The Ultimate Proof That Einstein's Theory is Wrong

[Henry Wilson]

In case you missed it, here is proof that Einstein's second postulate
cannot be correct.

Om is an observer attached to a rod, length L, connecting two light
sources A and B. The system moves at v relative to another observer,
Os. Light signals are sent from each source towards the other.

A-----------------Om--L------------------B ->v
Os
According to Einstein, light from the two sources moves at c in Os's
frame. According to Einstein, it also moves at c in the AB frame.
According to the CALCULATIONS of Einstein and Os, light from those
sources takes DIFFERENT times, L'/(c+v) and L'/(c-v), to transit the
rod in opposite directions, where L' is the length of the rod in the
Os frame. Those time intervals are expressed in terms of readings on
Os's clock.
According to the CALCULATIONS of Einstein and Om, light from those
sources takes the SAME time, L/c, to transit the rod in opposite
directions. That time interval is expressed in terms of a reading on
Om's clock.
Since the rates of all i-clocks in the universe are in fixed ratio, it
follows that two intervals which are assessed as EQUAL on one clock,
cannot be also assessd as being UNEQUAL on the same or any other
clock.
In other words, the EQUALITY and INEQUALITY of time intervals is not
and CANNOT BE frame dependent.

Thus, Einstein's second postulate leads to a direct contradiction and
is therefore impossible.
The solution to the paradox is that light from the sources moves at c
+v and c-v relative to Os.

The whole of Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be hereby declared
null and void.
ALL speeds must be frame dependent by definition.

[Wade Jenkins]

Henry Wilson wrote:

> The solution to the paradox is that light from the sources moves at c +v
> and c-v relative to Os

Not since rods experiences length contraction and time dilation. Always
remember, that time and space are not fixed, but stretch and contracts to
fit relativity.

Thus, if this neither works, they take you to observer dependency, aka he
observes something else and relativity is all happy with that :)

[Henry Wilson]

On May 5, 6:29 pm, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> > The solution to the paradox is that light from the sources moves at c +v
> > and c-v relative to Os
>
> Not since rods experiences length contraction and time dilation. Always
> remember, that time and space are not fixed, but stretch and contracts to
> fit relativity.

Even if that were true, it does not affect my paradox.
Time intervals that are equal in one frame cannot be UNEQUAL in
another.

> Thus, if this neither works, they take you to observer dependency, aka he
> observes something else and relativity is all happy with that :)

Well actually it isn't happy with that.
Einstein's crappy theory is based on measurements not
observations...and sometimes the two don't match.
For instance if there existed one BIG clock in space that everyone
could use, its rate would be Doppler shifted using 1-v/c. SR says it
will slow by 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

[Wade Jenkins]

Henry Wilson wrote:

>> Thus, if this neither works, they take you to observer dependency, aka
>> he observes something else and relativity is all happy with that :)
>
> Well actually it isn't happy with that.

Well, The Big Relativity reduces to :

"You observe That and I observe This, and we all are happy with
This AND That"

LOL

[Henry Wilson]

SR accepts that what one sees is L/c seconds later than what is
actually happening. If an object is moving towards you at constant
speed, that speed APPEARS exaggerated...but if you measure its speed,
you get a different, andwer.

[Don Stockbauer]

Einstein - what a wonderful human being he was!

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/4/13 5/4/13 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> [...]

Your personal misconceptions cannot possibly "prove" anything. As has been
pointed out before, you keep assuming what you are trying to "prove".

I do not know what you are trying to do, but in physics (and in science in
general), the only way to show that a theory is invalid is to perform an
EXPERIMENT that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. For SR, within its
domain of applicability, this has never been done -- literally hundreds of
experiments have confirmed its predictions, and NOT A SINGLE ONE has disagreed.

Note the difference between my "invalid" and your "wrong".


Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson]

On May 6, 12:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/13 5/4/13   5:48 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> Your personal misconceptions cannot possibly "prove" anything. As has been
> pointed out before, you keep assuming what you are trying to "prove".

Tom, you have a bad habit of misinterpreting everything I post.

The only assumption used in my paradox is Einstein's second
postulate...ie., that light moves at c in all frames.
I have very simply and concisely shown that the postulate itself leads
to a logical impossibility.
If you want to point out a flaw in my reasoning, then please go ahead.
I'm not stopping you. I welcome all the constructive criticism I can
get before I publish the paradox formally.

To simply keep repeating your misconception that 'Einstein's theory
has been verified by hundreds of experiments' achieves nothing. Nobody
here believes you any more because most of us now know that NO
experiment has directly confirmed any prediction of Einstein's theory.
All your so-called 'supporting evidence' either doesn't exist or has
alternative explanations.

Einstein's theory is nothing but a rehashed version of LET. He
virtually admitted that himself...and clearly, the unification of
light speed from differently moving sources REQUIRES an absolute
spatial reference.

My new BaTh accepts that aether-like regions exist in strong fields
and around large masses. In fact my current view is that a fields
consists of something like classical aether and much of what goes on
in particle accelerators can be explained with that approach rather
than Einstein's.

However, being a true relativist and having performed my own very
comprehensive analysis of variable star curves, I have no doubt at all
that in general, light does NOT travel at the same speed across empty
space. How could it? The very idea itself make no sense.

Light obviously has a conventional 'speed' and all speeds MUST BE
frame dependent by definition. If you don't believe that my paradox
confirms that fact then let's talk about it. For some reason, you
Einstein supporters seem reluctant to engage in normal scientific
discussion?

> I do not know what you are trying to do, but in physics (and in science in
> general), the only way to show that a theory is invalid is to perform an
> EXPERIMENT that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. For SR, within its
> domain of applicability, this has never been done -- literally hundreds of
> experiments have confirmed its predictions, and NOT A SINGLE ONE has disagreed.
>
>         Note the difference between my "invalid" and your "wrong".

I'm happy to accept that any claim that leads to a logical
impossibility is both invalid AND 'wrong'...but let's talk science and
not semantics.

> Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson]

On May 5, 10:01 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein - what a wonderful human being he was!

Then why did his wife leave him?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Henry Wilson <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/4/13 5/4/13 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Your personal misconceptions cannot possibly "prove" anything. As
>> has been pointed out before, you keep assuming what you are trying
>> to "prove".
>
> Tom, you have a bad habit of misinterpreting everything I post.

That's because you always post the same crap, imbecile.

Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson]

But you can never say why it is crap.

That obviously means it isn't crap. ...but I knew that anyway...

My paradox proves that P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility.

If you think that is crap, please identify the error...or accept that you are the most useless piece of human flesh on the planet.


