Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479229 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
"Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-08 11:51 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:26 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-09 13:11 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 07:08 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 00:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:50 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 13:08 +0000
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:54 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 04:13 -0800
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 13:17 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:22 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:21 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:49 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 12:59 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 09:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 22:33 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:29 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 21:14 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 07:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-12 03:53 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 16:27 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 08:40 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:24 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 13:47 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 00:13 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 06:10 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 08:18 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:01 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 16:46 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 18:55 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:41 +0000
Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:59 +0000
Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 08:11 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:19 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 13:28 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:45 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 15:04 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:13 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 19:16 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 19:22 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 06:30 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 08:38 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 07:58 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:11 +0000
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:15 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 14:45 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 00:59 +0000
Re: then there were .......Just 3 equations eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:10 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 06:49 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:47 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 08:00 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:25 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 15:04 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:19 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 18:57 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 07:12 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 05:45 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:34 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:42 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 07:54 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:56 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 10:07 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 18:57 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:34 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:50 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 13:34 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 22:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 15:38 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 18:54 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile continues to be alying piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 11:56 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:20 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:07 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 08:54 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:11 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:57 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 17:08 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:37 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 01:38 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:47 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 19:17 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:54 -0800
"keith stein, Imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-10 06:44 -0800
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 05:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 05:43 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 08:56 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:30 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:56 +0000
Re: "keith stein, Imbecile replied: Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 07:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <zVmRD.86053$7W1.48683@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #479919 |
