|
|
 | | From: | PD | | Subject: | Re: Hansen discovers how to reason. | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 13:47:37 -0800 |
|
|
 |
Androcles wrote:
> "PD" wrote in message
> news:1106347829.558138.224570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Androcles wrote:
> >> "PD" wrote in message
> >> news:1106343690.062523.10460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> >> >> In article
<1106339613.615630.44380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> PD wrote:
> >> >> >Androcles wrote:
> >> >> >> "PD" wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:1106331642.113480.5830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > So A and B are both at rest in k,
> >> >> >> > but B is receding from A at velocity v?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Still seeking clarification on this small, small point.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are getting mighty close. It won't become any clearer
than
> >> > that
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> you.
> >> >> >> Check with Einstein.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Einstein has nothing to do with the self-contradictory crapola
I
> >> > asked
> >> >> >you about. Which is it, Androcles?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why am I pressing this, you may ask, long after I've made my
> > point?
> >> >> >Because I like the little noise you make when you breathe
through
> >> > the
> >> >> >foam on your lips.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >PD
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You seemed to have such a different attitude when you proposed
a
> >> > Basics
> >> >> Series, Paul! What happened?
> >> >
> >> > When others persuaded me that was futile, Androcles baited me
with
> > my
> >> > posts about that. Taking the bait, I told Androcles I was going
to
> >> > make
> >> > an exception with him. He continued to bait me throughout our
> >> > discussion, which for a while I thought fertile.
> >>
> >> It ceased to fertile when you violated your own ground rules.
> >>
> >>
> >> Have you identified what you claim to be error in my statement
that
> > the
> >> PoR is simply the vector addition of velocities?
> >> No, you parrot on about it being some crap about "the same laws
of
> >> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference
> > for
> >> which the equations of mechanics hold good."
> >> Then you DENY that the laws of electrodynamics and optics hold
good,
> >> claiming light speed invariant.
> >>
> >>
> >> The PoR was first expounded upon by Galileo Galilei and Nicholas
> >> Copernicus, when it was realized that the Earth is just another
> > planet
> >> of the Sun.
> >> The sun does not cross the sky from East to West, the Earth turns
on
> > its
> >> axis from West to East. THAT is the PRINCIPLE of RELATIVITY in
> > action,
> >> every single day.
> >>
> >> You simply do not understand physics and display no desire to
learn.
> > You
> >> are deluded by Einstein and quote without understanding, yet so
> >> sanctimonious and confident of yourself you think you can explain
it
> > to
> >> me!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Since he flatly refuses to admit a physics error under any
> >> > circumstances,
> >>
> >>
> >> And now you lie. I've told you Einstein's error.
> >>
> >>
> >> > even when his own words are staring him in the face, I
> >> > will continue to make an exception of him.
> >>
> >> This is fucking simple, but Einstein switches his variable names
> > around
> >> to confuse
> >> you, and he succeeds.
> >>
> >> There are two points in space, A and B.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> That's used in 2AB/(t'A - t_A) = c.
> >>
> >> There are two points in space, (0,0,0) and (x',0,0)
> >
> > Stop. In which frame, k or K or neither, are these the coordinates
of
> > A
> > and B?
>
> Read the book or see the movie. I'd hate to give away the plot. Work
it
> out for yourself. Why don't you tell me and I'll let you know if
you
> are right?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> That is used in
> >> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> >> and the phrase
> >> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
> > measured
> >> in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v)
=
> > t."
> >>
> >> The initial point of k is called.... wait for it,. wait for
it.....
> > "A".
> >>
> >> The distance AB is called ...... x'.
> >
> > Stop. In which frame, k or K or neither, is this the distance
between
> > A
> > and B?
>
>
> Why don't you tell me and I'll let you know if you are right?
Not buying. You don't have an answer, I take it. Goodbye.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> These set of points are isomorphic.
> >> The point (0,0,0) is A.
> >> The point (x',0,0) is B.
> >> We could as easily call them Sam and Joe, as we did with the
> > mosquito.
> >> A = Sam = (0,0,0)
> >> B = Joe = (x', 0,0)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2x' / (t'A - t_A) = c
> >> because 2AB/(t'A - t_A) = c
> >>
> >> The time for the light to travel from A to B is x'/(c-v) =/= x'/c
> >>
> >>
> >> SOOOoooooooooo:
> >> B is moving with respect to A with velocity v , but it isn't.
> >>
> >> GOT IT NOW?
> >>
> >> Androcles.
> >
|
|
| | From: | Androcles | | Subject: | Re: Hansen discovers how to reason. | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:54:02 GMT |
|
|
|
"PD" wrote in message
news:1106430456.972786.287460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Androcles wrote:
>> "PD" wrote in message
>> news:1106347829.558138.224570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Androcles wrote:
>> >> "PD" wrote in message
>> >> news:1106343690.062523.10460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> >> >> In article
> <1106339613.615630.44380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> PD wrote:
>> >> >> >Androcles wrote:
>> >> >> >> "PD" wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1106331642.113480.5830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > So A and B are both at rest in k,
>> >> >> >> > but B is receding from A at velocity v?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Still seeking clarification on this small, small point.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are getting mighty close. It won't become any clearer
> than
>> >> > that
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> you.