> Dirk Vdm

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/5/2013 6:58 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> My paradox proves that P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility.
>
> If you think that is crap, please identify the error...

That has already been done time after time after time. That you don't
understand is no one's fault but your own.

> or accept that
> you are the most useless piece of human flesh on the planet.

No, that would be you. And I'm not all that certain about the 'human'
part.

--
T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[Henry Wilson]

Please identify my error or accept that you are the second most useless piece of human flesh on this planet..

[xxein]

xxein: Is the scientific method valid in itself? Isn't it based on
prior assumptions? It is, after all, only based on/within a model, is
it not?

Just asking.

[T.M. Sommers]

I've done it already, more than once. I'm not going to waste my time
repeating myself only to have you ignore it again. Read the archives on
Google if you really want to know. But, of course, you really don't
want to know; you'd much rather wallow in your ignorance and
incompetence. At least you have now admitted that you are utterly
worthless, since you call me the second most worthless person.

Also, kindly note that you have yet to actually prove your ridiculous
proposition. All you do is spout nonsensical words, with not a single
line of math. You claim the math is trivial, yet you are still too
incompetent to write it down. If you want to be treated as anything
other than a laughingstock, do the math for real.

You disagree with that assessment of your abilities? Then prove me
wrong and do the math. Either that or accept that you are the most
deluded, incompetent, ignorant buffoon who has ever posted in this
newsgroup.

Naturally, since you don't even understand how signed numbers work, you
won't be able to do any math.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

T.M. Sommers <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/2013 7:21 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> On Monday, May 6, 2013 9:11:22 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2013 6:58 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you think that is crap, please identify the error...
>>>
>>> That has already been done time after time after time. That you
>>> don't understand is no one's fault but your own.
>>>
>>>> or accept that you are the most useless piece of human flesh on
>>>> the planet.
>>>
>>> No, that would be you. And I'm not all that certain about the
>>> 'human' part.
>>
>> Please identify my error or accept that you are the second most
>> useless piece of human flesh on this planet..
>
> I've done it already, more than once. I'm not going to waste my time
> repeating myself only to have you ignore it again. Read the archives
> on Google if you really want to know. But, of course, you really
> don't want to know; you'd much rather wallow in your ignorance and
> incompetence. At least you have now admitted that you are utterly
> worthless, since you call me the second most worthless person.
>
> Also, kindly note that you have yet to actually prove your ridiculous
> proposition. All you do is spout nonsensical words, with not a single
> line of math. You claim the math is trivial, yet you are still too
> incompetent to write it down. If you want to be treated as anything
> other than a laughingstock, do the math for real.

Wrong.
Never challenge an idiot to do the math of a physics topic.
*You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
*his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--
understand what you are trying to do. See Robert Winn.
It does not work.

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:km7lml$jge$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

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

Never challenge an idiot to do the math of a physics topic.
*You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
*his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--

understand what you are trying to do. See Dork Van de faggot.
It does not work.

v’ = x’/t’, you fucking imbecile.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[Henry Wilson]

On May 6, 5:47 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@April2013.edu> wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote in messagenews:km7lml$jge$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I know you don't read my messages A but in case you do, I hope you
realise how much amusement and satisfaction I am getting out of this.

I have clearly proved Einstein wrong very simply and convincingly and
the dingleberries are completely demoralized because they cannot find
a flaw in my argument. They are squealing like pigs in a pen, calling
me all the bad names they can think of BUT THEY STILL CANNOT FAULT MY
PARADOX.

[Henry Wilson]

Like I said years ago, little eric, you have too many books and not
enough brains.

> Naturally, since you don't even understand how signed numbers work, you
> won't be able to do any math.

My paradox already has as much maths as Einstein second paradox.
ZERO!

Logic doesn't need maths...but even if I included some you wouldn't
understand it anyway.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

>> v� = x�/t�, you fucking imbecile.

>> -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
>> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
>> When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an
>> argument I
>> cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
>
> I know you don't read my messages A but in case you do

[gnat]

He does, but if he wants to reply to what you wrote, he'll
have to say that his harddisk crashed again once more
again once more again, so he had to re-re-re-re-re-create
his killfile. Again.
Bummer.

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:km8662$9e7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> v’ = x’/t’, you fucking imbecile.

>> -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
>> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
>> When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an
>> argument I
>> cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
>
> I know you don't read my messages A but in case you do

[gnat]

He does, but if he wants to reply to what you wrote, he'll
have to say that his harddisk crashed again once more
again once more again, so he had to re-re-re-re-re-create
his killfile. Again.
Bummer.

Dirk Vdm

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

 

"Dork Van de faggot" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:km7lml$jge$1...@speranza.aioe.org

*You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
*his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--
understand what you are trying to do.

 

See v’ = x’/t’.  It does not work.

No, imbecile, v' = 0. -- Dork Van de faggot

How hard is it to listen to the definitions and stick with the rules? – Dork Van de faggot
"Did you ever had algebra?" - Dork Van de faggot

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 3:21 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> T.M. Sommers <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, kindly note that you have yet to actually prove your ridiculous
>> proposition. All you do is spout nonsensical words, with not a single
>> line of math. You claim the math is trivial, yet you are still too
>> incompetent to write it down. If you want to be treated as anything
>> other than a laughingstock, do the math for real.
>
> Wrong.
> Never challenge an idiot to do the math of a physics topic.
> *You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
> *his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--
> understand what you are trying to do. See Robert Winn.
> It does not work.

Not an issue with "Wilson", because he'll never do the math. He can't
do it. He thinks that a change from -2 to -1 is a decrease. I doubt
that he even has the math skills to balance his checkbook (assuming his
minders let him have one).

[T.M. Sommers]

Wrong again. I'm me, not him.

> you have too many books and not
> enough brains.

At least I can read.

>> Naturally, since you don't even understand how signed numbers work, you
>> won't be able to do any math.
>
> My paradox

The only paradox here is how someone as utterly incompetent, ignorant,
and generally clueless as you manages to function. Or do you? Are you
a resident of the NSW Home for the Terminally Clueless?

> already has as much maths as Einstein second paradox.
> ZERO!

Wrong again. Einstein at least counted to two; something you are not
capable of doing.

> Logic doesn't need maths...but even if I included some you wouldn't
> understand it anyway.

As expected, you are not able to even do math that you yourself call
"trivial". It is now beyond all doubt that you are the most deluded,
incompetent, ignorant buffoon in this newsgroup.

[Henry Wilson]

Poor girl...Worships Einstein! She's really getting desperate now that
his whole theory has been shown to be a load of crap...and she can't
find an error in my proof!