On 16/12/2018 02:57, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 15/12/2018 23:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:25:30 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 >>>> tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 >>>> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 >> >> >> Gary if you allow me to write incorrect equations unchallenged i can >> prove anything. > > The equations are correct assuming invariant c and assuming no length > contraction. > >> In the Galilean system the equations are WRONG because the the path length >> in 2 is not rAB, rather it is rAB less the distance moved by B as the light >> travels from A to B >> >> >> i.e. LIGHT PATH = rAB - v(tB - tA) >> >> LIGHT SPEED = LIGHT PATH / TIME >> >> C - V = rAB - v(tB - tA) / (tB - tA) = c - v > > Of course. But YOU don't believe the Galilean system you just described > because YOU believe in "the medium." If the medium is stationary for the > stationary observer, then it is NOT stationary for the moving rod. It is certainly possible for the medium to be stationary at the moving rod, and at the observer Gary. Just put the clocks and rod on a sealed train or lorry eh! Indeed since Einstein does not mention the medium i took the liberty of assuming that that was indeed how he was moving his clocks and rod, but sure if yoo are going to move the rod and clocks on the top of a moving lorry so that indeed the medium is moving, then of course it is equation 1 which is wrong, as you said Gary. >> Any correct application of the Galilean Transforms will, of course, >> yeild an IDENTITY of this sort, NOT the nonsense in Equation 2 above, >> which can clearly only be correct when v = 0 >> >> keith stein > > Nope. It's correct for invariant c and assuming no length contraction. Gary Harnagel wrote: You incredible moron! Of COURSE (1) is incompatible with (2) and (3)! That's the whole POINT of Einstein's proof. And that proves that the tA, tB and tA' in (2) and (3) can't be the same tA, tB and tA' in (1). keith stein writes: Of it does NOT show that Gary. What it shows is that you can not have an invariant c in frames of reference which are in relative motion. A fact which every Galilean was well aware of eh! Einstein wrote: "we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." keith stein writes: All you have shown Einstein is that you can not have an invariant c, (which is what Gary claims your equations are based on), and which every classical physicist had known was impossible for over 200 years. Whatever your equations in no way disprove the Galilean system, since in the Galilean system they are just WRONG eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 05:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <09e87b52-239c-445b-afd4-0276cb6e4a85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479925 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 16/12/2018 02:57, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > Gary if you allow me to write incorrect equations unchallenged i can > > > prove anything. > > > > The equations are correct assuming invariant c and assuming no length > > contraction. > > > > > In the Galilean system the equations are WRONG because the the path > > > length in 2 is not rAB, rather it is rAB less the distance moved by > > > B as the light travels from A to B > > > > > > > > > i.e. LIGHT PATH = rAB - v(tB - tA) > > > > > > LIGHT SPEED = LIGHT PATH / TIME > > > > > > C - V = rAB - v(tB - tA) / (tB - tA) = c - v > > > > Of course. But YOU don't believe the Galilean system you just described > > because YOU believe in "the medium." If the medium is stationary for the > > stationary observer, then it is NOT stationary for the moving rod. > > It is certainly possible for the medium to be stationary at the moving > rod, and at the observer Gary. Just put the clocks and rod on a sealed > train or lorry eh! Then you have a boundary where it is moving on one side and stationary on the other. Ignoring what happens at that boundary leads to error. > Indeed since Einstein does not mention the > medium i took the liberty of assuming that that was indeed how he was > moving his clocks and rod, but sure if yoo are going to move the rod > and clocks on the top of a moving lorry so that indeed the medium is > moving, then of course it is equation 1 which is wrong, as you said Gary. So what is the relationship between the clocks on top and the ones inside? THINK, man! > > > Any correct application of the Galilean Transforms will, of course, > > > yeild an IDENTITY of this sort, NOT the nonsense in Equation 2 above, > > > which can clearly only be correct when v = 0 > > > > > > keith stein > > > > Nope. It's correct for invariant c and assuming no length contraction. > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > You incredible moron! Of COURSE (1) is incompatible with (2) and (3)! > That's the whole POINT of Einstein's proof. And that proves that the > tA, tB and tA' in (2) and (3) can't be the same tA, tB and tA' in (1). > > keith stein writes: > Of it does NOT show that Gary. What it shows is that you can not > have an invariant c in frames of reference which are in relative > motion. A fact which every Galilean was well aware of eh! So you ARE mathematically and logically incompetent as well as being a reality-denier. > Einstein wrote: > "we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, > but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are > simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when > envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." > > > keith stein writes: > All you have shown Einstein is that you can not have an invariant c, Too bad that invariant c is confirmed by ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. Denial of reality is what crackpots do. > (which is what Gary claims your equations are based on), and which > every classical physicist had known was impossible for over 200 years. > Whatever your equations in no way disprove the Galilean system, > since in the Galilean system they are just WRONG eh! > > keith stein Galileo lived 400 years ago, Newton 350. Try living in the present, old fossil. And you're STILL completely ignoring the fact that equation 1 is WRONG for your bizarre belief whereas 2 and 3 are correct, just the OPPOSITE of your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 14:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <EntRD.86509$7W1.41426@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #479934 |
