info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Apr 27, 2017, 1:30:00 PM4/27/17
to
"But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above Earth's surface. Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average. And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference), because of time dilation." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/27/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100/#2d4768797008
The lie here is that the muon "lives 2.2 microseconds" (Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest"). Actually this is the disintegration time amidst the molecules of a solid body, after the muon crashes into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light. Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time with the lifetime of muons in a vacuum which have not undergone a catastrophe is possible only in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."
Pentcho Valev
The lie here is that the muon "lives 2.2 microseconds" (Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest"). Actually this is the disintegration time amidst the molecules of a solid body, after the muon crashes into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light. Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time with the lifetime of muons in a vacuum which have not undergone a catastrophe is possible only in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."
Pentcho Valev
Himère Bezuinig
Apr 27, 2017, 3:55:47 PM4/27/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to
> prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are
> created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above
> Earth's surface.
> Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average.
> And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or
> about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the
> speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only
> 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than
> 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of
> them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference),
> because of time dilation."
His later statement INvalidates, vehemently and profoundly, his own
> "But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to
> prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are
> created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above
> Earth's surface.
> Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average.
> And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or
> about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the
> speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only
> 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than
> 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of
> them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference),
> because of time dilation."
attempt of making easy points. His later "alomst all of them" is in strong
CONTRADICTION with the former "about 30-to-100 kilometers", since 100-30
gives 70 Km, which is more than twice LARGER than his LOWER limit, of the
30s. Mindblowing, how certain individuals can be so stupid. Just another
EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
Yousuf Khan
Apr 27, 2017, 9:07:03 PM4/27/17
to
anti-Relativity cranks.
Yousuf Khan
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Apr 27, 2017, 11:41:59 PM4/27/17
to
Yousuf Khan amok-crossposted across 2 newsgroups without Followup-To:
> On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
>> […] Just another EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
>
> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> anti-Relativity cranks.
It’s even better not to feed the troll
> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> anti-Relativity cranks.
that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Mahipal
Apr 28, 2017, 7:59:42 AM4/28/17
to
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:41:59 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Yousuf Khan amok-crossposted across 2 newsgroups without Followup-To:
>
> > On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
> >> […] Just another EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
> >
> > It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> > anti-Relativity cranks.
>
> It’s even better not to feed the troll
> that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.
So we all should just feed the pro-relativity cranks?
> Yousuf Khan amok-crossposted across 2 newsgroups without Followup-To:
>
> > On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
> >> […] Just another EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
> >
> > It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> > anti-Relativity cranks.
>
> It’s even better not to feed the troll
> that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.
> F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
Edward Prochak
Apr 28, 2017, 9:01:29 AM4/28/17
to
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:30:00 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[]
But we usually talk about it relative to our own
inertial frame. So that phrasing is a little lax.
> Actually this is the disintegration time amidst the
> molecules of a solid body, after the muon crashes into
> the detector at a speed close to the speed of light.
> Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time
> with the lifetime of muons in a vacuum which have not
> undergone a catastrophe is possible only in Einstein's
> schizophrenic world:
>
> http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
> "The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons
> are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the
> electronics are designed to measure the time between
> their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount
> of time that a muon existed before it reached the
> detector had no effect on how long it continued to live
> once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay
> times measured by the detector gave an accurate value
> of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were
> subtracted from the data, the results from three data
> sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s,
> in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."
So you are arguing the process of stopping the muon's
triggered their decay in some manner? And somehow that
collision triggered decay time is nearly the same value
for all the muons captured this way. Is that your conjecture?
and you are saying that these measurements will be longer
because there is no collision.
But that leaves a problem: How is it the muon's in flight
know to decay at times that when corrected for relativistic
speed, match the decays times of the muons at rest?
ed
[]
reality, almost all of them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference), because of time dilation." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/27/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100/#2d4768797008
>
> The lie here is that the muon "lives 2.2 microseconds"
> (Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest").
Actually this would be within the Muon's inertial frame.
>
> The lie here is that the muon "lives 2.2 microseconds"
> (Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest").
But we usually talk about it relative to our own
inertial frame. So that phrasing is a little lax.
> Actually this is the disintegration time amidst the
> molecules of a solid body, after the muon crashes into
> the detector at a speed close to the speed of light.
> Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time
> with the lifetime of muons in a vacuum which have not
> undergone a catastrophe is possible only in Einstein's
> schizophrenic world:
>
> http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
> "The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons
> are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the
> electronics are designed to measure the time between
> their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount
> of time that a muon existed before it reached the
> detector had no effect on how long it continued to live
> once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay
> times measured by the detector gave an accurate value
> of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were
> subtracted from the data, the results from three data
> sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s,
> in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."
triggered their decay in some manner? And somehow that
collision triggered decay time is nearly the same value
for all the muons captured this way. Is that your conjecture?
>
> http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf
> "In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest
> (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect
> a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure
> the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons
> decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime
> that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are
> time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."
>
> Pentcho Valev
Now the lifetime of muons in flight are measured in a vacuum,
> http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf
> "In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest
> (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect
> a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure
> the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons
> decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime
> that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are
> time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."