No maths are needed to prove that two time intervals, which are
identical according to one clock, cannot be DIFFERENT according to any
other clock in the universe.

. Sommers -- ab2sb

[Henry Wilson]

Don't cry Teresa. Your whole fantasy world might have crashed but
things could be a lot worse....
Why don't you and dinky take a long holiday together..

[T.M. Sommers]

Still can't tell boys from girls? At your age. Pathetic.

> She's really getting desperate now that

The only desperation is yours. No one who understands physics is at all
concerned about anything you say, except as a source of amusement.

> his whole theory has been shown to be a load of crap...and she can't
> find an error in my proof!

How about paying attention to the numerous answers you have been given
as to what is wrong with your "proof".

> No maths are needed to prove that two time intervals, which are
> identical according to one clock, cannot be DIFFERENT according to any
> other clock in the universe.

Of course you would say that, since the use of math would prove beyond
question that your silly claim is false. You desperately need to avoid
all math, and you desperately need to shut your eyes and ears to all
critics. In other words, you desperately need to avoid the truth,
because if you ever let the truth sneak past your defenses, your
delusions would be shattered and you would see yourself for the
pathetic, utterly insignificant creature that you really are. Your best
hope for preserving your delusions and your self-esteem is to leave this
newsgroup forever, and avoid all contact with anyone who knows more
physics and math than you do (meaning virtually the entire human race).
Expound your "theory" to your dogs; I'm sure they won't find fault
with it.

[T.M. Sommers]

Amazing. In a mere six minutes you completely forgot that you already
gave an equally empty reply to my post. I suppose severe short-term
memory loss would explain why you keep claiming (falsely) that your
"proof" has not been refuted (as it has been, many, many times).

[Paul B. Andersen]

Don't blame Ralph for struggling to divert the attention from
the fact that he is a mathematical illiterate, and is unable
to include the math you wouldn't understand anyway if he did.
You must grant him a couple of attempts!

But Rabbidgian logic doesn't need math:
"Since the speed of light is source dependent,
the second postulate of SR is proven false."

See?
Irrefutable logic with no math!

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson]

Poor little girl....can't even show me the 'maths' that I should be showing her.
Poor little girl can't prove me wrong at all.
Poor little girl proves she hasn't a clue about anything.
Poor little girl is about to burst into tears because Einstein has been well and truly exposed as a hoaxer...


>
> T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 6:26 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Poor little girl

I see you are still confused about which sex is which.

> ....can't even show me the 'maths' that I should be
> showing her.

You're right: *you* should be showing the math behind *your*
preposterous claim. It is no one else's responsibility to prove *your*
silly theories; that is *your* job, and *yours* alone.

> Poor little girl can't prove me wrong at all. Poor

It's been done, over and over again. Just because you can't remember
anything beyond six minutes ago does not mean that nothing happened.

> little girl proves she hasn't a clue about anything. Poor little girl
> is about to burst into tears because Einstein has been well and truly
> exposed as a hoaxer...

Hilarious. And pathetic.

[Henry Wilson]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:29:45 AM UTC+10, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 06.05.2013 22:29, T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
> > On 5/6/2013 3:41 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >> On May 7, 1:20 am, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/6/2013 6:48 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >>>> Logic doesn't need maths...but even if I included some you wouldn't
>
> >>>> understand it anyway.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> As expected, you are not able to even do math that you yourself call
>
> >>> "trivial". It is now beyond all doubt that you are the most deluded,
>
> >>> incompetent, ignorant buffoon in this newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >> Don't cry Teresa. Your whole fantasy world might have crashed but
>
> >> things could be a lot worse....
>
> >> Why don't you and dinky take a long holiday together..
>
> >
>
> > Amazing. In a mere six minutes you completely forgot that you already
>
> > gave an equally empty reply to my post. I suppose severe short-term
>
> > memory loss would explain why you keep claiming (falsely) that your
>
> > "proof" has not been refuted (as it has been, many, many times).

> Don't blame Henry for struggling to divert the attention from

> the fact that he is a mathematical illiterate, and is unable
> to include the math you wouldn't understand anyway if he did.
> You must grant him a couple of attempts!

Aha! The Nowegian King of circularity, creator of curved light and well known spaceship lengthener is still unable to produce any maths that will prove my paradox wrong. Well, if it's any consolation, none of your fellow Einstein worshippers can do it either!

> But Wilsonian logic doesn't need math:

> "Since the speed of light is source dependent,
> the second postulate of SR is proven false."

Paul, I don't use circular logic like you do.

> See?
> Irrefutable logic with no math!

The fact that I have revealed is: since P2 says light speed is c in all frames, P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility. The only required equations are provided here: www.scisite.info/paradox.txt

Please prove me wrong if you can.

If you really want to put up some kind of fight, why don't you discuss the main argument: "the EQUALITY and INEQUALITY of time intervals is not and CANNOT BE frame dependent".

Apparently, Einstein believed they were.

.....you wont find this in any textbook.

> --
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson]

Poor pathetic little crybaby can't even read all the necessary equations when they are presented to her here. http://www.scisite.info/paradox.txt

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 5:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Don't blame Ralph for struggling to divert the attention from
> the fact that he is a mathematical illiterate, and is unable
> to include the math you wouldn't understand anyway if he did.
> You must grant him a couple of attempts!
>
> But Rabbidgian logic doesn't need math:
> "Since the speed of light is source dependent,
> the second postulate of SR is proven false."
>
> See?
> Irrefutable logic with no math!

Well, you've got me there.

[Henry Wilson]

You can see why he is known as the king of circular logic. That's the only kind he knows.

[T.M. Sommers]

It is up to *you* alone to prove *your* claims. No one else has a duty
to prove you right or wrong.

>> But Wilsonian logic doesn't need math: "Since the speed of light
>> is source dependent, the second postulate of SR is proven false."
>
> Paul, I don't use circular logic like you do.

You merely assume your conclusion.

>> See? Irrefutable logic with no math!
>
> The fact that I have revealed is: since P2 says light speed is c in
> all frames, P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility.

You have never proved that what the second postulate leads to is
impossible, logically or otherwise. You have stated it, over and over,
but you have never even tried to prove it. As we all know, or should
know, assertion is not proof.

> The only
> required equations are provided here: www.scisite.info/paradox.txt
>
> Please prove me wrong if you can.

Try proving yourself right. The burden of proof is on *you*.

> If you really want to put up some kind of fight, why don't you
> discuss the main argument: "the EQUALITY and INEQUALITY of time
> intervals is not and CANNOT BE frame dependent".
>
> Apparently, Einstein believed they were.

And you have never proved that they aren't.

