against his reasoning, bypass that and do take
another route:
>
Try to see, for your own benefit, the candle that Andro has lit
by using "reverse engineering". Start off with the Einstein
t & l equations [(t' = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) etc] and then work'em
backwards until can finally see that 0/0 phenomena to occur.
>
Too boot, Andro has shown an even more convincing example for
the failure of experimental proof/validation/verification for SR in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm , wherein
he shows that all those carefully selected & manicured experiments
were ordained to come out "right" because all the measurements
do fall by design/intent into the limits within the experimental error.
>
Now if you still can't see it then don't argue with Andro or me.
=1= Argue with Einstein himself why he was, as early as 1920,
when Einstein's star was meteorically raising, already telling and
urging physicists that they.. "should NOT search at the same,
now well lit places, where he, Einstein, had been working".
=2= Argue with Nobel prize commissioner, Harald Nordensen who
wrote in 1922: "I maintain that whosoever from now upholds the
relativistic ideas or applies the fundamental relativistic formulae as
representing relations between physical quantities, without regarding
and refuting my criticism of the Theory, makes himself liable to the
accusation of grave intellectual laxity."
=3= Argue again with Einstein himself who close to the end of his
life in 1954 said to Besso:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
=4= Argue with luminaries like Professor Carver A. Mead of
Caltech (a student of Richard Feynman) , who said ca 2000:
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
=5= Argue with F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
=6= Argue even with the Brits' conservative Royal Society who
at the end 2005 has voted Einstein out and favors Newton...
=7= Argue with the higher the learning institutions in Bavaria who,
since 1996, made SR/GR no longer a compulsory, mandatory
subject to study physics.
=8= Argue with the heuristics professionals where you'll see that
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu & and grantology ................"does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
The "demography" in =8= shows you that when direct practical
results are the expected out-put, as in mil/indust. Eng, -R&D, then
REL has NOT found to be of any use. -- Experiment reigns supreme
in mil/indust. Eng, -R&D. ... Read: "Here we measure, punk" in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ad48928a25976b2b
>
OTOH, in the latter 3 fields of endeavors in =8= where REL is the
object of the subject (= story-telling) NO direct practical pay-off is
expected from REL, and it is here where REL shows now its uncanny
ability to stir up emotions in the participants, just like any other story
telling object/subject does, from news-at-eleven to gospel recitation.
So, just like in politics and religion REL produces camps of disciples
and infidels.. and the wars are on... with all sides insisting that only
they
are right... Do you begin to see the pix?
The underlying operative reason for the discord is simple. Said story-
telling and SR/GR do focus on/about relative positions of the participants,
their frames of reference.... and we all know that if some-one talks about
your position in a way that is different from your own, you do feel
offended,
you become defensive and the wars are on... supported and aggravated by
the fact that there are innumerable positions and frames of reference from
or about which a story can be told, .... which is what Andro had explained
in his short and cunning algebraic picture about the 0/0 phenomenon..
Do you begin to see the pix, now? ... and why everybody calls everybody
else "crank", wherein the REL crank-callers are being the prime cranks.
GR is even worse of a con then is SR, because it is nothing but circular
dance and playing around with Newton's revered G. As long as Einstein
uses Newton's G in his equations he carries with him , unavoidably, all the
baggage, the short comings and defects attributed to Newton's G that
REL is trying to get (unsuccessfully) rid of.
So GR = BFD .... and it doesn't change that fact no matter how much
they twist and convolute the situation with frame dragging, matrices or
barks & repeats of "GPS works", like loudmouthed fanatic-Al does.
Nor does it matter how many Einstein Dinglerry-come-latelies do write
lengthy Ashby type treatises decades later in the hope to garnish some
irrational fame with/from REL. All of them will remain by definition under
the towering influence and governing hand of Newton and his G from
which they so far have tried to escape in absolute, not relative, vain...
So the only truly positive fact is that they TRY to ESCAPE. That's good.
ahahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson
------------------ original post I responded to ---------
"Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
message news:hausu2leemsdb6ul9...@4ax.com...
"Androcles" > <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:VOhHh.4459$kh.2283@trnddc06...
"Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> asked
in news:245mu2pnqod691kb2...@4ax.com...
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> who wrote:
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 --- EINSTEIN 1905.
>>>>
[Wabbie to Andro]
I always wonder why you. Andro, consider that beeing 0/0,
especially why you set ( t'-t) = 0
w.
>>>>
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cb5b6f184e09bf9f
Andro, you the engineer, try to explain that to Wabbie who is
some sort of engineer also.
>>
[Andro]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aedb6ee4eb9b7a65
Wabnigga can't be an engineer, he doesn't know how far it is from
A to A r how long it takes to get there, and he thinks velocities go
both ways. An engineer would say
AB/(tB-tA) = c,
BA/(t'A-tB) = -c
or he'd never be able to program a computer.
Computers know all about minus signs, you can't fool them.