i On 16/12/2018 13:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 16/12/2018 02:57, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> Gary if you allow me to write incorrect equations unchallenged i can >>>> prove anything. >>> >>> The equations are correct assuming invariant c and assuming no length >>> contraction. Here are Einstein's equations as kindly provided by you goodself Gary, tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, unless v=0 eh! >>>> In the Galilean system the equations are WRONG because the the path >>>> length in 2 is not rAB, rather it is rAB less the distance moved by >>>> B as the light travels from A to B >>>> >>>> >>>> i.e. LIGHT PATH = rAB - v(tB - tA) >>>> >>>> LIGHT SPEED = LIGHT PATH / TIME >>>> >>>> C - V = rAB - v(tB - tA) / (tB - tA) = c - v >>> >>> Of course. But YOU don't believe the Galilean system you just described >>> because YOU believe in "the medium." If the medium is stationary for the >>> stationary observer, then it is NOT stationary for the moving rod. >> >> It is certainly possible for the medium to be stationary at the moving >> rod, and at the observer Gary. Just put the clocks and rod on a sealed >> train or lorry eh! > > Then you have a boundary where it is moving on one side and stationary on > the other. Ignoring what happens at that boundary leads to error. If you are getting "error" at the boundary, Gary, then you are doing it wrong. When you do it right, like me eh!,then you don't get no "error". You are right of course, there is a boundary, but it is very easy to deal with it correctly Gary. >> Indeed since Einstein does not mention the >> medium i took the liberty of assuming that that was indeed how he was >> moving his clocks and rod, but sure if yoo are going to move the rod >> and clocks on the top of a moving lorry so that indeed the medium is >> moving, then of course it is equation 1 which is wrong, as you said Gary. > > So what is the relationship between the clocks on top and the ones inside? I know the answer to this Gary If the clocks are mounted on top of the train(who would do that eh!) then equation 1 is BULL SHIT tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 If the clocks are mounted sensibly inside the train then equations 2 and 3 are BULL SHIT. tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 > THINK, man! I think that's the truth Gary. >>>> Any correct application of the Galilean Transforms will, of course, >>>> yeild an IDENTITY of this sort, NOT the nonsense in Equation 2 above, >>>> which can clearly only be correct when v = 0 >>>> >>>> keith stein >>> >>> Nope. It's correct for invariant c and assuming no length contraction. >> >> CONTRADICTING HIMSELF Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> You incredible moron! Of COURSE (1) is incompatible with (2) and (3)! >> That's the whole POINT of Einstein's proof. And that proves that the >> tA, tB and tA' in (2) and (3) can't be the same tA, tB and tA' in (1). >> >> keith stein writes: >> It does NOT show that Gary. What it shows is that you can not >> have an invariant c in frames of reference which are in relative >> motion. A fact which every Galilean was well aware of eh! > > So you ARE mathematically and logically incompetent as well as being a > reality-denier. > >> Einstein wrote: >> "we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, >> but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are >> simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when >> envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." >> >> >> keith stein writes: >> All you have shown Einstein is that you can not have an invariant c, > > Too bad that invariant c is confirmed by ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. > Denial of reality is what crackpots do. You should try that experiment of measuring c while walking toward the light Gary. No way will you be able to believe in invariant c, once you tried walking towards the light eh! keith stein >> (which is what Gary claims your equations are based on), and which >> every classical physicist had known was impossible for over 200 years. >> Whatever your equations in no way disprove the Galilean system, >> since in the Galilean system they are just WRONG eh! >> >> keith stein > > Galileo lived 400 years ago, Newton 350. Try living in the present, old > fossil. > > And you're STILL completely ignoring the fact that equation 1 is WRONG > for your bizarre belief whereas 2 and 3 are correct, just the OPPOSITE > of your claim. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 15:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <pv5rp0$ou$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479944 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 16/12/2018 13:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >Here are Einstein's equations as kindly provided by you goodself Gary, >tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 >tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 >tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 >They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, > unless v=0 eh! They are not ALL correct. Some are correct in some systems but not others. >>>> Of course. But YOU don't believe the Galilean system you just described >>>> because YOU believe in "the medium." If the medium is stationary for the >>>> stationary observer, then it is NOT stationary for the moving rod. >>> >>> It is certainly possible for the medium to be stationary at the moving >>> rod, and at the observer Gary. Just put the clocks