info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The Twins Paradox of Relativity Is Certainly Absolutely Wrong!
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Darwin123
Dec 28, 2011, 12:16:29 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 1:58 am, "Androcles"
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz. You
obviously can't read algebra.
> Einstein's length expansion isn't Lorentz's length contraction, shithead.
I didn't say it was the same. I used the word "dilation" and
"contraction" to distinguish between multiplication and division. If I
thought they were the same, I would use the same word.
There is little difference between the theories of Lorentz and
Einstein. I don't know exactly why you associate time with Einstein
and space with Lorentz.
I refer to them as the ideas of Lorentz, since he started
working with these ideas earlier. Since you despise Lorentz as well as
Einstein, there is no reason to argue which came first. The same
transformation is in both theories.
> Learn the fucking difference.
Do a little algebra yourself. I will write out both
transformations. A little algebra will show they are the same.
If not, show us why they are different.
Since ASCII doesn't have Greek letters, and Einstein used some
Greek letters, I have replaced the Greek letters by primed English
letters (i.e., the Greek letters closest corresponding to the English
letters). However, the algebra is exactly the same.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 3
t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
x'=b'(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
"The Theory of Electrons" by H.A. Lorentz section 169.
(equation 285) c^2/(c^2-w^2)=k^2
Section 192
(equation 328) x'=k(x-wt), y'=y, z'=z, t'=k(t-wx/c^2)"
"Why Androcles is a Narcissistic Jerk" by Darwin123
v=w
b'=k
If you don't believe they are the same, show us the algebra that
proves they are different. Or keep on spouting profanity. The
profanity is ssssoooo convincing.
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz. You
obviously can't read algebra.
> Einstein's length expansion isn't Lorentz's length contraction, shithead.
I didn't say it was the same. I used the word "dilation" and
"contraction" to distinguish between multiplication and division. If I
thought they were the same, I would use the same word.
There is little difference between the theories of Lorentz and
Einstein. I don't know exactly why you associate time with Einstein
and space with Lorentz.
I refer to them as the ideas of Lorentz, since he started
working with these ideas earlier. Since you despise Lorentz as well as
Einstein, there is no reason to argue which came first. The same
transformation is in both theories.
> Learn the fucking difference.
Do a little algebra yourself. I will write out both
transformations. A little algebra will show they are the same.
If not, show us why they are different.
Since ASCII doesn't have Greek letters, and Einstein used some
Greek letters, I have replaced the Greek letters by primed English
letters (i.e., the Greek letters closest corresponding to the English
letters). However, the algebra is exactly the same.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 3
t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
x'=b'(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
"The Theory of Electrons" by H.A. Lorentz section 169.
(equation 285) c^2/(c^2-w^2)=k^2
Section 192
(equation 328) x'=k(x-wt), y'=y, z'=z, t'=k(t-wx/c^2)"
"Why Androcles is a Narcissistic Jerk" by Darwin123
v=w
b'=k
If you don't believe they are the same, show us the algebra that
proves they are different. Or keep on spouting profanity. The
profanity is ssssoooo convincing.
Androcles
Dec 28, 2011, 3:47:07 PM12/28/11
to
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5575bdb-9f75-4028...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 1:58 am, "Androcles"
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
==========================================
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
Do it then, put them here.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 3
t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
x'=b'(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Ok.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
the stationary frame, agreed?
"The Theory of Electrons" by H.A. Lorentz section 169.
(equation 285) c^2/(c^2-w^2)=k^2
Section 192
(equation 328) x'=k(x-wt), y'=y, z'=z, t'=k(t-wx/c^2)"
"Michelson's Experiment" by H.A. Lorentz
"2. To simplify matters we will assume we are working with
apparatus as employed in the first experiments, and that in the
one principle position the arm P lies exactly in the direction of
motion of the Earth."
(later)
"thus affect a shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion
1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
So the aether belongs to the stationary frame and the Earth and MMX
belongs to the moving frame, agreed?
The moving Earth is shorter because it moves through the aether (according
to Lorentz), agreed?
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1, agreed?
(Just say yes or no, I'll snip any pathetic diatribe to add to it.)
Darwin123
Dec 28, 2011, 6:41:30 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 3:47 pm, "Androcles"
A Rigid body, which measured in the state of rest, has the form of
a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion-viewed from the
stationary syste- the form of an ellipsoid of revolution with the axes
R sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), R, R
Thus, whereas the Y and Z directions of the sphere (and therefore
EVERY rigid body no matter what form) do not appear modified by the
motion, the X dimension appears shortened by the ratio 1:sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2), i.e., the greater the velocity of v, the greater the shortening.
> So the aether belongs to the stationary frame and the Earth and MMX
> belongs to the moving frame, agreed?
