Ho do we know liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 is a troll?

Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has never read Einstein's
paper,
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES",
yet makes the following lying pronouncements:

1) " Relative speed, in short, is the speed of one object with respect to a
frame of reference in which the other object is at rest. "

2) " Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
every inertial frame."


1) is a direct contradiction of Einstein's first postulate:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "

As Einstein himself said:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
Ref:

2) isn't remotely close to Einstein's postulate: "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body."


Wackypedia states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postula...ial_relativity

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other
of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Clearly Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has not done so much
as to research wackypedia,
yet accuses others of not understanding his own special theory of closing
speeds (as if anybody would be interested in what the kook has to say).
This brings grave doubt on the educational qualifications the troll claims
for himself.
He does no research, he rejects the 1st postulate and he is certainly not
prominent.
He may be a theoretical physicist (in theory), but physicist he is not and
educator he is not.
Liar he definitely is.

As for troll, wackypedia states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts
controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online
community"

which fits Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 perfectly.

His claims concerning Einstein's postulates are controversial,
being a lie they are inflammatory,
he makes irrelevant remarks about "closing speed" persistently
and he claims to write for the lurkers, obviously expecting to
find an audience of gullible fools whose intelligence he can insult.

Students should read Einstein's paper and not make up their own
versions of what they think is relativity.

And that is how we know liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 is a
troll!

Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has never read Einstein's
paper,
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES",
*yet makes the following lying pronouncements:

1) " Relative speed, in short, is the speed of one object with respect to a
frame of reference in which the other object is at rest. "

2) " Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
*every inertial frame."

1) *is a direct contradiction of Einstein's first postulate:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "

As Einstein himself said:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
*Ref:

2) *isn't remotely close to Einstein's postulate: "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body."

Wackypedia states

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postula...tivity#Postula...

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

* The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other
of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

* Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Clearly Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has not done so much
as to research wackypedia,
yet accuses others of not understanding his own special theory of closing
speeds (as if anybody would be interested in what the kook has to say).
This brings grave doubt on the educational qualifications the troll claims
for himself.
He does no research, he rejects the 1st postulate and he is certainly not
prominent.
He may be a theoretical physicist (in theory), but physicist he is not and
educator he is not.
Liar he definitely is.

*As for troll, wackypedia states

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

*"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts
controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online
community"

which fits Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 perfectly.

His claims concerning Einstein's postulates are controversial,
being a lie they are inflammatory,
he makes irrelevant remarks about "closing speed" persistently
and he claims to write for the lurkers, obviously expecting to
find an audience of gullible fools whose intelligence he can insult.

Students should read Einstein's paper and not make up their own
versions of what they think is relativity.

And that is how we know liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 is a
troll!

Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

These days 9 year olds use expressions like psychotic, turd, troll,
their
parents picked it up online and the kids spread it in school. A parent
sits hopelessly, but this is not racist South Africa.

Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

These days 9 year olds use expressions like psychotic, turd, troll,
their
parents picked it up online and the kids spread it in school. A parent
sits hopelessly, but this is not racist South Africa.

These things quickly make it into American schools with 9 year olds.
You are an epidemic racist, ku klux klan.

On Feb 21, 12:50*pm, " wrote:
Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

These days 9 year olds use expressions like psychotic, turd, troll,
their
parents picked it up online and the kids spread it in school. A parent
sits hopelessly, but this is not racist South Africa.

These things quickly make it into American schools with 9 year olds.
You are an epidemic racist, ku klux klan.

Whatever it is, 99.9 percent of the UK population wants to end the
siege held by 0.1 oercent of their population. We can do it.

Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

These days 9 year olds use expressions like psychotic, turd, troll,
their
parents picked it up online and the kids spread it in school. A parent
sits hopelessly, but this is not racist South Africa.

These things quickly make it into American schools with 9 year olds.
You are an epidemic racist, ku klux klan.

