The time it takes to push a button

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 22, 2014, 10:46:50 PM7/22/14

to

This is the crux of the problem. It even takes time to expose an image from a camera. Our measuring instruments are riddled with time delays. There are many. So time dilation merely states the sum of the parts of these delays. Until we hunt down the delays and say- yes, this is the cause of that- the further we will remain from establishing a better model. Personally, I think that new models will reflect in their advantage that the absolute is palpable.

Sylvia Else

unread,

Jul 23, 2014, 2:35:58 AM7/23/14

to

Every competently done experiment involves an assessment of the
inaccuracies inherent in the measurements. The results are then
interpreted in the light of those inaccuracies to determine whether they
are consistent with the theory or model under test.

Experiments on time dilation using atomic clocks are consistent with
general relativity to a high level of accuracy.

The results are vastly inconsistent with an absolute model. It's dead
and buried.

Sylvia.

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 23, 2014, 3:42:13 AM7/23/14

to

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:c393eg...@mid.individual.net...

On 23/07/2014 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> This is the crux of the problem. It even takes time to expose an
> image from a camera. Our measuring instruments are riddled with time
> delays. There are many. So time dilation merely states the sum of
> the parts of these delays. Until we hunt down the delays and say-
> yes, this is the cause of that- the further we will remain from
> establishing a better model. Personally, I think that new models
> will reflect in their advantage that the absolute is palpable.
>

Every competently done experiment involves an assessment of the
inaccuracies inherent in the measurements. The results are then
interpreted in the light of those inaccuracies to determine whether they
are consistent with the theory or model under test.

Experiments on time dilation

=================================
are not competently done.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light.
(H. God Wilson thinks he's the God of Ballistic Light and can tell it what
to do.)

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Jul 23, 2014, 5:45:26 AM7/23/14

to

Lord Androcles <Ey...@Medway.Cstl> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
> news:c393eg...@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 23/07/2014 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>> This is the crux of the problem. It even takes time to expose an
>> image from a camera. Our measuring instruments are riddled with time
>> delays. There are many. So time dilation merely states the sum of
>> the parts of these delays. Until we hunt down the delays and say-
>> yes, this is the cause of that- the further we will remain from
>> establishing a better model. Personally, I think that new models
>> will reflect in their advantage that the absolute is palpable.
>>
>
> Every competently done experiment involves an assessment of the
> inaccuracies inherent in the measurements. The results are then
> interpreted in the light of those inaccuracies to determine whether
> they are consistent with the theory or model under test.
>
> Experiments on time dilation
> =================================
> are not competently done.

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 23, 2014, 8:08:13 AM7/23/14

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:lqo07m$1qo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Lord Androcles <Ey...@Medway.Cstl> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
> news:c393eg...@mid.individual.net...
> On 23/07/2014 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>> This is the crux of the problem. It even takes time to expose an
>> image from a camera. Our measuring instruments are riddled with time
>> delays. There are many. So time dilation merely states the sum of
>> the parts of these delays. Until we hunt down the delays and say-
>> yes, this is the cause of that- the further we will remain from
>> establishing a better model. Personally, I think that new models
>> will reflect in their advantage that the absolute is palpable.
>>
>
> Every competently done experiment involves an assessment of the
> inaccuracies inherent in the measurements. The results are then
> interpreted in the light of those inaccuracies to determine whether
> they are consistent with the theory or model under test.
>
> Experiments on time dilation
> =================================
> are not competently done.

Lucky thing we have Androcles to competently do an invertion
of a coordinate transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InvertingTransformation.html

=======================================
Yes indeed. Hint not enough? Want to see it finished?

x = (x' + vt')/g + v^2 x (the hint that Dork highlighted)
x - v^2x = (x' + vt')/g (subtract v^2x from both sides)
x(1-v^2) = (x' +vt') /g ( factorise left side)

x = [(x' +vt') /g]/(1-v^2) (divide both sides by (1-v^2)

g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

The fumbling fuckwit, Dork Van de faggot, thinks c = 1.