> .....you wont find this in any textbook.

*You* won't find anything in a textbook, because you have never opened
one. The rest of us will never find your crackpot theories in a
textbook, because authors and publishers try to avoid looking like idiots.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 6:44 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Poor pathetic little crybaby

Talking about yourself again, I see.

> can't even read all the necessary
> equations when they are presented to her

More pronoun trouble. How do you expect to understand physics if you
can't get basic English grammar right?

> here.
> http://www.scisite.info/paradox.txt

I see nothing there that proves your "paradox".


Why don't you grow up and start talking physics and stop all the
schoolyard childishness and name calling? Do you really think it
impresses anyone? Do you really think it fools anyone? All you do is
make yourself an even bigger laughingstock.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 7:11 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> You can see why he is known as the king of circular logic.

No, once again your are talking about yourself.

> That's
> the only kind he knows.

Ditto.

[Henry Wilson]

I love being told I'm wrong by idiots who cannot say where or why I'm wrong...
HAHAHHHAHHAHHA! You're one of them!

I almost feel sorry for all you dingleberries. It must be a terrible blow to discover Einstein's whole theory is based on a blatant impossibility....and you can't do a damn thing about it...

HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/6/2013 10:14 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:55:31 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>>
>> Why don't you grow up and start talking physics and stop all the
>> schoolyard childishness and name calling? Do you really think it
>> impresses anyone? Do you really think it fools anyone? All you do
>> is make yourself an even bigger laughingstock.
>
> I love being told I'm wrong by idiots who cannot say where or why I'm
> wrong... HAHAHHHAHHAHHA! You're one of them!

You've been told many times what is wrong with your "proof". Just
because you ignore anything you don't like doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist.

> I almost feel sorry for all you dingleberries. It must be a terrible
> blow to discover Einstein's whole theory is based on a blatant
> impossibility....and you can't do a damn thing about it...
>
> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!

Laugh if it makes you feel better. But know that the rest of the
universe is laughing at *you*. I'll bet that even most of your fellow
cranks are embarrassed for you.


Now how about talking about physics instead of personalities? Show us
the math behind your claim that time intervals are invariant, and show
us how that claim stacks up against experiment.

[Henry Wilson]

Oh you really are a pathetic little girl, you can't even understand what I said.

I didn't say time intervals are invariant (although they are).
I said equality or inequality is invariant regarding time intervals.

Is that still too hard for you...?

I suppose it is.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/5/2013 5:58 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> But you can never say why it is crap.
>
> That obviously means it isn't crap. ...but I knew that anyway...
>
> My paradox proves that P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility.
>
> If you think that is crap, please identify the error...or accept that you are the

> most useless piece of human flesh on the planet.
>

'i dare you to try to get me to cry uncle. failure to get me to cry
uncle will amount to crying uncle yourself. an impasse will be taken as
my victory. your walking away and ignoring me will be taken as my
victory. nanna-nanny-boo-boo.'

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/7/2013 12:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Now how about talking about physics instead of personalities? Show
>> us the math behind your claim that time intervals are invariant,
>> and show us how that claim stacks up against experiment.
>
> Oh you really are a pathetic little girl, you can't even understand
> what I said.

What is pathetic is that you are completely unable to engage in civil
discourse.

> I didn't say time intervals are invariant (although they are).

You are saying it now, regardless of what you said before.

> I said
> equality or inequality is invariant regarding time intervals.

The same thing in different words.

Now that we have that settled, back up your claim that time intervals
are invariant. Back it up with appropriate math, that is.

> Is that still too hard for you...?
>
> I suppose it is.

Ditto.

[HG Wilson]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:06:29 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 12:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Now how about talking about physics instead of personalities? Show
>
> >> us the math behind your claim that time intervals are invariant,
>
> >> and show us how that claim stacks up against experiment.
>
> >
>
> > Oh you really are a pathetic little girl, you can't even understand
>
> > what I said.
>
>
>
> What is pathetic is that you are completely unable to engage in civil
>
> discourse.
>
>
>
> > I didn't say time intervals are invariant (although they are).
>
>
>
> You are saying it now, regardless of what you said before.
>
>
>
> > I said
>
> > equality or inequality is invariant regarding time intervals.
>
>
>
> The same thing in different words.
>
>
>
> Now that we have that settled, back up your claim that time intervals
>
> are invariant. Back it up with appropriate math, that is.

You cannot even read.
My claim is NOT that time intervals are invariant. That's another matter.

> > Is that still too hard for you...?
> > I suppose it is.

Look, little girl, if physics is too hard for you and you can no longer suffer the realization that Einstein's theory is a load of bullshit from start to finish, why don't you resort to prayer. That's what all other religious people do when faced with inevitable doom and when all other attempts to escape have failed...and, who knows, it might bring more satisfaction than the more drastic alternative, suicide...

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/7/2013 7:58 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:06:29 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>> On 5/7/2013 12:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I said
>>> equality or inequality is invariant regarding time intervals.
>>
>> The same thing in different words.
>>
>> Now that we have that settled, back up your claim that time
>> intervals
>>
>> are invariant. Back it up with appropriate math, that is.
>
> You cannot even read. My claim is NOT that time intervals are
> invariant. That's another matter.

You're right; I misinterpreted what you wrote. But you have still to
prove your claim. And you did also claim that time intervals are
invariant. Prove that, too. These are your claims, so it is up to you
to prove them. You, no one else. Prove them with math, that is. Mere
babbling is not proof. Mere assertion is not proof. But of course, you
will provide no proof, because it proving anything is far beyond your
abilities.

>>> Is that still too hard for you...? I suppose it is.
>
> Look, little girl, if physics is too hard for you and you can no
> longer suffer the realization that Einstein's theory is a load of
> bullshit from start to finish, why don't you resort to prayer. That's
> what all other religious people do when faced with inevitable doom
> and when all other attempts to escape have failed...and, who knows,
> it might bring more satisfaction than the more drastic alternative,
> suicide...

You must be talking to yourself again.

[HG Wilson]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:11:32 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 7:58 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:06:29 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>
> >> On 5/7/2013 12:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> I said
>
> >>> equality or inequality is invariant regarding time intervals.
>
> >>
>
> >> The same thing in different words.
>
> >>
>
> >> Now that we have that settled, back up your claim that time
>
> >> intervals
>
> >>
>
> >> are invariant. Back it up with appropriate math, that is.
>
> >
>
> > You cannot even read. My claim is NOT that time intervals are
>
> > invariant. That's another matter.
>
>
>
> You're right; I misinterpreted what you wrote. But you have still to
>
> prove your claim. And you did also claim that time intervals are
>
> invariant. Prove that, too. These are your claims, so it is up to you
>
> to prove them. You, no one else. Prove them with math, that is. Mere
>
> babbling is not proof. Mere assertion is not proof. But of course, you
>
> will provide no proof, because it proving anything is far beyond your
>
> abilities.

