A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 9th 11, 06:14 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.

On Jun 8, 3:52 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:

I don't give a crap about Einstein.


So, you should have no objections when He says Einstein was a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar then. OK, now it is your turn to say the
only accurate thing about Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar as no more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

The math, however, the Lorentz
transformation - that's just the transform that holds Maxwell's equations
invariant.


The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent. So, claiming the
Lorentz transform transforms something beautifully does not mean jack
****.

[rest of mystified nonsense snipped]

  #2  
Old June 9th 11, 06:59 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.

Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's
Paradox are correct?


  #3  
Old June 9th 11, 07:18 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_44_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
Twin's
| Paradox are correct?
|
No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
Twin's
Paradox are incorrect?



  #4  
Old June 9th 11, 07:23 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Peter Webb" wrote:
in message u...
Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate
to the so-called Twin's Paradox are correct?

hanson wrote:
Webb, for the n-th time again. Listen up Webb:
There are not 2 but there are 4 choices for you:

1) Go look into the mirror. You'll see guy in the
mirror who asks, over and over again, every
48 hrs, what you've just posted, over and over
again.... because he is too ****ing lazy or stupid,
too drunk, senile, medicated, loaded, or otherwise
intellectually challenged to investigate and answer
the question to his own satisfaction, & even worse,

2) Webb, you are so badly ****ed up that you can't
even decide which one out of the many answers to
accept as being correct that you get from the many
very kind posters.

3) Webb, since neither choice (1) nor (2) did it for
you, you should begin to suspect that SR is a crock
o'****, because if SR were a useful theory then you
would have found what you are looking for by now,
instead of you doing (1) over and over again.

4) Shall I repost for you, Peter, what Einstein himself
said about the crock o'**** that is called SR & GR?

Thanks for the laughs you Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahanson
  #5  
Old June 9th 11, 07:26 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
Twin's
| Paradox are correct?
|
No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
Twin's
Paradox are incorrect?


I believe they are correct.

Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
cyclotron?



  #6  
Old June 9th 11, 07:53 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_44_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| | Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
| Twin's
| | Paradox are correct?
| |
| No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called
| Twin's
| Paradox are incorrect?
|
|
| I believe they are correct.

I don't, but then, I can reason logically and read algebra. What's your
excuse?





  #7  
Old June 9th 11, 07:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_44_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

| Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
| cyclotron?

No, the prophecies of SR are completely wrong.

Do you believe the prophecies of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
cyclotron are correct?


  #8  
Old June 9th 11, 08:18 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

| Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
| cyclotron?

No, the prophecies of SR are completely wrong.

Do you believe the prophecies of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
cyclotron are correct?


Yes, I do.

Do you believe that muons travelling close to the speed of light in a
cyclotron will decay faster, slower, or the same speed as muons at rest
relative to the cyclotron?


  #9  
Old June 9th 11, 08:39 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.

This post is not really addressing to the idiot known as Peter Webb
but for the future generation of cyber archeologists. shrug

By the time, you have found this post you will have realized just how
****ing stupid and mystified the self-styled physicists can be in the
hundred or so years after Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. shrug

Just because the Lorentz transform predicts a one-way time dilation in
observation, it does not mean SR is valid. To accept SR within the
very requirements of scientific methodology, at least this mutual time
dilation must be verified, and yet there have been none because mutual
time dilation is the anti-logic of science, for it will never be
verified to keep the sanity in logic and science. The self-styled
physicist, with their totally failed scientific credentials have
accepted this one-way time dilation as a definitive proof of SR. To
justify worshiping this mysticism, the self-styled physicists have
conjured up all sorts of fantasies trying to justify their continual
worship in a very ****ed-up conjecture encompassing SR and GR.
shrug

He is very sure that you will get a laugh on these self-styled
physicists. Oh, a part of your treasury went to the nonsense and
mysticism that these idiots were trying to promote to justify their
unproductive, parasitic existence. shrug
  #10  
Old June 9th 11, 08:46 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_44_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| ...
|
| | Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
| | cyclotron?
|
| No, the prophecies of SR are completely wrong.
|
| Do you believe the prophecies of SR as they relate to muon decay in a
| cyclotron are correct?
|
|
| Yes, I do.
|
| Do you believe that muons travelling close to the speed of light in a
| cyclotron will decay faster, slower, or the same speed as muons at rest
| relative to the cyclotron?

Insufficient information to answer that, I need to know:
What is the decay time of a muon travelling close to the speed of
light in a cyclotron? (answer: 64 usec, measured)
What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron?

This is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 February 27th 11 08:24 AM
Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics. Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 September 16th 08 08:43 PM
Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics. Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 September 1st 08 08:52 PM
TWIN PARADOX IN EINSTEIN 1905 PAPER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 119 November 17th 07 06:07 PM
What kind of energy denotes E in Einstein's 1905 Sep 27paper? matches Astronomy Misc 4 October 1st 07 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.