The correct coordinate transformation without stretching (called "scale" by
cartographers and "contraction" by relativistic fuckwits who forget 0' =
0-vt ) is
x' = x-vt
t' = t
Fuckwit = Dork
0' = 0-vt
where v = dx/dt and is not a coordinate.

The correct inverse is
x = x'+v't'
t = t'
Dork = Fuckwit
0 = 0' +v't'
where v' = dx'/dt'

If x' is stretched by 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to give xi (by Einstein)
and
t' = is shrunk by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to give tau and keep Dork's twin sister
younger than Dork
then v' = v * g^2
and Dork moves at
0.8c * ( 1 - 0.64) = 0.288c in his sister's frame of reference, which is
contrary to the PoR as the autistic Einstein was told it would be and was
still struggling with when the pathetic moron said "Who would imagine that
this simple law [constancy of the velocity of light] has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties", and "The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation
of Light with the Principle of Relativity" when it is not a law and
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity (which is a law), in spite of the fact that no
empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle."

Lucky thing you have the Reverend Lord Androcles to competently invert
a coordinate transformation and spell "inversion" for you, maggot.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 24, 2014, 11:36:01 PM7/24/14

to

That's really funny. Everybody knows that androcrap can't understand variables. Here he proves that he doesn't understand constants.

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 25, 2014, 2:10:18 AM7/25/14

to

Crapinale
wrote in message
news:8a38a412-4ece-4795...@googlegroups.com...

===========================================================

x = [(x' +vt') /g]/(1-v^2)

If g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) then
x = (x'-vt') * g^2/g =
= g(x'-vt') as Dork claimed, but unfortunately it doesn't, g =
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) so Dork has fumbled.

That's really sad. Everybody knows the constant c = 299 792 458 m / s
relative to its source at the epoch of emission. Here I proven Dork and the
anencephalous imbecile Crapinale with the IQ in single digits hallucinate it
is a constant 1 m/s.
Shithead - Crapinale = 0.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Jul 25, 2014, 5:01:39 AM7/25/14

to

pcard...@volcanomail.com <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:08:13 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message

>>> Lucky thing we have Androcles to competently do an invertion
>>> of a coordinate transformation:
>>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InvertingTransformation.html

>> =======================================
>> Yes indeed. Hint not enough? Want to see it finished?
>> x = (x' + vt')/g + v^2 x (the hint that Dork highlighted)
>> x - v^2x = (x' + vt')/g (subtract v^2x from both sides)
>> x(1-v^2) = (x' +vt') /g ( factorise left side)
>> x = [(x' +vt') /g]/(1-v^2) (divide both sides by (1-v^2)
>> g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>> The fumbling fuckwit, Dork Van de faggot, thinks c = 1.
>> The correct coordinate transformation without stretching (called "scale"
>> by cartographers and "contraction" by relativistic fuckwits who forget
>> 0' = 0-vt ) is
>> x' = x-vt
>> t' = t
>> Fuckwit = Dork
>> 0' = 0-vt

> That's really funny. Everybody knows that androcrap can't understand
> variables. Here he proves that he doesn't understand constants.

I don't think it's funny anymore. How anyone can have BECOME *that*
stupid AND confused AND arrogant AND silly, is downright frightening :-|

Dirk Vdm

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 25, 2014, 10:42:03 AM7/25/14

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message

news:lqt6dk$cie$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

===================================
You've described yourself well, you disgustingly ugly fumbling maggot; I
think it is fucking hilarious that you can't fault the algebra, I gave you
enough hints. :-)
You are full of shit and always have been.
ROFLMAO!

-- Androcles, mathematician.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 6:58:26 AM7/26/14

to

I will always think that 0' is funny.

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 11:04:06 AM7/26/14

to

Crapinale
wrote in message
news:caa71ae2-1e73-4269...@googlegroups.com...

I will always think that 0' is funny.

===============================
You never think, you lack the equipment..