>> >> >> >> Check with Einstein.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Einstein has nothing to do with the self-contradictory crapola
> I
>> >> > asked
>> >> >> >you about. Which is it, Androcles?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why am I pressing this, you may ask, long after I've made my
>> > point?
>> >> >> >Because I like the little noise you make when you breathe
> through
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >foam on your lips.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >PD
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seemed to have such a different attitude when you proposed
> a
>> >> > Basics
>> >> >> Series, Paul! What happened?
>> >> >
>> >> > When others persuaded me that was futile, Androcles baited me
> with
>> > my
>> >> > posts about that. Taking the bait, I told Androcles I was going
> to
>> >> > make
>> >> > an exception with him. He continued to bait me throughout our
>> >> > discussion, which for a while I thought fertile.
>> >>
>> >> It ceased to fertile when you violated your own ground rules.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Have you identified what you claim to be error in my statement
> that
>> > the
>> >> PoR is simply the vector addition of velocities?
>> >> No, you parrot on about it being some crap about "the same laws
> of
>> >> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> reference
>> > for
>> >> which the equations of mechanics hold good."
>> >> Then you DENY that the laws of electrodynamics and optics hold
> good,
>> >> claiming light speed invariant.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The PoR was first expounded upon by Galileo Galilei and Nicholas
>> >> Copernicus, when it was realized that the Earth is just another
>> > planet
>> >> of the Sun.
>> >> The sun does not cross the sky from East to West, the Earth turns
> on
>> > its
>> >> axis from West to East. THAT is the PRINCIPLE of RELATIVITY in
>> > action,
>> >> every single day.
>> >>
>> >> You simply do not understand physics and display no desire to
> learn.
>> > You
>> >> are deluded by Einstein and quote without understanding, yet so
>> >> sanctimonious and confident of yourself you think you can explain
> it
>> > to
>> >> me!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Since he flatly refuses to admit a physics error under any
>> >> > circumstances,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And now you lie. I've told you Einstein's error.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > even when his own words are staring him in the face, I
>> >> > will continue to make an exception of him.
>> >>
>> >> This is fucking simple, but Einstein switches his variable names
>> > around
>> >> to confuse
>> >> you, and he succeeds.
>> >>
>> >> There are two points in space, A and B.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> >> That's used in 2AB/(t'A - t_A) = c.
>> >>
>> >> There are two points in space, (0,0,0) and (x',0,0)
>> >
>> > Stop. In which frame, k or K or neither, are these the coordinates
> of
>> > A
>> > and B?
>>
>> Read the book or see the movie. I'd hate to give away the plot. Work
> it
>> out for yourself. Why don't you tell me and I'll let you know if
> you
>> are right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> That is used in
>> >> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
>> > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
>> >> and the phrase
>> >> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
>> > measured
>> >> in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v)
> =
>> > t."
>> >>
>> >> The initial point of k is called.... wait for it,. wait for
> it.....
>> > "A".
>> >>
>> >> The distance AB is called ...... x'.
>> >
>> > Stop. In which frame, k or K or neither, is this the distance
> between
>> > A
>> > and B?
>>
>>
>> Why don't you tell me and I'll let you know if you are right?
>
> Not buying. You don't have an answer, I take it. Goodbye.
Caio.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> These set of points are isomorphic.
>> >> The point (0,0,0) is A.
>> >> The point (x',0,0) is B.
>> >> We could as easily call them Sam and Joe, as we did with the
>> > mosquito.
>> >> A = Sam = (0,0,0)
>> >> B = Joe = (x', 0,0)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2x' / (t'A - t_A) = c
>> >> because 2AB/(t'A - t_A) = c
>> >>
>> >> The time for the light to travel from A to B is x'/(c-v) =/= x'/c
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> SOOOoooooooooo:
>> >> B is moving with respect to A with velocity v , but it isn't.
>> >>
>> >> GOT IT NOW?
>> >>
>> >> Androcles.
>> >
>
|
|
| | From: | YBM | | Subject: | Re: Hansen discovers how to reason. | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:25:44 +0100 |
|
|
| PD a écrit :
> Androcles wrote:
>>Why don't you tell me and I'll let you know if you are right?
>
> Not buying. You don't have an answer, I take it. Goodbye.
It is hopeless... I brought once Androcleps to admit that their
is no contradiction on computing closing velocities between himself and
a dog on a street as in Einstein's paper, but for some mysterious
reason he consider that their is a problem when the dog is
replaced by a lightbeam. I never figured what he was meaning, then
he (androcles)-killfilled me...
You should try to learn him how to quote properly on Usenet,
perharps he will do so before he died, but understanding basic
algebra and geometry not.
|
|
|