> The moving Earth is shorter because it moves through the aether (according
> to Lorentz), agreed?
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1, agreed?
>
> (Just say yes or no, I'll snip any pathetic diatribe to add to it.)
> belongs to the moving frame, agreed?
> The moving Earth is shorter because it moves through the aether (according
> to Lorentz), agreed?
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1, agreed?
>
> (Just say yes or no, I'll snip any pathetic diatribe to add to it.)
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 4
A Rigid body, which measured in the state of rest, has the form of
a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion-viewed from the
stationary syste- the form of an ellipsoid of revolution with the axes
R sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), R, R
Thus, whereas the Y and Z directions of the sphere (and therefore
EVERY rigid body no matter what form) do not appear modified by the
motion, the X dimension appears shortened by the ratio 1:sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2), i.e., the greater the velocity of v, the greater the shortening.
Androcles
Dec 28, 2011, 11:56:56 PM12/28/11
to
news:df19b989-7412-4bba...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 1:58 am, "Androcles"
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
==========================================
Do it then, put them here.
> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There is no difference.
>
> There no difference between multiplication and division?
> Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
==========================================
Do it then, put them here.
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 3
t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
x'=b'(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
=========================
Ok.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
the stationary frame, agreed?
"The Theory of Electrons" by H.A. Lorentz section 169.
(equation 285) c^2/(c^2-w^2)=k^2
Section 192
(equation 328) x'=k(x-wt), y'=y, z'=z, t'=k(t-wx/c^2)"
================================
"Michelson's Experiment" by H.A. Lorentz
"2. To simplify matters we will assume we are working with
apparatus as employed in the first experiments, and that in the
one principle position the arm P lies exactly in the direction of
motion of the Earth."
(later)
"thus affect a shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion
1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
x'=b'(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
=========================
Ok.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
the stationary frame, agreed?
"The Theory of Electrons" by H.A. Lorentz section 169.
(equation 285) c^2/(c^2-w^2)=k^2
Section 192
(equation 328) x'=k(x-wt), y'=y, z'=z, t'=k(t-wx/c^2)"
================================
"Michelson's Experiment" by H.A. Lorentz
"2. To simplify matters we will assume we are working with
apparatus as employed in the first experiments, and that in the
one principle position the arm P lies exactly in the direction of
motion of the Earth."
(later)
"thus affect a shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion
1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
Darwin123
Dec 29, 2011, 2:25:03 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 11:56 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.December.
2011> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your questions are ambiguous. Therefore, the answer to all of them
are "no". However, I will add a qualifier to each question to indicate
how a person may interpret your question.
1)A frame can't "own" anything.
-The same event can be measured in different frames.
2)The aether may or may not be moving.
-How can one know the velocity of the aether, anyway.
3)The stationary frame is arbitrary because there is no experiment
that can determine its velocity.
-One gets the same prediction for the MMX if you choose a
stationary frame on the surface of the earth.
-Lorentz's formulas predict the exact same physical results if
the MMX apparatus was standing still in the aether.
4) Different parts of the earth are moving at different velocities
through the aether.
-The center of the earth is hardly moving with respect to the
aether.
-Opposite sides of the earth are moving rapidly with respect to
the aether in opposite directions.
> The moving Earth is shorter because it moves through the aether (according
> to Lorentz), agreed?
No, for three reasons.
A) The moving earth is not shorter in the direction perpendicular to
the motion of the earth.
B) The arm in the MMX perpendicular to the direction of motion of the
earth is not shorter.
C) Different parts of the earth are moving at different velocities.
D) There is a shortening in the direction of motion for sections of
the earth and one arm of the MMX.
F) If |v|=0, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=1.
G) If |v|>c, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a real number.
Your statement is true for one case only.
H) If 0<|v|<c, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)<1.
Furthermore, v can be positive, negative or zero. What I just
wrote is true regardless of sign. The sign doesn't affect length.
Remember, x^2=(-x)^2.
I) The sign of "v" is important in the twin paradox. The sign of
"v" is important in synchronization.
I anticipate that Androcles will ignore the sign of "v".
Clip whatever you like. The reader can always go back to this
post to see what I said. I can always copy a line from this post to
whatever reply that I want to make.
You can ignore my qualifiers if you want. If you ignore them,
then the serious reader will realize that they are important. I am
anticipating the false arguments that you will make following the
"yes" or "no".
questions are ambiguous. Therefore, I have made statements that
anticipate the same false arguments that you have made many times.
However, I want the reader to recognize that I know what you are about
to say.
When you get to it, I will copy and paste the necessary comments
from this thread. This will show that not will I answer your stupid
question, I will have anticipated your stupid argument.
Reader, please note the following mistakes Androcles made at the
very beginning, just in his questions.