If x = 0 , x' = -vt because x' = x-vt.
0' x'
|__________|
===========0....1....2....3.... count down, t -4

>>>0' x'
===|__________|
===========0....1....2....3.... t=3

>>>>>>0' x'
>>>>>>|__________|
===========0....1....2....3.... t-2

>>>>>>>>>0' x'
>>>>>>>>>|__________|
===========0....1....2....3.... t-1

>>>>>>>>>>>0' x'
>>>>>>>>>>>|__________|
===========0....1....2....3.... and we have lift off at t = 0, 0' = 0-v*0
and x' = x = 4

I will always think Crapinale is a fucking idiot as well as a troll and a
cunt.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 5:27:08 PM7/26/14

to

Notice how androcrap confuses O' with 0' (even when he's the one typing). This isn't just a typo on his part; he is unable to grasp the difference between "Oh" and "Zero" (hey, their both round, right?).

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 6:38:33 PM7/26/14

to

To say that the speed of light always travels at precisely 299,768 m/s is an absolute model. Are you saying that certain absolute models are preferred over others?

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 6:47:45 PM7/26/14

to

It does not matter whether rocks, cows, fish, or man views light- it travels at a specific and universal speed- operationally separate from the observer- the universal in-betweeen, from source to sink- the source/sink having nothing to say in this process. This, in all respect, is an absolute measure.

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 6:48:39 PM7/26/14

to

It becomes a measure of nature irrespective of man. That's messed up.

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 26, 2014, 10:19:19 PM7/26/14

to

Desperate Crapinale
wrote in message
news:522af698-1a93-45db...@googlegroups.com...

Notice how androcrap confuses O' with 0' (even when he's the one typing).
This isn't just a typo on his part; he is unable to grasp the difference
between "Oh" and "Zero" (hey, their both round, right?).

============================================
Notice how the pathetic cunt Crapinale is clutching at straws in
desperation.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/clutch-at-a-straw.html

"Try any route to get out of a desperate situation, no matter how unlikely
it is to succeed."

Speed of muon in Earth frame of reference: 0.9994c
Speed of Earth in muon frame of reference: 834.7c

x' = (x-vt)*gamma
t' = (t-vx)*gamma Bwahahahahaha!
Einstein: tau = (t-vx/c^2) * beta= t/beta

x = (x' +vt') * gamma ....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
t = (t'+vx) * gamma ... ROFLMAO!

Notice how the faggot maggot doesn't have the balls to write up his own
fuck-ups, which speaks to his character without further comment.

Sylvia Else

unread,

Jul 27, 2014, 1:42:42 AM7/27/14

to

Absolute in this context has come to mean absolute distance and absolute
time.

Substitute that definition back into my earlier statement.

Sylvia.

xxein

unread,

Jul 27, 2014, 2:47:22 AM7/27/14

to

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:08:13 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2.

xxein: What g are you talking about? Define it.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 28, 2014, 11:36:29 AM7/28/14

to

Well, let's see...

You, androcrap, wrote "0' = 0-vt"
which I said was funny because it shows that you, being dumber than a pile of dog turds, don't understand constants; which is true.
Worse yet, you don't understand the simplest constant: 'zero'.
It's really really funny that you're so stupid that you think there is such a thing as 'zero prime'.

Do you realize that you could get a lot of fertilizer by performing auto-trepanation?

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 28, 2014, 1:38:08 PM7/28/14

to

A STOOOPID cunt without a name
wrote in message
news:2d2b9095-2c3d-4b12...@googlegroups.com...

Well, let's see...

You, androcrap, wrote "0' = 0-vt"

====================================
Yep, that's because it does when Einstein says x' = x-vt, so I'll say it
again, spelt out longhand for the benefit of any lurkers that might be as
stupid as Crapinale:

The coordinate (0',0,'0') at the origin of the "moving" frame differs from
the coordinate (0,0,0) at the origin of the "stationary" frame by the
distance vt along the X-axis such that (0',0',0') = (0-vt,0,0).
Carry on laughing, you STOOOPID cunt.

which I said was funny because it shows that you, being dumber than a pile
of dog turds, don't understand constants; which is true.
Worse yet, you don't understand the simplest constant: 'zero'.
It's really really funny that you're so stupid that you think there is such
a thing as 'zero prime'.