If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only assume I am right.

> >>> Is that still too hard for you...? I suppose it is.

> T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[T.M. Sommers]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I repeat: the burden of proof is on
you, and you alone. It is your proposition, so you must prove it. No
on else needs to do anything until you do prove it. You can assume
anything you want, but no one else will just take your word for it; you
must provide a valid proof if you want anyone to pay any attention to
you (except as a source of merriment).

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/6/2013 9:14 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> I love being told I'm wrong by idiots who cannot say where or why I'm wrong...
> HAHAHHHAHHAHHA! You're one of them!

'you say i'm wrong, but you can't convince me i'm wrong. therefore, i am
right, and i win! hahahahahaha!'

[HG Wilson]

On May 8, 2:32 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 9:44 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:11:32 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>
> >> You're right; I misinterpreted what you wrote.  But you have still
> >> to prove your claim.  And you did also claim that time intervals
> >> are invariant.  Prove that, too.  These are your claims, so it is
> >> up to you to prove them.  You, no one else.  Prove them with math,
> >> that is.  Mere babbling is not proof.  Mere assertion is not proof.
> >> But of course, you will provide no proof, because it proving
> >> anything is far beyond your abilities.
>
> > If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only
> > assume I am right.
>
> Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  I repeat: the burden of proof is on
> you, and you alone.  It is your proposition, so you must prove it.

It isn't my idea at all. Only a handful of deranged Einstein
worshippers would even want to argue about it. The other seven billion
would naturally agree that time intervals are the same everywhere.

[HG Wilson]

On May 8, 6:01 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In a court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty. I am innocent.
Einstein was the one committing the crime.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/8/2013 8:34 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On May 8, 2:32 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2013 9:44 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:11:32 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>>
>>>> You're right; I misinterpreted what you wrote. But you have still
>>>> to prove your claim. And you did also claim that time intervals
>>>> are invariant. Prove that, too. These are your claims, so it is
>>>> up to you to prove them. You, no one else. Prove them with math,
>>>> that is. Mere babbling is not proof. Mere assertion is not proof.
>>>> But of course, you will provide no proof, because it proving
>>>> anything is far beyond your abilities.
>>
>>> If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only
>>> assume I am right.
>>
>> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I repeat: the burden of proof is on
>> you, and you alone. It is your proposition, so you must prove it.
>
> It isn't my idea at all.

It is the idea that *you* are pushing, contrary to the established body
of physics, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

> Only a handful of deranged Einstein
> worshippers would even want to argue about it. The other seven billion
> would naturally agree that time intervals are the same everywhere.

Physicists have already done plenty of theoretical and experimental work
establishing relativity. I refer you to the entire body of physics.

Since you claim the math to prove your claim is trivial, you should have
no trouble showing it, especially with your seven billion helpers.

[HG Wilson]

On May 10, 5:46 am, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 8:34 AM, HG Wilson wrote:

>
> >>> If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only
> >>> assume I am right.
>
> >> Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  I repeat: the burden of proof is on
> >> you, and you alone.  It is your proposition, so you must prove it.
>
> > It isn't my idea at all.
>
> It is the idea that *you* are pushing, contrary to the established body
> of physics, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

From the majority of opinions expressed on this NG, it is pretty
obvious that the majority believes Einstein's theory is a load of
crap.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/9/2013 5:14 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On May 10, 5:46 am, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 8:34 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only
>>>>> assume I am right.
>>
>>>> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I repeat: the burden of proof is on
>>>> you, and you alone. It is your proposition, so you must prove it.
>>
>>> It isn't my idea at all.
>>
>> It is the idea that *you* are pushing, contrary to the established body
>> of physics, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
>
> From the majority of opinions expressed on this NG, it is pretty
> obvious that the majority believes Einstein's theory is a load of
> crap.

That's only because not many people who know physics bother arguing with
know-nothings. Physics does not work by a majority vote of the entire
universe, anyway. Was the Earth flat when the majority believed it was?


You still have not shown a mathematical proof or derivation of your
claim that time intervals are invariant. The burden of proof is still
yours. You say it is trivial, so you should be able to show it without
problem. So do it.

[HG Wilson]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:26:52 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 5:14 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 5:46 am, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsomme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 5/8/2013 8:34 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> If you think I'm wrong, please say why. Until you do, I can only
>
> >>>>> assume I am right.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I repeat: the burden of proof is on
>
> >>>> you, and you alone. It is your proposition, so you must prove it.
>
> >>
>
> >>> It isn't my idea at all.
>
> >>
>
> >> It is the idea that *you* are pushing, contrary to the established body
>
> >> of physics, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
>
> >
>
> > From the majority of opinions expressed on this NG, it is pretty
>
> > obvious that the majority believes Einstein's theory is a load of
>
> > crap.
>
>
>
> That's only because not many people who know physics bother arguing with
>
> know-nothings. Physics does not work by a majority vote of the entire
>
> universe, anyway. Was the Earth flat when the majority believed it was?
>
>
>
>
>
> You still have not shown a mathematical proof or derivation of your
>
> claim that time intervals are invariant.

That is not the claim in my paradox...although it is true.

>The burden of proof is still
>
> yours. You say it is trivial, so you should be able to show it without
>
> problem. So do it.

Time intervals are indicated by clock readings. Since the rate of every clock in the universe is linearly related to that of every other clock, it is obvious that
two time intervals that are equal on one clock must be equal on all clocks.

[Wade Jenkins]

T.M. Sommers wrote:

> That's only because not many people who know physics bother arguing with
> know-nothings. Physics does not work by a majority vote of the entire
> universe, anyway. Was the Earth flat when the majority believed it was?

Nobody ever believed in that. You are promulgating a lie.
.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/9/2013 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:26:52 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>>
>> You still have not shown a mathematical proof or derivation of
>> your claim that time intervals are invariant.
>
> That is not the claim in my paradox...although it is true.

I understand it is not what you say in your "paradox", but it is the
general case of what you do say, and you do say it is true. So prove it.

>> The burden of proof is still yours. You say it is trivial, so you
>> should be able to show it without problem. So do it.
>
> Time intervals are indicated by clock readings. Since the rate of
> every clock in the universe is linearly related to that of every
> other clock, it is obvious that two time intervals that are equal on
> one clock must be equal on all clocks.

