Androcles' Obsession and Attraction to Obscure Reasoning
Shubee
"Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the 'time' each way is the same?"
Androcles,
Why are you so obsessed with trying to prove that Einstein's first
derivation of the Lorentz transformation is invalid? Who cares about
Einstein's baby steps? There are many very clear derivations of SR
today, the best, of course, is http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Eric Gisse
Who - other than you - says that your derivation is the best?
Dono
Shitbert, Shittybert, Shobo and Bobo the Clown :-)
Androcles
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96e3ef11-c9d2-4260...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
| It seems that the only thing Androcles wants to know is
|
| "Why did Einstein say
| the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| the 'time' each way is the same?"
|
| Androcles,
|
| Why are you so obsessed
Answer the question, fuckhead. Don't ask me a question until you've answered
mine.
I don't waste my time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
Martin Hogbin
> It seems that the only thing Androcles wants to know is
>
> "Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the 'time' each way is the same?"
>
> Androcles,
>
> Why are you so obsessed with trying to prove that Einstein's first
> derivation of the Lorentz transformation is invalid? Who cares about
> Einstein's baby steps? There are many very clear derivations of SR
> today, the best, of course, is http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Go getim Shubee.
Martin Hogbin
Androcles
"Martin Hogbin" <goatN...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:1YqdnXaPT8Q0SezV...@bt.com...
When the prat who is obsessed with his very clear derivations can answer
the question he might have a shot.
Cheerleaders like you are usually giggling teenage girls but I can't believe
you are that attractive. Send a photo, Pigmidden.
Shubee
transformation equations in 1905 with complete success. Einstein
pretended that he did derive them and, lamentably, it's a very common
happening in present day physics that physicists rely on pretense and/
or self-deception.
According to the very accomplished physicist, Freeman Dyson [1],
impossible to understand physics papers get published all the time.
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
So what are you going to do about that Androcles?
Androcles
| It's easy to believe that Einstein failed to derive the Lorentz
| transformation equations in 1905 with complete success.
You are obsessed with your 57 varieties.
| Einstein
| pretended that he did derive them and, lamentably, it's a very common
| happening in present day physics that physicists rely on pretense and/
| or self-deception.
Anyone can figure out the equation of an ellipse, which is all you have.
eccentricity = sqrt(1- minor^2/major^2)
|
| According to the very accomplished physicist, Freeman Dyson [1],
Freeman Dyson isn't here to answer, you are.
| So what are you going to do about that Androcles?
Nothing at all, Freeman Dyson isn't here to answer, you are.
So answer my question, obsessed nothing important fuckhead
with the obscure non-existent reasoning.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. - idiot xxein
Why do you want to know? - Lamenting fuckhead Shubert.
Not one of you cranks can give a straightforward answer .
Shubee
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> "Easy: he did NOT say that."
Silly me. I thought it was your confused interpretation of what
Einstein really did say.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
So what explains your obsession with the lie that you've made up,
which you keep posting to every thread at sci.physics.relativity?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Androcles
| On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| >
| > "Easy: he did NOT say that."
|
| Silly me.
Very much silly you, I was quoting van lintel. You really
are fucking stupid, aren't you? Totally dead from the neck up.
Still, I commend you for admitting it.
Juan R.
> According to the very accomplished physicist, Freeman Dyson [1],
> impossible to understand physics papers get published all the time.
>
> "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
> rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
> it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
> published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
Really intriguing quote. It is the first time I read and I don't really
know what Dyson want to say.
I am not sure if he is complaining about peer-review of revolutionary
papers (which are usually rejected in favor of more conventional ones) or
about or if is complaining about the modern pragmatic view of particle
physics so well summarized in the "Shut up and calculate!"
What is your interpretation?
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
Shubee
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:25:29 -0700:
>
> > According to the very accomplished physicist, Freeman Dyson [1],
> > impossible to understand physics papers get published all the time.
>
> > "Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
> > rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
> > it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
> > published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
>
> Really intriguing quote. It is the first time I read and I don't really
> know what Dyson want to say.
It should be easy to find Dyson's book, Innovation in Physics, and
consider the context.
> I am not sure if he is complaining about peer-review of revolutionary
> papers (which are usually rejected in favor of more conventional ones) or
> about or if is complaining about the modern pragmatic view of particle
> physics so well summarized in the "Shut up and calculate!"
>
> What is your interpretation?
I don't know how to make Dyson's statement any clearer.
xxe...@gmail.com
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a2adf74-c934-4cd7...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> | It's easy to believe that Einstein failed to derive the Lorentz
> | transformation equations in 1905 with complete success.
>
> You are obsessed with your 57 varieties.
>
> | Einstein
> | pretended that he did derive them and, lamentably, it's a very common
> | happening in present day physics that physicists rely on pretense and/
> | or self-deception.
>
> Anyone can figure out the equation of an ellipse, which is all you have.