Whatever it is, 99.9 percent of the UK population wants to end the
siege held by 0.1 oercent of their population. We can do it.

On Feb 21, 2:19*pm, " wrote:
Medicine has shown that psychotic have suffered through lead poisoning
as children and there is no help. But looking at the CCTV siege in the
UK, 92 percent opposed the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100
percent over time, currently 99.9 percent vs. 0.1 percent holding the
population under siege in the UK.

We can do it.

These days 9 year olds use expressions like psychotic, turd, troll,
their
parents picked it up online and the kids spread it in school. A parent
sits hopelessly, but this is not racist South Africa.

These things quickly make it into American schools with 9 year olds.
You are an epidemic racist, ku klux klan.

Whatever it is, 99.9 percent of the UK population wants to end the
siege held by 0.1 oercent of their population. We can do it.

I wan not going to reply to this smear, but as it makes several mis-
representations about my view of SR, I thought I should at least rebut
them directly. See below specific false claims that Androcles makes
about my writings:

On Feb 20, 1:02*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has never read Einstein's
paper,
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES",
*yet makes the following lying pronouncements:

1) " Relative speed, in short, is the speed of one object with respect to a
frame of reference in which the other object is at rest. "

2) " Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
*every inertial frame."

1) *is a direct contradiction of Einstein's first postulate:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "

Note the change from "rest" to "absolute rest." An object at rest in
an inertial frame is just an object whose spatial coordinates are
constant. No claim of absoluteness.

As Einstein himself said:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
*Ref:

2) *isn't remotely close to Einstein's postulate: "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body."

Androcles is quibbling over my use of the word "inertial." Whether
Einstein in 1905 or 1920 used the term, his General Relativity implies
that massive objects can bend light, which to a physicist is a change
of velocity. Therefore I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd
postulate.

Wackypedia states

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postula...tivity#Postula...

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

* The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other
of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

* Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Clearly Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has not done so much
as to research wackypedia,
yet accuses others of not understanding his own special theory of closing
speeds (as if anybody would be interested in what the kook has to say).
This brings grave doubt on the educational qualifications the troll claims
for himself.
He does no research, he rejects the 1st postulate and he is certainly not
prominent.
He may be a theoretical physicist (in theory), but physicist he is not and
educator he is not.
Liar he definitely is.

*As for troll, wackypedia states

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

*"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts
controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online
community"

which fits Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 perfectly.

His claims concerning Einstein's postulates are controversial,
being a lie they are inflammatory,
he makes irrelevant remarks about "closing speed" persistently
and he claims to write for the lurkers, obviously expecting to
find an audience of gullible fools whose intelligence he can insult.

About closing speed. In his initial presentations on SR, Einstein
tries to make it plausible that light provides a way to synchronize
clocks, but that that implies that time moves differently in different
moving systems of coordinates. In doing this, Einstein calculates how
long it wojuld take for light to return on reflection from a moving
mirror.

Androcles very often uses a signature file that asks "What lunacy
inspired Einstein to write that light travels from A to B at c+v and
light travels from B to A at c-v and the time is the same." (This is
the best I can recall of his words.) To say that light travels at c-v
or c+v is to violate the 2nd postulate, which says that light travels
always at c.

The understanding should be that light travels at c and the mirror
travels at v, so the time required for the light to reach the mirror
is distance/(c-v) etc. In conformance with usage in the US Navy and
the US Air Force, I use the term closing speed to refer to the rate at
which distance between objects closes. This terns describe the
factors (c+v) and (c-v). Light does not travel at those speeds.
Nothing travels at those speeds. They are merely the rate of closure
between two objects.

Before relativity, the difference did not matter. It is only because
Androcles rejects the concept of composition of velocities that he
still rejects the difference between the speed of light and the
closing speed in the mirror example.


Students should read Einstein's paper and not make up their own
versions of what they think is relativity.

And that is how we know liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 is a
troll!