>
> Pentcho Valev
and you are saying that these measurements will be longer
because there is no collision.
But that leaves a problem: How is it the muon's in flight
know to decay at times that when corrected for relativistic
speed, match the decays times of the muons at rest?
ed
Edward Prochak
Apr 28, 2017, 9:05:06 AM4/28/17
to
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:07:03 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
[]
can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
contradict.
It's the trolls that make a mess of things.
ed
[]
> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> anti-Relativity cranks.
At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
> anti-Relativity cranks.
can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
contradict.
It's the trolls that make a mess of things.
ed
Pentcho Valev
Apr 28, 2017, 8:21:29 PM4/28/17
to
The GPS fraud:
One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's constant speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is variable, not constant), "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness, and finally Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity (time dilation) is gloriously confirmed:
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/
"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here. (Don't even get us started on the impact of general relativity.)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQdIjwoi-u4
GPS & Relativity
Pentcho Valev
One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's constant speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is variable, not constant), "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness, and finally Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity (time dilation) is gloriously confirmed:
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/
"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here. (Don't even get us started on the impact of general relativity.)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQdIjwoi-u4
GPS & Relativity
Pentcho Valev
Yousuf Khan
Apr 28, 2017, 8:42:23 PM4/28/17
to
On 4/28/2017 9:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:07:03 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> []
>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>
> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
> contradict.
Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:07:03 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> []
>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>
> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
> contradict.
you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I
can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only
examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical
phenomena. But these days, we're *engineering* with Relativity!!! The
GPS satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about.
We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in
time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table!
There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then
you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for
the sake of being difficult.
> It's the trolls that make a mess of things.
> ed
Yousuf Khan
hanson
Apr 28, 2017, 10:52:25 PM4/28/17
to
Look at the crackpottery of these 2 fanatical Einstein Dingleberries
in their devoted and unconditional worship of Albert's Sphincter, as...
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Edward Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> []
>>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>>
> satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about.****
See ***[... ]** above from Khan & Prochak, both of whom are
Jewish armchair physicists, whose agenda it is to make sure
that it seems that any physics advance or technologic invention
or improvement could not have been done without using
Judenphysik, like SR or GR ...
>
They, like other AshkeNazim kikes feel that it is their
duty to preserve Einstein's SR/GR crap as Yiddisher
cultural heritage.... ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
GPS does not need relativity at all to operate correctly,
>
hanson wrote:
So, it is surprising that neither Khan nor Ed have
reposted kike Ashby's tripe of his "Relativity in the
Global Positioning System in which it took Kike Ashby
39 questionable & tortured steps to get to the 38 usec
delay, when & while any high school student or engineer,
can glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in
ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and
show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... km drift /day ----
>
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface, which is corrected by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ------ |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
>
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
Khan & Ed, you in your sorry mental condition, don't even
see that it is common knowledge for more then 60+ years
now, and 2 years before Einstein puffed, when
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
wherein AE concluded that: SR is short for __STUPID RANT__
& GR being nothing but a __GULLIBLE RECITAL__, with
plenty of <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>
So, here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> with plenty of
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter
for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
>
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
in their devoted and unconditional worship of Albert's Sphincter, as...
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Edward Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> []
>>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>>
Dingleberry Edward Prochak wrote:
>> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
>> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
>> contradict.
>
>> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
>> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
>> contradict.
>
Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if
> you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I
> can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only
> examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical
> phenomena.
>
> *** But these days, we're *engineering* with Relativity!!! The GPS
> Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if
> you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I
> can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only
> examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical
> phenomena.
>
> satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about.****
>
> We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in
> time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table!
> There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then
> you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for
> the sake of being difficult.
>
hanson wrote:
> We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in
> time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table!
> There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then
> you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for
> the sake of being difficult.
>
See ***[... ]** above from Khan & Prochak, both of whom are
Jewish armchair physicists, whose agenda it is to make sure
that it seems that any physics advance or technologic invention
or improvement could not have been done without using
Judenphysik, like SR or GR ...
>
They, like other AshkeNazim kikes feel that it is their
duty to preserve Einstein's SR/GR crap as Yiddisher
cultural heritage.... ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
GPS does not need relativity at all to operate correctly,
>
hanson wrote:
So, it is surprising that neither Khan nor Ed have
reposted kike Ashby's tripe of his "Relativity in the
Global Positioning System in which it took Kike Ashby
39 questionable & tortured steps to get to the 38 usec
delay, when & while any high school student or engineer,
can glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in
ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and
show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... km drift /day ----
>
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface, which is corrected by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ------ |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
>
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
Khan & Ed, you in your sorry mental condition, don't even
see that it is common knowledge for more then 60+ years
now, and 2 years before Einstein puffed, when
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
wherein AE concluded that: SR is short for __STUPID RANT__
& GR being nothing but a __GULLIBLE RECITAL__, with
plenty of <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>
So, here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> with plenty of
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter
for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
>
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
0 new messages