J) Androcles is using the word "belong" incorrectly. <12/29/2011>
K) Androcles is ignoring periods of acceleration. <12/29/2011>
L) Androcles is ignoring the different directions.<12/29/2011>
M) Androcles is ignoring the different parts of objects.
N) Androcles is ignoring the sign of "v". <12/29/2011>
O) He confuses "frames" and "objects". <12/29/2011>.
Okay, the interested reader has taken note of my "pathetic
diatribe", in addition to my yes/no answers. Androcles is given an
opportunity to clarify his questions a little more before he starts
the analysis.
2011> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
are "no". However, I will add a qualifier to each question to indicate
how a person may interpret your question.
>
> So the aether belongs to the stationary frame and the Earth and MMX
> belongs to the moving frame, agreed?
No, for four reasons.
> So the aether belongs to the stationary frame and the Earth and MMX
> belongs to the moving frame, agreed?
1)A frame can't "own" anything.
-The same event can be measured in different frames.
2)The aether may or may not be moving.
-How can one know the velocity of the aether, anyway.
3)The stationary frame is arbitrary because there is no experiment
that can determine its velocity.
-One gets the same prediction for the MMX if you choose a
stationary frame on the surface of the earth.
-Lorentz's formulas predict the exact same physical results if
the MMX apparatus was standing still in the aether.
4) Different parts of the earth are moving at different velocities
through the aether.
-The center of the earth is hardly moving with respect to the
aether.
-Opposite sides of the earth are moving rapidly with respect to
the aether in opposite directions.
> The moving Earth is shorter because it moves through the aether (according
> to Lorentz), agreed?
A) The moving earth is not shorter in the direction perpendicular to
the motion of the earth.
B) The arm in the MMX perpendicular to the direction of motion of the
earth is not shorter.
C) Different parts of the earth are moving at different velocities.
D) There is a shortening in the direction of motion for sections of
the earth and one arm of the MMX.
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1, agreed?
E) No. There is are two exceptions.
F) If |v|=0, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=1.
G) If |v|>c, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a real number.
Your statement is true for one case only.
H) If 0<|v|<c, then sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)<1.
Furthermore, v can be positive, negative or zero. What I just
wrote is true regardless of sign. The sign doesn't affect length.
Remember, x^2=(-x)^2.
I) The sign of "v" is important in the twin paradox. The sign of
"v" is important in synchronization.
I anticipate that Androcles will ignore the sign of "v".
Clip whatever you like. The reader can always go back to this
post to see what I said. I can always copy a line from this post to
whatever reply that I want to make.
You can ignore my qualifiers if you want. If you ignore them,
then the serious reader will realize that they are important. I am
anticipating the false arguments that you will make following the
"yes" or "no".
>
> (Just say yes or no, I'll snip any pathetic diatribe to add to it.)
I don't understand what your questions mean. Your pathetic
> (Just say yes or no, I'll snip any pathetic diatribe to add to it.)
questions are ambiguous. Therefore, I have made statements that
anticipate the same false arguments that you have made many times.
However, I want the reader to recognize that I know what you are about
to say.
When you get to it, I will copy and paste the necessary comments
from this thread. This will show that not will I answer your stupid
question, I will have anticipated your stupid argument.
Reader, please note the following mistakes Androcles made at the
very beginning, just in his questions.
J) Androcles is using the word "belong" incorrectly. <12/29/2011>
K) Androcles is ignoring periods of acceleration. <12/29/2011>
L) Androcles is ignoring the different directions.<12/29/2011>
M) Androcles is ignoring the different parts of objects.
N) Androcles is ignoring the sign of "v". <12/29/2011>
O) He confuses "frames" and "objects". <12/29/2011>.
Okay, the interested reader has taken note of my "pathetic
diatribe", in addition to my yes/no answers. Androcles is given an
opportunity to clarify his questions a little more before he starts
the analysis.
Androcles
Dec 29, 2011, 2:37:47 PM12/29/11
to
news:286a964d-16cd-42d0...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It's simple enough, either you agree or you disagree.
All you need do is write "yes" if you agree, then we can proceed.
If you write "no" then we'll go into any disagreement.
On Dec 28, 11:56 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.December.
2011> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:df19b989-7412-4bba...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 1:58 am, "Androcles"> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There
> is no difference.
>
> > There no difference between multiplication and division?
> > Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> > You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
>
> I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
> ==========================================
> Do it then, put them here.
>
> "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
> Section 3
> t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
> x'=b'(x-vt)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> =========================
> Ok.
> So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
> the stationary frame, agreed?
We won't you answer the question , imbecile?
2011> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:df19b989-7412-4bba...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 1:58 am, "Androcles"> I read both Einstein and Lorentz. There
> is no difference.