What Einstein really says is
AB/(tB-tA) = v-c
BA/(t'A-tB) = v+c
and then, being of average cunning, convinces morons that
that tB is 1/2(t'A-tA).
See if you can impress Wabnigga with c + (-c) = 0
[part snipped above for clarity but everything is in here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aedb6ee4eb9b7a65
>
[Andro's other refs w/ "JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com>]
Two way travel time is easy but I can't get past the two way velocity
of light, dumbfuck, and if the introduction [by Einstein] is wrong
then all that follows is total crap.
>>
[JanPB]
Just ask your question precisely.
>>
[Andro]
How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get
there... err... fuckhead?
>>
[JanPB]
It obviously depends
>>
[Andro]
I'll try again.
How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get
there... err... stupid fuckhead?
>>
[JanPB]
Saying "from A to A"
>>
[Andro]
I'll try again.
How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there...
err... stoopid fuckheaded imbecile?
>>
[JanPB]
The question "How far is it from A to A" has infinitely many answers.
>>
[Andro]
Three strikes, you are out, stooopid.
The answer was zero.
>>
[JanPB]
No, the answer is not zero.
>>
[Andro]
That's a keeper.
"A-A <> 0" - Bilewacky.
>
[JanPB]
Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story.
>
[Andro]
According to Bielawski, Relativity works because An error in
Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
>
"Helmut Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
message news:hausu2leemsdb6ul9...@4ax.com...
Let a train go from West London to East London,
then let it return again to West London,
according to Androcles' math the train does it in zero seconds,
and the distance travelled is zero feet, meters, or whatever,
and furthermore, the average speed of the train is zero,
because West to East is v, and east to West is -v
Androcles speed = [v + (-v)] = 0 = zero, nil, nothing.
He does not talk to me, perhaps you ask him why he says
[:: Andro::] "Light travels from A to A in time t'-tA = c = 0/0"
time = [seconds]
c = speed = [m/sec]
> Androcles claims to be a British engineer.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
> --
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> IN NONE WE TRUST.
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
[hanson]
The above last 3 lines are the best ones in your post, Wabbie.
Correct: It's $$$$$$$-money that talks --- but bullshit walks....
Correct too, "IN NONE WE TRUST" as it was already said some
26 centuries ago by Gautamo Buddha who did put it this way:
== Do not believe simply because you have heard it.
== Do not believe because it is written in your books.
== Do not believe in the authority of your teachers and elders.
== Do not believe in traditions that were handed down for generations.
== Believe only what you yourself do judge to be true."
>
Now, Wabbie, go back to the start of this post. Have fun and argue
with =1= to =8= instead of me. But thanks for the fun, guy.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:vnWJh.6963$rp4.4805@trnddc02...
"Anxiety is when you know 2 + 2 = 4, but you have to think about it"
http://www.nmhct.nhs.uk/pharmacy/truism.htm
MANY A TRUE WORD IS SPOKEN IN JEST - "Some truths, too painful or too likely to provoke, can be spoken only when the listener has been disarmed by laughter. A proverbial truth known for centuries, this notion was apparently first recorded by Chaucer with the line, 'A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley,' from 'Canterbury Tales' (c. 1387). In 'King Lear' (1605), William Shakespeare wrote, 'Jesters do oft prove prophets,' and some years later, essentially the modern version was rendered in the 'Roxburghe Ballad' (c. 1665): Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.." From "Wise Words and Wives' Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New" by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner (Avon Books, New York, 1993).
Mathematicians have always used "reverse engineering", as you call it.
Euclid's 5th postulate:
If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. This postulate is equivalent to what is known as the parallel postulate.
Euclid's fifth postulate cannot be proven as a theorem, although this was attempted by many people. Euclid himself used only the first four postulates ("absolute geometry") for the first 28 propositions of the Elements, but was forced to invoke the parallel postulate on the 29th. In 1823, Janos Bolyai and Nicolai Lobachevsky independently realized that entirely self-consistent "non-Euclidean geometries" could be created in which the parallel postulate did not hold. (Gauss had also discovered but suppressed the existence of non-Euclidean geometries.)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html
As a mathematical curiousity SR and GR are based on division-by-zero
with time treated as a vector. They are exotic theories built on H. G. Wells's
"The Time Machine" and bear no relation to the physical universe or science.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
It has happened before:
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
Cepheids have long been the standard candle by which distances to the other galaxies have been found.
The analemma of a cepheid:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
*That* is lighting a candle.
Paul B. Andersen
> Cepheids have long been the standard candle by which distances to the other galaxies have been found.
Indeed.
Strange how those planets orbiting the Cepheids are affected
by the distance to Earth, isn't it?
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:etpiuu$n92$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
I realize that real physics is strange to you, Tusseladd.
Even Galileo was wrong:
"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." - Galileo Galilei.
The action of the moon on the tides is childishness... I think not,
but your words are.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
Indeed.
You'll never be a thinker, Tusseladd, you don't have a brain.
Everything you utter is from a text book. All database and no
processor.