and rod on a sealed >>> train or lorry eh! >> >> Then you have a boundary where it is moving on one side and stationary on >> the other. Ignoring what happens at that boundary leads to error. >If you are getting "error" at the boundary, Gary, then you are doing it >wrong. No, there is an OBVIOUS boundary between the inside and outside, with the difference being the relative velocity of "the medium" inside and outside. > When you do it right, like me eh!,then you don't get no "error". In that case it can mean only one thing: The velocity of "the medium" is irrelevant and does not affect the speed of anything in "the medium". The only difference between your experiment on top of the lorry and the same experiment inside it (sealed) is the speed of "the medium"! So again, if the experimental results are the same inside and outside, no matter what the speed of the lorry, then the velocity of "the medium" is irrelevant. For light, with a medium other than a vacuum, this becomes a version of the Fizeau Experiment. >You should try that experiment of measuring c >while walking toward the light Gary. No way >will you be able to believe in invariant c, >once you tried walking towards the light eh! Done multiple times. The result is the speed is invariant c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 07:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <b875eca4-f66c-4251-a27f-a596b3216edf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479944 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 6:34:15 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > Here are Einstein's equations as kindly provided by you goodself Gary, > > tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 > tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 > tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 > Dishonest imbecile, I already provided you with the Einstein quote that clearly states that (2,3) are incompatible with (1). Disgusting piece of lying shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 17:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <LkwRD.13123$RW.11568@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #479956 |
On 16/12/2018 15:54, Dono, wrote: > ..... lying shit. Pathological Imbecile replies: When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? good question! when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as it travels through intergalactic space. So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light was higher than it is now. The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 10:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <60acc42b-1154-4955-82c6-2f7296c8d794@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479965 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:55:58 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 16/12/2018 15:54, Dono, wrote: > > ..... lying shit. > > > Pathological Imbecile replies: > Precisely :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 18:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <pv675u$1mdj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479965 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 16/12/2018 15:54, Dono, wrote: >> ..... lying shit. > > Pathological Imbecile replies: > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. In an absurd universe. Herein the frequency is 1 to 1 related to the wavelength, which infact is the same thing. You guys are bringing your respective developing countries of residence, in eternal shame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 11:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <b616c99e-2f4a-401b-b136-acbb02c6e145@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479967 |
Scott Richman Keith Stein wrote: > On 16/12/2018 15:54, Dono, wrote: >> ..... lying shit. > > Pathological Imbecile replies: > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. In an absurd universe. Herein the frequency is 1 to 1 related to the wavelength, which infact is the same thing. You guys are bringing your respective developing countries of residence, in eternal shame. Ke = 0.5 kg *c^2 Two pass each other in opposite directions ((((6.5248935 ((kg m) / s) * c) / ((planck length / (2^(2 / 3)))^3)) / ((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))))^0.5) / c = 2 (2x2x2 Cube), 8 corners, c at each 8 corners ... c^8 1/c at the origin center of the cube .... c^8/c = c^7 c^8/c = c^7 ..... c^7/(hbar*G^2) = 4.6332523e+113 pascals https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos%28x%29%2Bcos%28y%29%2Bcos%28z%29%3D+0 https://photos.app.goo.gl/3o5ZeYzAeyZgcgaw8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/GXhkFPwY5AKB8Xz39 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EppqqfyAJbEVp8Nk82Q5rC5i_VqnLuDhNJIVIEM9Yk0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 11:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <82d786e8-9145-452b-91dd-1f0e4ea90fe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479971 |
Scott Richman - hide quoted text - Keith Stein wrote: > On 16/12/2018 15:54, Dono, wrote: >> ..... lying shit. > > Pathological Imbecile replies: > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. In an absurd universe. Herein the frequency is 1 to 1 related to the wavelength, which infact is the same thing. You guys are bringing your respective developing countries of residence, in eternal shame. Ke = 0.5 kg *c^2 Two pass each other in opposite directions ((((6.5248935 ((kg m) / s) * c) / ((planck length / (2^(2 / 3)))^3)) / ((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))))^0.5) / c = 2 (2x2x2 Cube), 8 corners, c at each 8 corners ... c^8 1/c at the origin center of the cube .... c^8/c = c^7 c^8/c = c^7 ..... c^7/(hbar*G^2) = 4.6332523e+113 pascals https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos%28x%29%2Bcos%28y%29%2Bcos%28z%29%3D+0 