That is not a mathematical proof or derivation. Do the math. You say
it is trivial, so there is no excuse for not doing it. Show
mathematically the the time difference between two events is the same in
all inertial reference frames.

[HG Wilson]

It is trivial that if two intervals on one clock are numerically the same, they are numerically the same on all clocks in the universe.

If you want to claim that a time interval defined by a pair of events is frame dependent then you will have to explain exactly how the start and end 'instants' differ in each frame.

By that, I mean if a time interval is shorter in one frame than another, as you seem to believe, the start and end events cannot coincide.
You have to determine if the 'start event' is later in one frame than the other or whether the end event is earlier.

That is meaningless and impossible since there is an infinite number of solutions.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

There are still people who believe it... no lie!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/9/2013 7:56 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> It is trivial that if two intervals on one clock are numerically the
> same, they are numerically the same on all clocks in the universe.

If it is so trivial, why haven't you done it yet?

> If you want to claim that a time interval defined by a pair of
> events is frame dependent then you will have to explain exactly how
> the start and end 'instants' differ in each frame.

See any text on SR.

> By that, I mean if a time interval is shorter in one frame than
> another, as you seem to believe, the start and end events cannot
> coincide. You have to determine if the 'start event' is later in one
> frame than the other or whether the end event is earlier.

It's call the relativity of simultaneity.

> That is meaningless and impossible since there is an infinite number
> of solutions.

The latter does not imply the former.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/9/2013 4:14 PM, HG Wilson wrote:

> From the majority of opinions expressed on this NG, it is pretty
> obvious that the majority believes Einstein's theory is a load of
> crap.

'...obvious that the majority believes...'
majority of what? cranks on this newsgroup?
do you think that the cranks on this newsgroup are representative of any
group other than the cranks on this newsgroup?

[HG Wilson]

OK smartarse, you tell me.

In frame Cm, Event A marks the instant light leaves A. Cm reads x.
Event B marks the instant it arrives at B. Cm reads y.
The time interval involved in light going from A to B is y-x.
The time interval involved in light going from B to A has the same value.

In frame Cs, you claim that that time interval has a different value according to Cs itself because the rates of Cs and Cm are different.
Firstly, please explain what you actually mean by that, and
secondly, how can that imply that those time intervals are NOT the same, according to Cs.

Now I expect you to either show the maths in a professional manner or stop whining, stop annoying me and go away for good.

-
>
> T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/10/2013 5:47 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 6:15:11 PM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 7:56 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> That is meaningless and impossible since there is an infinite
>>> number of solutions.
>>
>> The latter does not imply the former.
>
> OK smartarse, you tell me.

No, you don't, "Wilson". *You* tell *us*. It's your claim, so it's
your burden of proof.

> In frame Cm, Event A marks the instant light leaves A. Cm reads x.
> Event B marks the instant it arrives at B. Cm reads y. The time
> interval involved in light going from A to B is y-x. The time
> interval involved in light going from B to A has the same value.
>
> In frame Cs, you claim that that time interval has a different value
> according to Cs itself because the rates of Cs and Cm are different.
> Firstly, please explain what you actually mean by that, and secondly,
> how can that imply that those time intervals are NOT the same,
> according to Cs.
>
> Now I expect you to either show the maths in a professional manner or
> stop whining, stop annoying me and go away for good.

No, we expect *you* to provide a mathematical proof or derivation of
*your* claim, or *you* should shut up and go away forever. Or at the
very least stop making claims you can't support. We are under
absolutely no obligation to disprove your claims.

[HG Wilson]

You can't do it, proving I am correct.
So stop whining and whinging and go away.

[HG Wilson]

The cranks on this NG are all members of the Lost Tribe of Roberts.

[T.M. Sommers]

No, "Wilson", you are the one who can't do it. I repeat: it is your
claim, so it is up to you to prove you are right. You and only you.
Not me. You. Get it? You must prove your claim. If you won't prove
it, or more likely can't, then you lose. You can't divert attention by
demanding that someone else prove you wrong. YOU must prove that YOU
are right.

[HG Wilson]

I have provided all the necessary figures. You are too naive to understand them.

Go away!

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/10/2013 8:28 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> I have provided all the necessary figures. You are too naive to
> understand them.

Figures, schmigures. Do the math. You keep saying it is trivial, so
there is no excuse for not doing it. We're waiting ...

> Go away!

Ditto.

[HG Wilson]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:43:15 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 8:28 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I have provided all the necessary figures. You are too naive to
>
> > understand them.
>
>
>
> Figures, schmigures. Do the math. You keep saying it is trivial, so
>
> there is no excuse for not doing it. We're waiting ...
>
>
>
> > Go away!

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to teach science to an idiot.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/11/2013 6:57 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:43:15 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>> On 5/10/2013 8:28 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I have provided all the necessary figures. You are too naive to
>>> understand them.
>>
>> Figures, schmigures. Do the math. You keep saying it is trivial,
>> so there is no excuse for not doing it. We're waiting ...
>

> I'm not going to waste any more time trying to teach science to an
> idiot.

I accept your admission that you are unable to mathematically prove or
derive your claims. So please stop making claims you can't prove.

[HG Wilson]

Sorry, I only converse with qualified scientists.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/11/2013 2:48 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> Sorry, I only converse with qualified scientists.

You aren't qualified to tell who is a qualified scientist and who isn't.

[HG Wilson]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:50:07 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 2:48 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, I only converse with qualified scientists.
>
>
>
> You aren't qualified to tell who is a qualified scientist and who isn't.

I know you get a kick out of annoying qualified scientists
but I don't get a kick out of being annoyed.

I wish I could educate you in physics but you don't have the right attitude or aptitude.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/12/2013 5:44 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:50:07 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 2:48 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I only converse with qualified scientists.
>>
>> You aren't qualified to tell who is a qualified scientist and who
>> isn't.
>
> I know you get a kick out of annoying qualified scientists

Not at all.

> but I
> don't get a kick out of being annoyed.

What has that got to do with "qualified scientists"?

At any rate, a real scientist would not be annoyed at being asked for
the mathematical derivation of his results, or for goodness-of-fit
statistics for his fits. That is because real scientists have already
done those things before they release their results. Only quacks and
charlatans get annoyed when people question their results.

> I wish I could educate you in physics

You can't teach what you don't know.

> but you don't have the right
> attitude or aptitude.

Apparently you think the "right attitude" is for everyone to accept what
you say without question and without thinking. Sorry, but that is not
how science works. That is how snake-oil salesmen work.


So, let's get back to physics. You were about to show how you derive or
prove your claim that time intervals are invariant. We're still waiting ...