Do you realize that you could get a lot of fertilizer by performing
auto-trepanation?

==========================================================================
Do you spell "Origin" as "0rigin", Crapinale?

It's really really really really really really really really really funny
that you're so stupid that you think there is no such thing as 'primed
frame' where all the coordinates are primed.

You don't realise the origin (0,0,0,t) of the "stationary" frame K is
different to the origin (0',0',0',tau) of the "moving" frame k as Einstein
called them.
Worse yet, you don't understand x' differs from x by vt no matter what
constant value x takes.
You don't realise just how fucked up you are, you STOOOPID cunt.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 28, 2014, 3:21:49 PM7/28/14

to

On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:38:08 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
> A STOOOPID cunt without a name wrote in message news:2d2b9095-2c3d-4b12...@googlegroups.com... Well, let's see... You, androcrap, wrote "0' = 0-vt" ==================================== Yep, that's because it does when Einstein says x' = x-vt,

And since you don't understand either variables or constants, you can do nothing but make a mess when you try to replace a variable with a constant.
The reason that you believe that 0' exists is because your cranium is filled entirely with sewage. (In fact it's overfilled. The pressure in there is probably about 100,000 psi).

Lord Androcles

unread,

Jul 28, 2014, 3:43:58 PM7/28/14

to

A really really really really stupid cunt
wrote in message
news:a6fb2418-b909-4392...@googlegroups.com...
[snip]

The coordinate (0',0,'0') at the origin of the "moving" frame differs from
the coordinate (0,0,0) at the origin of the "stationary" frame by the

distance vt along the X-axis such that (0',0',0') = (0-vt,0',0').

Carry on laughing, you STOOOPID cunt.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Jul 28, 2014, 5:00:16 PM7/28/14

to

I always assumed he meant that 0' as a joke.
Turns out he's serious about it
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ZeroPrimed.html

Dirk Vdm

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 29, 2014, 12:11:30 AM7/29/14

to

Mr. Else says: Absolute in this context has come to mean absolute distance and absolute time.

In the long term, I believe that the speed of light will be measured shortsighted.

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 29, 2014, 12:18:46 AM7/29/14

to

Galactically, the speed of light makes no sense.

John Gogo

unread,

Jul 29, 2014, 12:26:51 AM7/29/14

to

This is only because- the baseline of the speed of light (possibly a width measure) still measures nothing (or hardly nothing) when we deal with great distances.

pcard...@volcanomail.com

unread,

Jul 29, 2014, 3:15:18 PM7/29/14

to

On Monday, July 28, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> pcard...@volcanomail.com <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote: > On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:38:08 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote: >> A STOOOPID cunt without a name wrote in message >> news:2d2b9095-2c3d-4b12...@googlegroups.com... Well, >> let's see... You, androcrap, wrote "0' = 0-vt" >> ==================================== Yep, that's because it does >> when Einstein says x' = x-vt, > > And since you don't understand either variables or constants, you can > do nothing but make a mess when you try to replace a variable with a > constant. > The reason that you believe that 0' exists is because your cranium is > filled entirely with sewage. (In fact it's overfilled. The pressure > in there is probably about 100,000 psi). I always assumed he meant that 0' as a joke. Turns out he's serious about it http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ZeroPrimed.html Dirk Vdm

Stupidity has no limit.

space...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 29, 2014, 7:11:41 PM7/29/14

to

On Monday, July 28, 2014 9:18:46 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:11:30 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 27, 2014 12:42:42 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

Push the button on atomic clock...
That delay means we can't measure.
There is no such thing as counting vibrations...

Mitchell Raemsch