https://photos.app.goo.gl/3o5ZeYzAeyZgcgaw8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/GXhkFPwY5AKB8Xz39 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EppqqfyAJbEVp8Nk82Q5rC5i_VqnLuDhNJIVIEM9Yk0 Which is why .... ((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(c^5/(hbar*G^2))) = ((c^2/(hbar*G^2))/(1/(hbar*G^2))) = ((c^8/(hbar*G^2))/(c^6/(hbar*G^2))) ((c^8/(hbar*G^2))/(c^6/(hbar*G^2))) = (Cubic Matrix) = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos%28x%29%2Bcos%28y%29%2Bcos%28z%29%3D+0 (Single Cube) = [ (2x2x2 Cube), 8 corners, c at each 8 corners ... c^8 ..... ( 1/c at the origin center of the cube .... c^8/c = c^7 ) ]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 13:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <b76b66fb-1469-42fa-b63d-9c9ba298e8a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479944 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 7:34:15 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 16/12/2018 13:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > Here are Einstein's equations as kindly provided by you goodself Gary, > > tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 > tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 > tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 > > They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, > unless v=0 eh! Repeating bull plop doesn't improve the smell. Do you have trouble extracting information in your head or does it never get there in the first place? Equation (1) is correct in the frame where the rod is stationary (1.e., moving with the rod). Equations (2) and (3) are correct for a stationary observer watching light traversing A to B in the rod's frame, assuming that light travels at constant speed in all inertial frames. They are also correct for YOUR asinine assertion about "a medium necessary." Since it has been verified experimentally MANY, MANY times that the speed of light travels at constant speed in all inertial frames, the three equations are correct and demonstrates that clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized. > [Blathering outrageous asinine bull plop deleted] Moroney explains why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 22:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <s6ARD.58919$krL1.53848@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #479986 |
On 16/12/2018 21:34, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 7:34:15 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 16/12/2018 13:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> Here are Einstein's equations as kindly provided by you goodself Gary, >> >> tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 >> tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 >> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 >> >> They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, >> unless v=0 > ...the three equations are correct and demonstrates that > clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized. >> They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, >> unless v=0 They are certainly not correct in the Galilean system, and for Einstein to use them as a basis for abandoning Galilean transforms is unbelievable. >> They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, >> unless v=0 keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 15:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <eb3213ee-93dd-4560-831c-3a0f8d0db69b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479993 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 3:13:46 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 16/12/2018 21:34, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 7:34:15 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1 > > > tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2 > > > tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v).............3 > > > > > > They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, > > > unless v=0 > > > > ...the three equations are correct and demonstrates that > > clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized. > > > > They are NOT "correct" in ANY SYSTEM, > > > unless v=0 > > They are certainly not correct in the Galilean system, > and for Einstein to use them as a basis for abandoning > Galilean transforms is unbelievable. Your vacuous thought processes run far behind Clever Hans, the horse who could add, subtract, multiply and divide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans You seem to be taking clues from correct thinking and then doing the exact opposite. That implies you have Oppositional Defiant Disorder. You are definitely ODD. And continually repeating your bull plop just fits Einstein's definition of insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 01:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <MUhRD.12696$DWh1.9960@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #479870 |
On 15/12/2018 15:47, Keith Stein wrote:
>
>>> > On 15/12/2018 03:22, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> >> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>>> >> tB - Ta = rAB/(c - v)
>>> >> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
>>>
>>> The "cretin" writes:
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for supplying those three Gary.
>>> I was so hoping someone from Einstein's fan club
>>> would supply those.
>>>
>>> They are clearly WRONG both in the Galilean system,
>>> and they are wrong in Einstein's Special Relativity.
>>>
>>> They are clearly incompatible in ANY SYSTEM, and Einstein's
>>> conclusion that therefore there is no such thing as absolute
>>> simultaneity is just as wrong as his equations eh!e
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Creti, incurable.
>
> Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies
>
> Substitute from 2 and 3 in 1 gives
rAB/(c - v) = rAB/(c + v)
[Typo's corrected, Thanks to Dono eh!]