[HG Wilson]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 7:23:17 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 5:44 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:50:07 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>
> >> On 5/11/2013 2:48 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Sorry, I only converse with qualified scientists.
>
> >>
>
> >> You aren't qualified to tell who is a qualified scientist and who
>
> >> isn't.
>
> >
>
> > I know you get a kick out of annoying qualified scientists
>
>
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>
> > but I
>
> > don't get a kick out of being annoyed.
>
>
>
> What has that got to do with "qualified scientists"?
>
>
>
> At any rate, a real scientist would not be annoyed at being asked for
>
> the mathematical derivation of his results, or for goodness-of-fit
>
> statistics for his fits. That is because real scientists have already
>
> done those things before they release their results. Only quacks and
>
> charlatans get annoyed when people question their results.

I didn't see any 'goodness-of-fit' statistics for Einstein's 1905 fit.

> So, let's get back to physics. You were about to show how you derive or
> prove your claim that time intervals are invariant. We're still waiting ...

Poor girl....can't even read.

> T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/12/2013 6:51 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 7:23:17 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>>
>> At any rate, a real scientist would not be annoyed at being asked
>> for the mathematical derivation of his results, or for
>> goodness-of-fit statistics for his fits. That is because real
>> scientists have already done those things before they release their
>> results. Only quacks and charlatans get annoyed when people
>> question their results.
>
> I didn't see any 'goodness-of-fit' statistics for Einstein's 1905
> fit.

Maybe that's because he wasn't trying to fit experimental data to a
theoretical model. He was just propounding the model. You, on the
other hand, *are* claiming that the data fit your model. A real
scientist doing that could not get away with just eyeballing it; real
scientists give the statistics.

>> So, let's get back to physics. You were about to show how you
>> derive or prove your claim that time intervals are invariant. We're
>> still waiting ...
>
> Poor girl....can't even read.

What are you, five years old? Talk physics, not playground taunts.
Where is your derivation or proof? You say it's trivial, yet you can't
produce it.

[HG Wilson]

You don't have any idea what physics is, so what's the point of my talking about it to you?

[T.M. Sommers]

Stop wriggling. Show the math. Or admit you can't do it.

[HG Wilson]

The only maths needed was provided in the OP. The equations were Einstein's.
What you require now is a brain with which to interpret them.

[T.M. Sommers]

Nonsense. Nothing in you post proves that time intervals are invariant.
There is only your bald, unsupported claim. If you can't do the
trivial (according to you) math, just say so.

[HG Wilson]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:27:23 PM UTC+10, tms wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 8:49 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:09:29 AM UTC+10, tms wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Stop wriggling. Show the math. Or admit you can't do it.
>
> >
>
> > The only maths needed was provided in the OP. The equations were
>
> > Einstein's. What you require now is a brain with which to interpret
>
> > them.
>
>
>
> Nonsense. Nothing in you post proves that time intervals are invariant.

Nothing in my post claims that time intervals are invariant...although I'm quite sure they are.

>
> There is only your bald, unsupported claim. If you can't do the
> trivial (according to you) math, just say so.

Whether or not time intervals are invariant does not affect my paradox. You haven't even understood my experiment.
You are clueless.

[T.M. Sommers]

I understand that that was not your original claim, but you do claim it,
as you just did, and it's easier to say and it's more general. If you'd
rather prove the exact statement in your "paradox", that two time
intervals that are the same in one frame must be the same in every
frame, go ahead. Let's see that proof, then. We're still waiting.

[HG Wilson]

There is no need to prove it. The very idea that time intervals are frame dependent is merely the crazy and unverified claim of a theory that has now itself been proven wrong.

[T.M. Sommers]

In other words, you admit you can't prove it. In the future, don't make

claims you can't prove.

[HG Wilson]

Lengths and times are the same everywhere....always were and always will be. Nothing happens to a rod when it changes speed. How could it? Nothing happens to a clock, either.

No further proof is needed...

[Y]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:50:12 PM UTC+10, HG Wilson wrote:

> Even if that were true, it does not affect my paradox.
>
> Time intervals that are equal in one frame cannot be UNEQUAL in
>
> another.

Yes they can. That is like saying, all of the visible vertical edges of a cube in a perspective drawing *MUST BE* the same length in the picture plane, even though the actual height of cube would be invariant. You need to understand the difference.

A frame of reference is pretty much the same thing a picture plane in a perspective drawing.

-y

[Y]

Yes. In nature. You are absolutely right. However, SR is not an orthogonal projection of nature.

Consider this. SR is just a perspective drawing of nature. Each frame of reference is a different picture plane, and dilation or contraction, are simply the differences in# or% between these two views.

-y

[Y]

The thing is, perspective has long been regarded as a way to portray nature that is rife with deception and paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_(M._C._Escher)

-y

[HG Wilson]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:37:47 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:50:12 PM UTC+10, HG Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Even if that were true, it does not affect my paradox.
>
> >
>
> > Time intervals that are equal in one frame cannot be UNEQUAL in
>
> >
>
> > another.
>
>
>
> Yes they can. That is like saying, all of the visible vertical edges of a cube in a perspective drawing *MUST BE* the same length in the picture plane, even though the actual height of cube would be invariant. You need to understand the difference.

It is not the same. Perspective has to do with angles subtended by identical heights.

However, as I pointed out elsewhere, two identical rods positioned at right angles to each other, would, according to SR, have different lengths in every frame except their own.

> A frame of reference is pretty much the same thing a picture plane in a perspective drawing.

Your 'perspecive' idea does not apply to time intervals.

> -y

[HG Wilson]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:50:46 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> The thing is, perspective has long been regarded as a way to portray nature that is rife with deception and paradox.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_(M._C._Escher)

Yes, it's good...but how does that relate to time? It could only do so if TIME, like space, had three orthogonal components, as I have previously suggested.

>
>
> -y

[Y]

That depends on whether you regard time as a natural thing.

-y

[Y]

On May 14, 10:07 pm, HG Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:37:47 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:50:12 PM UTC+10, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > > Even if that were true, it does not affect my paradox.
>
> > > Time intervals that are equal in one frame cannot be UNEQUAL in
>
> > > another.
>
> > Yes they can. That is like saying, all of the visible vertical edges of a cube in a perspective drawing *MUST BE* the same length in the picture plane, even though the actual height of cube would be invariant. You need to understand the difference.
>
> It is not the same. Perspective has to do with angles subtended by identical heights.

Perspective is a drawing convention that follows certain rules, such
as linear perspective. In nature we do not see things in perspective.
The rules of what we actually see in nature are far too complex to
model completely in a perspective drawing for any given person, so we
make approximations of what people actually see with perspectives.
Perspectives are models.

