Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #630926 > unrolled thread

Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-27 19:55 +0000
    Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 21:06 -0400
      Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-28 05:41 +0200
        Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 04:59 -0700
      Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 06:05 -0700
        Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-04-28 20:42 -0400
          Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-04-28 19:52 -0700

#630926 — Re: How Einsteinians Prove Time Dilation

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> "But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to
> prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are
> created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above
> Earth's surface.
> Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average.
> And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or
> about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the
> speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only
> 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than
> 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of
> them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference),
> because of time dilation."

His later statement INvalidates, vehemently and profoundly, his own 
attempt of making easy points. His later "alomst all of them" is in strong 
CONTRADICTION with the former "about 30-to-100 kilometers", since 100-30 
gives 70 Km, which is more than twice LARGER than his LOWER limit, of the 
30s. Mindblowing, how certain individuals can be so stupid. Just another 
EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#631001

On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>> "But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to
>> prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are
>> created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above
>> Earth's surface.
>> Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average.
>> And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or
>> about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the
>> speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only
>> 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than
>> 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of
>> them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference),
>> because of time dilation."
>
> His later statement INvalidates, vehemently and profoundly, his own
> attempt of making easy points. His later "alomst all of them" is in strong
> CONTRADICTION with the former "about 30-to-100 kilometers", since 100-30
> gives 70 Km, which is more than twice LARGER than his LOWER limit, of the
> 30s. Mindblowing, how certain individuals can be so stupid. Just another
> EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
>

It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known 
anti-Relativity cranks.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631021

Yousuf Khan amok-crossposted across 2 newsgroups without Followup-To:

> On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
>> […] Just another EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
> 
> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> anti-Relativity cranks.

It’s even better not to feed the troll
that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631052

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:41:59 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Yousuf Khan amok-crossposted across 2 newsgroups without Followup-To:
> 
> > On 4/27/2017 3:55 PM, Himère Bezuinig wrote:
> >> […] Just another EXCELLENT post from Dr. Pentcho.
> > 
> > It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
> > anti-Relativity cranks.
> 
> It’s even better not to feed the troll
> that is feeding the anti-relativity cranks.

So we all should just feed the pro-relativity cranks?

> F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Question authority, especially those who are F'ed'up by cross-posters.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631065

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:07:03 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
[]
> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known 
> anti-Relativity cranks.

At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
contradict.

It's the trolls that make a mess of things.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631191

On 4/28/2017 9:05 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:07:03 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> []
>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>
> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
> contradict.

Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if 
you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I 
can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only 
examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical 
phenomena. But these days, we're *engineering* with Relativity!!! The 
GPS satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about. 
We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in 
time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table! 
There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then 
you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for 
the sake of being difficult.

> It's the trolls that make a mess of things.
> ed


Both are equal wastes of skin.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631202

Look at the crackpottery of these 2 fanatical Einstein Dingleberries
in their devoted and unconditional worship of Albert's Sphincter, as...
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
 "Edward Prochak" <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> []
>>> It's best not to feed the crank, Pentcho is one of well-known
>>> anti-Relativity cranks.
>>
Dingleberry Edward Prochak wrote:
>> At least he tries to discuss physics. Some of his questions
>> can be interesting. His point this time was rather easy to
>> contradict.
> 
Dingleberry Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Any anti-Relativity crankiness is easy to disprove these days. I mean if 
> you're anti-Relativity in 2017 there's something wrong with your head. I 
> can understand being anti-Rel crank back in the 1950's, when the only 
> examples of Relativity at work were some esoteric astrophysical 
> phenomena. 
>
> *** But these days, we're *engineering* with Relativity!!! The GPS
> satellites wouldn't even work if Relativity weren't known about.****
>
> We've even got tabletop atomic clocks that can reveal the difference in 
> time dilation just moving the clock up from the floor to the table! 
> There's no excuse to be an anti-Rel crank anymore, if you are, then 
> you're just a lazy stubborn goat who is just trying to be difficult for 
> the sake of being difficult.
> 
hanson wrote:
See ***[... ]** above from Khan & Prochak, both of whom are 
Jewish armchair physicists, whose agenda it is to make sure 
that it seems that any physics advance or technologic invention
or improvement could not have been done without using 
Judenphysik, like SR or GR ... 
>
They, like other AshkeNazim kikes feel that it is their 
duty to preserve Einstein's SR/GR crap  as Yiddisher 
cultural heritage.... ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
GPS does not need relativity at all to operate correctly,
> 
hanson wrote:
So, it is surprising that neither Khan nor Ed have 
reposted kike Ashby's tripe of his "Relativity in the 
Global Positioning System in which it took Kike Ashby 
39 questionable & tortured steps to get to the 38 usec 
delay, when & while any high school student or engineer, 
can glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in 
ONE SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and 
show that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ---- 
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... km drift /day ---- 
>
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface, which is corrected by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm>
>
No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS
involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR.
>
|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ------ |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
>
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
>
Khan & Ed, you in your sorry mental condition, don't even 
see that it is common knowledge for more then 60+ years 
now, and 2 years before Einstein puffed, when
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
wherein AE concluded that: SR is short for __STUPID RANT__
&  GR being nothing but a __GULLIBLE RECITAL__, with
plenty of  <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>
So, here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
==   Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
==   Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
==   namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
==   his lunacies like:
>
||| AE::    "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE::     know that the distinction between the
||| AE::     past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE::     persistent illusion."
||| AE::     "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE::     live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE||  All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE||  brought me [= Einstein]  NO nearer to the answer
||AE||  to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> with plenty of
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> & so, ergo:
>
. ____  SR is short for STUPID RANT _____  and
. ____  GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:]  ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
.   ____  Relativity  is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
.   ______  SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
 which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc....      The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE::  "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE::   they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___   It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Now Khan & Ed, all that not withstanding, have
your jollies and keep on worshipping Albert's sphincter 
for it is more rewarding for you to worship then to think.
>
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web