>
> eccentricity = sqrt(1- minor^2/major^2)
>
> |
> | According to the very accomplished physicist, Freeman Dyson [1],
>
> Freeman Dyson isn't here to answer, you are.
>
> | So what are you going to do about that Androcles?
>
> Nothing at all, Freeman Dyson isn't here to answer, you are.
> So answer my question, obsessed nothing important fuckhead
> with the obscure non-existent reasoning.
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. - idiotxxein
> Why do you want to know? - Lamenting fuckhead Shubert.
>
> Not one of you cranks can give a straightforward answer .
Hmm. The Roberts hmm, will tell you that things are not exactly as we
seem to make them to be in our minds. Why do you think a
straightforword answer should comply with a belief of yours?
Androcles
<xxe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00cc60a8-9c9b-404a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you referring to some kind of referrence reference of an
artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts, or a Roberts hmm?
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:229e7974-df29-48d5...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> | On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> |
> | > Why did Einstein say
> | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> | > the "time" each way is the same?
> | >
> | > "Easy: he did NOT say that."
> |
> | Silly me.
>
> Very much silly you, I was quoting van lintel.
That's quite a revelation Androcles. For all these years, you have
been continually posting misdirection to every thread at
sci.physics.relativity, which I thought was your obsession with an
alleged mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper. So why have you been
continually posting error all these years, who is van lintel and what
explains your obsession with his lie?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Androcles
| On Jul 7, 12:13 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:229e7974-df29-48d5...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Why did Einstein say
| > | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > | > the "time" each way is the same?
| > | >
| > | > "Easy: he did NOT say that."
| > |
| > | Silly me.
| >
| > Very much silly you, I was quoting van lintel.
|
| That's quite a revelation Androcles. For all these years, you have
| been continually posting misdirection to every thread at
| sci.physics.relativity, which I thought was your obsession with an
| alleged mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper.
No, my obsession is with science. Einstein's errors are a mere
bagatelle.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
You would not be interested in science, of course.
| So why have you been
| continually posting error all these years, who is van lintel and what
| explains your obsession with his lie?
van lintel is one of your fellow fuckheads,
harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
a crank obsessed with relativity.
He's been writing to sci.physics.relativity for years now but as you
have your head so far up your own arse you never notice anything
or anyone. As you correctly say, silly you.
gl...@aol.com
> | On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> | > Why did Einstein say
> | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> | > the "time" each way is the same?
Though he said those things separately, here are his reason:
1. Given a system moving at v in whatever conducts light at c, if a
ray is moving to the right, thus in the same direction, it will pass a
length AB at c-v; and
Koobee Wublee
> It seems that the only thing Androcles wants to know is
>
> "Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the 'time' each way is the same?"
Androcles the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the Aether-denier is going
through an internal crisis similar to the one dealing with his
daughter’s passing. The nitwit should never deny the Aether in the
first place. Expect Androcles to be more psychotic, more
unpredictable, and more virulent.
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7d2ae68-0438-4d82...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
============================================
How do explain Sagnac, psychotic nitwit and plagiarist?
BTW, you forgot to plagiarise Roberts' shrug.
Androcles
<gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5534f679-ea43-4826...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| > | On Jul 7, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > | > Why did Einstein say
| > | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > | > the "time" each way is the same?
| Though he said those things separately,
Not so, he said them together in this one inequality with a mistyped "="
sign:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
here are his reason:
| 1. Given a system moving at v in whatever conducts light at c,
That would be the same whatever that conducts bullets and arrows and
meteorites and all missiles, would it?
if a
| ray is moving to the right, thus in the same direction, it will pass a
| length AB at c-v;
Yes, I can agree with that.
and
| > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
You seem to have stopped...was there some obscure reason for it?
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > Androcles the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the Aether-denier is going
> > through an internal crisis similar to the one dealing with his
> > daughter’s passing. The nitwit should never deny the Aether in the
> > first place. Expect Androcles to be more psychotic, more
> > unpredictable, and more virulent.
>
> How do explain Sagnac[?]
What is there to explain about Sagnac? It has no effect on anything.
How do you expect one to explain something that does not present any
anomaly? <shrug>
> psychotic nitwit and plagiarist?
As I have predicted, after denying the Aether for so long, Androcles
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the Aether-denying is getting more
psychotic, more unpredictable, and more virulent. <shrug>
> BTW, you forgot to plagiarise Roberts' shrug.
Shrugging is no plagiarism. Learn to do some rational thinking for a
change. <shrug>
Androcles
On Jul 8, 5:55 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > Androcles the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the Aether-denier is going
> > through an internal crisis similar to the one dealing with his
> > daughter’s passing. The nitwit should never deny the Aether in the
> > first place. Expect Androcles to be more psychotic, more
> > unpredictable, and more virulent.
>
> How do explain Sagnac[?]
What is there to explain about Sagnac?
Explain it with equations the same as you did with GPS.
Can't, can you? Don't even know what it is..
Fuckwit, plagiarist and liar.