When we look at objects in nature of invariant size, we also see that
they have relative size. This depends on the positioning and
perception of the observer.

Of course, it is possible to take a measuring tape and to walk around
to several locations to confirm that the size the objects are indeed
invariant. Doing so, it is also possible to make assertions on the
'absolute' sizes of these objects. Supposedly, SR does not or should
not concern with this. SR concerns with measurement from varied, non
orthogonal positions 'views' of things from other reference frames. In
many regards, these reference frames are analogous to a picture
plane.

In a nutshell, SR concerns with how to make or interpret measurements
in a 'parabolic' rather than linear perspective. Therefore, If the SR
Theory entails or purports that absolute forms of reference and
measurement are not possible, then the SR theory is wrong. Both
absolute and relative forms of measurement are mutually accessible.
Infact, in perspective, measurement is less dependable. Try measuring
a cube in a perspective drawing and make empirical comments on it's
dimensions. As I have shown you, perspective is rife with deception
and paradox.

Here's your problem. You feel that unlike the edge, or shape of an
object, time cannot be measured in a way that is consistent with a
relative view. To you, 'time' does not intersect the picture plane. I
will show you, this is because of your ill conceived view of time.

"Your 'perspective' idea does not apply to time intervals."

You may be right. Why does time not intersect the picture plane in the
same way that other projections do ? In my opinion, the only way for
time (from frame A) to intersect another observers picture plane at
(frame B), is if there is a light projection from (frame A's) clock.
This is the easiest way to think about it.

You believe that an interval is something that cannot be shown on a
drawing. It can. In my picture plane, I can have a projection of the
other observer's clock. If I generate that view for any given instant,
given that we have synchronised clocks, my view of my clock would show
a different time than his. Light took more time to project and arrive
from his source than mine.



An artist sits down with a picture plane and renders a landscape in an
instant. In that landscape are two identical clocks wired
synchronously. One of them is 1 meter away, and the other is 1 km.

Will that instantanous rendering have the same time for both clocks ?
No.

Does this mean that an absolute time is not accessible ? No.

The clock from frame A can be used as a height line for frame B. Might
need a 3rd clock here...


-y

[HG Wilson]

Perception of SPACE has nothing to do with TIME.

> Here's your problem. You feel that unlike the edge, or shape of an
> object, time cannot be measured in a way that is consistent with a
> relative view. To you, 'time' does not intersect the picture plane. I
> will show you, this is because of your ill conceived view of time

> "Your 'perspective' idea does not apply to time intervals."
> You may be right. Why does time not intersect the picture plane in the
> same way that other projections do ? In my opinion, the only way for
> time (from frame A) to intersect another observers picture plane at
> (frame B), is if there is a light projection from (frame A's) clock.
> This is the easiest way to think about it.

> You believe that an interval is something that cannot be shown on a
> drawing. It can. In my picture plane, I can have a projection of the
> other observer's clock. If I generate that view for any given instant,
> given that we have synchronised clocks, my view of my clock would show
> a different time than his. Light took more time to project and arrive
> from his source than mine.

Correcting for communication distance is not part of relativity.
My talking clock leads one 350 metres away by one second.
So what?

> An artist sits down with a picture plane and renders a landscape in an
> instant. In that landscape are two identical clocks wired
> synchronously. One of them is 1 meter away, and the other is 1 km.
> Will that instantanous rendering have the same time for both clocks ?
> No.

> Does this mean that an absolute time is not accessible ? No.
> The clock from frame A can be used as a height line for frame B. Might
> need a 3rd clock here...

This is not relevant to my question.

> -y

[Y]

Essentially, what you argue, is that a timeline cannot be drawn in
perspective.

-y

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

SR is a mathematical description of a totally artificial and useless
universe in which Einstein's second postulate prevails.

It is even more stupid as decribing the universe entirely from the POV of
the Earth's rotating frame. In fact it doesn't even work.

>-y
>
>
>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Time is not related to space in any way.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/16/2013 4:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> Time is not related to space in any way.

Wrong.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 02:56:12 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/16/2013 4:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> Time is not related to space in any way.
>
>Wrong.

wrong

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

Prove it. Mathematically.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:58:00 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 5:45 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 02:56:12 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2013 4:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Time is not related to space in any way.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> wrong
>
>Prove it. Mathematically.

There is no mathematical connection between time and space.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El domingo, 5 de mayo de 2013 17:58:37 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribió:
> On Monday, May 6, 2013 4:21:07 AM UTC+10, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > Henry Wilson <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On May 6, 12:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> On 5/4/13 5/4/13 5:48 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>> [...]
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Your personal misconceptions cannot possibly "prove" anything. As
>
> >
>
> > >> has been pointed out before, you keep assuming what you are trying
>
> >
>
> > >> to "prove".
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Tom, you have a bad habit of misinterpreting everything I post.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That's because you always post the same crap, imbecile.
>
>
>
> But you can never say why it is crap.
>
>
>
> That obviously means it isn't crap. ...but I knew that anyway...
>
>
>
> My paradox proves that P2 leads directly to a logical impossibility.
>
>
>
> If you think that is crap, please identify the error...or accept that you are the most useless piece of human flesh on the planet.
>
[ The huge ephemerides data accumulated by men in many centuries observing the
principal bodies of the Solar system support the validity of 1905R
relativistic equations (recently derived) with an accuracy of better than 1
part in 10^11.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=es&fromgroups#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/gravitational$20n-body$20problem/sci.physics.relativity/1dmdt2dOpDY/75Yv9U_0aiQJ

]

In another thread you qualify the previous information as crap, without identifying any error in it. Apply what you say in this thread to yourself.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

>
>
>
>
> > Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:56:11 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
<rval...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El domingo, 5 de mayo de 2013 17:58:37 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribi�:

>> On Monday, May 6, 2013 4:21:07 AM UTC+10, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:




>>
>[ The huge ephemerides data accumulated by men in many centuries observing the
> principal bodies of the Solar system support the validity of 1905R
> relativistic equations (recently derived) with an accuracy of better than 1
> part in 10^11.
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=es&fromgroups#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/
gravitational$20n-body$20problem/sci.physics.relativity/1dmdt2dOpDY/75Yv9U_0aiQJ
>
>]

What does it prove? ...that gamma = gamma?

It doesn't take into account the influence of other planets.
....and the calculations made 3000 years ago were certainly not accurate to 1
in E-11.

>In another thread you qualify the previous information as crap, without identifying any
error in it. Apply what you say in this thread to yourself.
>
>RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dirk Vdm

Henry Wilson DSc.