>
> > There no difference between multiplication and division?
> > Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> > You obviously can't algebra, you dumb drunken bastard.
>
> I wrote out the equations from the book by Lorentz.
> ==========================================
> Do it then, put them here.
>
> "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
> Section 3
> t'=b'(t-vx/c^2)
> x'=b'(x-vt)
> y'=y
> z'=z
> b'=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> =========================
> Ok.
> So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
> the stationary frame, agreed?
It's simple enough, either you agree or you disagree.
All you need do is write "yes" if you agree, then we can proceed.
If you write "no" then we'll go into any disagreement.
Darwin123
Dec 29, 2011, 3:37:37 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 2:37 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.December.
I did. I added a diatribe which you said that you would snipe.
So continue with my "yes" and "no" answers. I answered your
questions, and added some more.
2) Androcles belongs to the second law of Newton, but does not belong
to the other two laws of Newton.
3) Androcles was conceived in sin, while Wilson was conceived in
utero.
These are a simple questions. Do you agree or disagree. I will
snip all your pathetic diatribe.
I answered your question. I elaborated on the answer. However,
you have your answers.
> All you need do is write "yes" if you agree, then we can proceed.
> If you write "no" then we'll go into any disagreement.
Androcles has agrees to proceed only when I proceed to disagree.
Do you agree or disagree?
I gave the yes and no to the questions in my previous post. I also
said that your questions were pure crap. You can snip that if you
want. However, I will merely copy my objections into any response that
you give.
Snip away. I gave you my answers.
So continue with my "yes" and "no" answers. I answered your
questions, and added some more.
> It's simple enough, either you agree or you disagree.
1) Androcles stopped sodomizing Wilson about two years ago.
2) Androcles belongs to the second law of Newton, but does not belong
to the other two laws of Newton.
3) Androcles was conceived in sin, while Wilson was conceived in
utero.
These are a simple questions. Do you agree or disagree. I will
snip all your pathetic diatribe.
I answered your question. I elaborated on the answer. However,
you have your answers.
> All you need do is write "yes" if you agree, then we can proceed.
> If you write "no" then we'll go into any disagreement.
Do you agree or disagree?
I gave the yes and no to the questions in my previous post. I also
said that your questions were pure crap. You can snip that if you
want. However, I will merely copy my objections into any response that
you give.
Snip away. I gave you my answers.
Androcles
Dec 29, 2011, 3:40:45 PM12/29/11
to
news:144d8e2d-7d26-4748...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
=========================
No you didn't, you lying bastard.
Try again.
No you didn't, you lying bastard.
Try again.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
the stationary frame. Is that agreed, you stupid fuck?
Darwin123
Dec 29, 2011, 4:54:51 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 3:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.December.
Your questions are bull shit. That is your answer.
You can have the last word in this thread.
You can have the last word in this thread.
Androcles
Dec 29, 2011, 5:58:19 PM12/29/11
to
news:8f5d1966-0e54-418c...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
=================================
Okay, the interested reader has taken note of my simple question
in addition to Blind Judas's inability to answer it.
Too painful for you to agree with Einstein is it, you useless
lying drunken Jewish bastard?
Lying Blind Judas claims Einstein stated
x'=b'(x-vt)
but Einstein actually states in
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Blind Judas Rosen
is an illiterate and innumerate lying Jewish scumbag who cannot read.
> You can have the last word in this thread.
===================================================
Yes, and I'm taking it, you lying Jewish scum. There is no b' anywhere
in Einstein's paper, you pile of useless shit. What he actually says is
chi (or xi) = (x-vt) * beta
where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
You didn't write anything out, you lying bastard, you are too illiterate to
read Greek and you invented t', y', z' and b'.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
the stationary frame, and fuck you too.
Okay, the interested reader has taken note of my simple question
in addition to Blind Judas's inability to answer it.
Too painful for you to agree with Einstein is it, you useless
lying drunken Jewish bastard?
Lying Blind Judas claims Einstein stated
x'=b'(x-vt)
but Einstein actually states in
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein
Section 3
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
Section 3
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Blind Judas Rosen
is an illiterate and innumerate lying Jewish scumbag who cannot read.
> You can have the last word in this thread.
Yes, and I'm taking it, you lying Jewish scum. There is no b' anywhere
in Einstein's paper, you pile of useless shit. What he actually says is
chi (or xi) = (x-vt) * beta
where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
You didn't write anything out, you lying bastard, you are too illiterate to
read Greek and you invented t', y', z' and b'.
So x' belongs to the moving frame and x belongs to
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 31, 2011, 7:37:52 PM12/31/11
to
relativistic train passing a stationary train station.
There can be only one appearence: the train sees the station's clock
fast and the station sees the train's slow.
It cannot be any other way.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
0 new messages