> Surely that is not possible unless v=0
> So they can only be correct in the frame of reference
> in which "v" -the velocity of the rod * 0
> and for any other value of v those 3 equations of Einstein's
> are incompatible i.e. WRONG.
>
> and even a dummy like yourself should be able to see that Dono.
>
> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 18:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <813bb424-c439-4f51-bac0-be8ac3c42611@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479916 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > > Substitute from 2 and 3 in 1 gives > > rAB/(c - v) = rAB/(c + v) > > [Typo's corrected, Thanks to Dono eh!] Still a cretinism
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 19:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies |
| Message-ID | <2ixRD.14937$DWh1.9583@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #479918 |
On 16/12/2018 02:54, Dono, wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>> Substitute from 2 and 3 in 1 gives >> >> rAB/(c - v) = rAB/(c + v) >> >> [Typo's corrected, Thanks to Dono eh!] > > > Still a cretinism I do agree Dono !!! ,but it is Einstein's "cretinism" because it surely follows from these three equations of his: >> tB - tA = tA' -tB >> tB - Ta = rAB/(c - v) >> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v) It's nice when we can agree on something Dono. Yes indeed! "a cretinism" as you say Dono. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 11:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile continues to be alying piece of shit |
| Message-ID | <56e3ee14-25be-429b-8e46-6c0b0c065a50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479969 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 16/12/2018 02:54, Dono, wrote: > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >>> Substitute from 2 and 3 in 1 gives > >> > >> rAB/(c - v) = rAB/(c + v) > >> > >> [Typo's corrected, Thanks to Dono eh!] > > > > > > Still a cretinism > > I do agree Dono !!! > > ,but it is Einstein's "cretinism" because it surely > follows from these three equations of his: > > >> tB - tA = tA' -tB > >> tB - Ta = rAB/(c - v) > >> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v) > No, it is YOUR cretinism since Einstein clearly shows that (1) is incompatible with (2,3), lying piece of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 14:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry |
| Message-ID | <6f26fe6d-6c41-4548-9f41-dcfe6ced735a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479810 |
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:59:33 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 14/12/2018 14:41, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > Well i did warn you this was going to get boring > > Here a question for you Henry > > Assuming that it is true > what someone once said > abour EVERY EQUATION > reducing the number of remaining readers by 50%,' > then tell me this Henry: > What percentage of readers who start Einstein's > famous paper on which Special Relativity is foundered > keep readind to > the end ? > > > > > > > > > > No not "The End". I have more questions for you Henry, > plus ................. > > > 1. Are you that reader ? > > > or have you never read it, perhaps ? > > > I only got as far as the first 4 equations myself > and since two of those are certainly WRONG, > i didn't bother with the rest of the bull shit eh! Is your face straight? Don't you think somebody would have noticed they were "WRONG", like, within *days* of the publication, if they were in fact incorrect? Or (much more likely) that the "WRONG" equations would have been caught by the editors of the Annalen der Physik before the publication? Just who do you think everybody else on the planet is? It doesn't occur to you that it's simply YOU who is missing something? One of the standard "misfeatures" of a crackpot is the BIZARRE inability to instinctively and quickly KNOW where the boundaries of his knowledge lie. Most people have this ability (inborn), not only scientists. But some people seem to lack it, it's like falling off a cliff, and they will go to the most BIZARRE lengths in that intellectual free-fall, and mix and match stuff COMPLETELY whacko-like, very much including vast North-Korea-like conspiracies or supposed incompetencies on a planetary scale. I wonder how common this is, as population percentage. On the Internet those types are likely over-represented but just consider the influence of that sort of thing in the US legal system, say, on the jury pool. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 09:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry |
| Message-ID | <18pRD.8010$gX2.5307@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #479831 |
On 14/12/2018 22:20, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:59:33 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 14/12/2018 14:41, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Well i did warn you this was going to get boring
>> I only got as far as the first 4 equations myself
>> and since two of those are certainly WRONG,
>> i didn't bother with the rest of the bull shit eh!