Anyone who reads many of Androcles's psots must surely be aware of
Androcles's use of profanity and vulgarity. You will not find that in
my posts.

Uncle Ben

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
I wan not going to reply to this smear, but as it makes several mis-
representations about my view of SR, I thought I should at least rebut
them directly. See below specific false claims that Androcles makes
about my writings:

On Feb 20, 1:02 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has never read Einstein's
paper,
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES",
yet makes the following lying pronouncements:

1) " Relative speed, in short, is the speed of one object with respect to
a
frame of reference in which the other object is at rest. "

2) " Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
every inertial frame."

1) is a direct contradiction of Einstein's first postulate:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that
the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "

Note the change from "rest" to "absolute rest." An object at rest in
an inertial frame is just an object whose spatial coordinates are
constant. No claim of absoluteness.


No claim of closing speeds either.

Clearly Uncle Bull****'s theory of special closing speeds bears no relation
to
Einstein's theory of relativity and is a red herring introduced by the LYING
*******.

Uncle Bull**** introduces a preferred ( by him) of reference in which the
light's speed c may be subtracted from its true speed to leave teh speed of
some other object as v, but in the unpreferred frame the speed of the light
is c+v.
Uncle Bull**** is a squirming ignorant toad unable able to understand even
Galilean relativity.


As Einstein himself said:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
Ref:

2) isn't remotely close to Einstein's postulate: "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of
the state of motion of the emitting body."

Androcles is quibbling over my use of the word "inertial."
=============================================

Androcles is slamming the lying **** Uncle Bull**** up against the
wall and beating his head in with every opportunity and the squirming
dead moron is too stupid to lie down.

If beating the **** out of you is "quibbling", numbskull, it is only
because you are so dense your blood group is ragu.

Uncle Bull**** brought bare knuckles to a gunfight, he hasn't seen
my armoury. Keep standing up, Uncle Bull****, knocking you over
is fun.


Whether
Einstein in 1905 or 1920 used the term, his General Relativity implies
that massive objects can bend light, which to a physicist is a change
of velocity. Therefore I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd
postulate.
=============================================

Time out!
That doesn't entitle Uncle Bull**** to misrepresent Einstein's source
independence postulate, referee!
Send him off. Red card the *******, he doesn't understand the rules
of the game. NO LYING ALLOWED. Foul!





Wackypedia states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postula...tivity#Postula...

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the
other
of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Clearly Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 has not done so much
as to research wackypedia,
yet accuses others of not understanding his own special theory of closing
speeds (as if anybody would be interested in what the kook has to say).
This brings grave doubt on the educational qualifications the troll claims
for himself.
He does no research, he rejects the 1st postulate and he is certainly not
prominent.
He may be a theoretical physicist (in theory), but physicist he is not and
educator he is not.
Liar he definitely is.

As for troll, wackypedia states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts
controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online
community"

which fits Liar Uncle Bonehead Green Ph. D. physics 1956 perfectly.

His claims concerning Einstein's postulates are controversial,
being a lie they are inflammatory,
he makes irrelevant remarks about "closing speed" persistently
and he claims to write for the lurkers, obviously expecting to
find an audience of gullible fools whose intelligence he can insult.

About closing speed.

============================================
No, we've had enough. Closing speeds require a preferred
(by Uncle Bull****) frame of reference. Whilst is possible to
choose any frame of reference, none are to be preferred over
another.

Uncle Bull**** can't distinguish a closing speed from a relative speed.
Hahahaha, lurkers, isn't that funny? Let's all sneer because he can't.

Now let's get to Einstein's third postulate - he said he has sufficiency
with only had two, but that's a LIE.

This is essential to Einstein's paper and is a postulate:
"the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time''
it requires to travel from B to A."

Does drag-arse slowpoke Uncle Bull**** play by the rules and agree or
do I kick him straight back in the balls again, the ****ing squirming
*******?