INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?

On Aug 22, 2:08*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:

*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif

*How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
We are talking about classical nonrelativistic physics. You are
changing the topic. The link shows a picture of a relativistic
equation, that has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
Obviously, you don't know anything about classical nonrelativistic
physics. You just use the phrase "classical physics" as a sound bite.
Otherwise, you would stick to the topic.
Although Carnot never used the word entropy, he introduced it. A
later physicist, Clausius, put Carnot's work on a more formal basis.
Clausis first introduced the word "entropy."
Thus, Valev is wrong when he says that the second postulate is
wrong. Entropy is the "indestructible substance" that is postulated in
the work of Carnot and Clausis. The word substance doesn't have a
precise, formal meaning. All Carnot was saying is that there is a
physical quantity that has some properties that we normally associate
with a substance.
Consider: Entropy has a precise location. Entropy diffuses.
Entropy flows. Entropy contains potential energy. Many of equations
that describe entropy are analogous to equations that describe an
ideal gas.
On an atomic scale, entropy does not resemble other substances. It
is not made of molecules. It is not quantized in any way. It is
related to probability and ensemble averages. However, Carnot did not
know that matter had an atomic scale. He used the best words he could.
So did Clausius. Their equations and their pictures were clear.
Here is a link to an article on the work of Clausius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius
Rudolf Clausius
“By his restatement of Sadi Carnot's principle known as the Carnot
cycle, he put the theory of heat on a truer and sounder basis. His
most important paper, On the mechanical theory of heat, published in
1850, first stated the basic ideas of the second law of
thermodynamics. In 1865 he introduced the concept of entropy.”
“In 1865, Clausius gave the first mathematical version of the concept
of entropy, and also gave it its name. He used the now abandoned unit
'Clausius' (symbol: Cl) for entropy. Clausius chose the word "entropy"
because the meaning, from Greek, en+tropein, is "content
transformative" or "transformation content" ("Verwandlungsinhalt").”

"Darwin123" wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 2:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif

How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
We are talking about classical nonrelativistic physics.

Oh, ok. So Einstein's ****ing bull**** isn't physics or mathematics
and you don't have the integrity or capacity to give an honest answer.
Small wonder real physics is way beyond your capability, you drooling
moron.
Go play with Wormley and any other ****wit that will pleasantly agree
with you, you ****ing Jewish fraud. You couldn't teach a kitten to lap milk.
C'mon, arsehole, answer a question honestly (not that you have
the integrity or intelligence to do so):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif

How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there, you
disgusting imbecile?

On Aug 22, 5:39*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:

C'mon, arsehole, answer a question honestly (not that you have
the integrity or intelligence to do so):

*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif

*How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there, you
disgusting imbecile?
Ask Pentcho Valev. He seems to be as obsessed with relativity as
you are. I am done with this thread !-(

"Androcles" wrote in message news:8nhco.152002$9R.120308@hurricane...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif

How far is it from A to A

the scenario describes light going from A to B and back to A. As the
distance A to B is the same as the distance B to A, how far the light
travels from A back to A is 2AB

and how long does it take to get there

the time shown by the difference in clock times at A between when it left
and when it got back t'A - tA

So the average speed is 2AB / (t'A - tA)

Gees Androcles is a moron if he has to ask such a stupid question.

The formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana. This formula makes the
obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the
speed of the observer", a fact consistent with both Maxwell's theory
and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity), too obvious. That is, even in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, where any idiocy is welcome, the
formula might prove dangerous for Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate. So Einsteinians fiercely teach that it is the wavelength
that varies with the speed of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

It would be interesting to see the quantitative "justification" of the
miraculous variation of the wavelength with the speed of the moving
observer. According to Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

1. In the frame of the source of the light, the time the moving
observer takes to pass two crests (one wavelength) is Ts=Ls/(c+v),
where Ls is the wavelength and v is the relative speed of the source
and the moving observer.

2. In the frame of the moving observer, the time the moving observer
takes to pass two crests (one wavelength) is To=Lo/c.

If Einsteiniana's priests had simply assumed that To=Ts, Einstein's
1905 false light postulate would be formally saved but the lie would
be too blatant, even in the "Anything goes" atmosphere of
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. So Einsteiniana's priests have
introduced additional camouflage in the form of an auxiliary ad hoc
axiom:

Auxiliary ad hoc axiom: The original reciprocal time dilation of
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity is no longer reciprocal -
clocks in the frame of the source of the light run FASTER than clocks
in the moving observer's frame: To=Ts/gamma, where gamma=(1-v^2/
c^2)^(-1/2).

Finally, by using To=Ts/gamma, Einsteiniana's priests gloriously
deduce the so-called relativistic Doppler effect while believers,
unable to understand anything, can only fiercely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" and look for heretics to destroy:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...

The formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana.

Nope .. it is perfectly fine and simple for SR/GR

This formula makes the
obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the
speed of the observer",

It says nothing at all about speed of observer. And that is NOT a fact at
all. Experiment indicates that the speed of light does NOT vary with the
speed of the observer.

a fact

Lie

consistent with both Maxwell's theory
and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity), too obvious.

Too obvious that it is just another Pentcho lie

[snip more Pentcho lies and nonsense]

"Inertial" wrote in message
...
| "Androcles" wrote in message news:8nhco.152002$9R.120308@hurricane...
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif
|
| How far is it from A to A
|
| the scenario describes

How many years does it take to get from A to A, you ****ing inert moron?

"Inertial" wrote in message
...
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The formula:
|
| (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
|
| has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana.
|
| Nope .. it is perfectly fine and simple for SR/GR

Nope.. the inert moron is a classic case of the Principle of Knee Jerk
Idiocy.

"Androcles" wrote in message news:KLpco.158488$9R.118684@hurricane...


"Inertial" wrote in message
.. .
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The formula:
|
| (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
|
| has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana.
|
| Nope .. it is perfectly fine and simple for SR/GR

Nope.. the inert moron is a classic case of the Principle of Knee Jerk
Idiocy.

**** off moron

"Inertial" wrote in message
...
| "Androcles" wrote in message news:KLpco.158488$9R.118684@hurricane...
|
|
| "Inertial" wrote in message
| .. .
| | "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| |
...
| |
| | The formula:
| |
| | (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
| |
| | has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana.
| |
| | Nope .. it is perfectly fine and simple for SR/GR
|
| Nope.. the inert moron is a classic case of the Principle of Knee Jerk
| Idiocy.
|
| **** off moron

**** off, ****.