> Is your face straight? Don't you think
> somebody would have noticed they were "WRONG", like, within *days*
> of the publication, if they were in fact incorrect? Or (much more likely)
> that the "WRONG" equations would have been caught by the editors of
> the Annalen der Physik before the publication?
>
> Just who do you think everybody else on the planet is? It doesn't
> occur to you that it's simply YOU who is missing something?
Jan here are 3 of Einstein's first 4 equations as supplied by Gary:
tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1
tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2
tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)...,..........3
And they are incompatible and therefore WRONG in EVERY SYSTEM,
(excepting the trivial case where v=0 eh!). They most certainly
do NOT prove that t' != t , as Einstein claims eh!
> One of the standard "misfeatures" of a crackpot is the BIZARRE
> inability to instinctively and quickly KNOW where the boundaries
> of his knowledge lie. Most people have this ability (inborn), not
> only scientists. But some people seem to lack it, it's like falling
> off a cliff, and they will go to the most BIZARRE lengths in that
> intellectual free-fall, and mix and match stuff COMPLETELY whacko-like,
> very much including vast North-Korea-like conspiracies or supposed
> incompetencies on a planetary scale.
>
> I wonder how common this is, as population percentage. On the Internet
> those types are likely over-represented but just consider the influence
> of that sort of thing in the US legal system, say, on the jury pool.
I base my arguments on the evidence Jan, are you going to maintain that
Einstein's three equations above are correct ?
keith stein
> --
> Jan
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 14:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry |
| Message-ID | <562d8e68-2339-4ca6-9fba-03b94ae220bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479931 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:44:32 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 14/12/2018 22:20, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:59:33 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 14/12/2018 14:41, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well i did warn you this was going to get boring
> >> I only got as far as the first 4 equations myself
> >> and since two of those are certainly WRONG,
> >> i didn't bother with the rest of the bull shit eh!
>
> > Is your face straight? Don't you think
> > somebody would have noticed they were "WRONG", like, within *days*
> > of the publication, if they were in fact incorrect? Or (much more likely)
> > that the "WRONG" equations would have been caught by the editors of
> > the Annalen der Physik before the publication?
> >
> > Just who do you think everybody else on the planet is? It doesn't
> > occur to you that it's simply YOU who is missing something?
>
> Jan here are 3 of Einstein's first 4 equations as supplied by Gary:
>
> tB - tA = tA' -tB..................1
>
> tB - TA = rAB/(c - v)..............2
>
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)...,..........3
>
>
> And they are incompatible and therefore WRONG in EVERY SYSTEM,
> (excepting the trivial case where v=0 eh!).
Of course they are incompatible, they refer to systems with clock synchronised
according to two incompatible criteria: (1) refers to his definition of clock
sync ("the Einstein sync") while (2) and (3) refer to clocks synchronised using an
entirely different method, described on p. 42, fourth paragraph (the Dover
edition), the one beginning with "We imagine further...". It's NOT "the Einstein sync",
in fact (2) and (3) PROVE that clocks synchronised in such a way are NOT
"Einsten synchronised" (which was the entire POINT of that paragraph, in
other words, the entire POINT was to demonstrate that equations (2) and (3)
WILL be different.
I cannot imagine how you can read this paper without any understanding and then
proceed to post stuff about it - a total waste of your time.
> They most certainly
> do NOT prove that t' != t , as Einstein claims eh!
Again, the points you are making are all very easy and trivial, so that fact ALONE
would tell you (if you were sane) that they would have been caught IMMEDIATELY
AFTER the publication in November 1905, or, even more likely, BEFORE the
publication by the Annalen der Physik editors.
Please, do disabuse yourself of any notion that nobody except you has ever
thought about this stuff in a critical manner.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web