Einstein's Most Illustrious Red Herring.

On Dec 5, 9:24 am, PD wrote:
On 12/5/2011 2:05 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Just how fvcking difficult is it to start your stop watch and stop
your fvcking stop watch?shrug

So are you standing at the starting location of the traversal when you
begin the stop watch? Or are you standing at the finishing location of
the traversal when you begin the stop watch?

Whatever you want to do. It is a supposed to be a free country.
shrug

If so, how do you compensate for the time it took for the light from the
distant event to get to you?

You tell Him. shrug

Be VERY specific here.

It is up to you. shrug

(If you'd like to say, "I don't compensate for it at all because I don't
need to," then let's just go that route first.)

A better question to ask are why synchronizations are necessary and
synchronizations of what time flow to what time flow. shrug

When playing with your stop watch, there is no synchronizations
involved. Just pressstart and thenstop. Most of the cases, the
start andstop are the same button. When measuring speed, there
is no synchronization of any sorts involved. So, just how fvcking
difficult can this be? peter webb is a malicious troll. peter webb
needs to go to hell and stay there, and enjoy the cesspool of the
fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar --- peter webb’s god.shrug

On Dec 5, 2:55 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 05.12.2011 09:05, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Just how fvcking difficult is it to start your stop watch and stop
your fvcking stop watch?shrug

When playing with your stop watch, there is no synchronizations
involved. Just pressstart and thenstop. Most of the cases, the
start andstop are the same button. When measuring speed, there
is no synchronization of any sorts involved. So, just how fvcking
difficult can this be? peter webb is a malicious troll. peter webb
needs to go to hell and stay there, and enjoy the cesspool of the
fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar --- peter webb’s god.shrug

Can you please explain how you would measure the speed of light,
according to your definition of speed?

That is a red herring, Paul, and you know it. shrug

If you dispute the way he defined what speed is, you are welcome to
define your own definition, but be very prepared when He comes down on
you harder than Thor’s hammer. shrug

On Dec 5, 9:21 am, PD wrote:
On 12/4/2011 4:07 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Daryl McCullough does not know what he is talking about. Speed is an
observer dependent quantity, and it certainly DOES NOT depend on any
synchronizing bull****. Speed is defined as [observed] displacement
[moved] divided by the observer’s time it takes to traverse that said
displacement.

And how do you propose to measure the time for something to traverse a
distance? After all, the two events marking the beginning and ending of
that traversal are in different locations. So be specific in how you
would mark the time difference between two spatially separated events.

The same issue also applies to if you decide indeed two time flows
need to be synchronized when measuring speed. How do you deal with it
then? shrug

Gee! This is Galilean stuff.shrug

[rest of garbage snipped]

You need to understand what speed is first. It is the basics.
shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 9:24 am, PD wrote:
On 12/5/2011 2:05 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Just how fvcking difficult is it to start your stop watch and stop
your fvcking stop watch?shrug

So are you standing at the starting location of the traversal when you
begin the stop watch? Or are you standing at the finishing location of
the traversal when you begin the stop watch?

Whatever you want to do. It is a supposed to be a free country.
shrug

__________________________________________
No, he was asking how *you* calculate the speed without synchronising clocks
at some point, which you claimed to be able to do. Why won't you answer? Is
it because you can't do this without synchronising clocks, and you don't
want to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, and so you are
ignoring the question so as to not look like an idiot?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 2:55 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 05.12.2011 09:05, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Just how fvcking difficult is it to start your stop watch and stop
your fvcking stop watch?shrug

When playing with your stop watch, there is no synchronizations
involved. Just pressstart and thenstop. Most of the cases, the
start andstop are the same button. When measuring speed, there
is no synchronization of any sorts involved. So, just how fvcking
difficult can this be? peter webb is a malicious troll. peter webb
needs to go to hell and stay there, and enjoy the cesspool of the
fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar --- peter webb’s god.shrug

Can you please explain how you would measure the speed of light,
according to your definition of speed?

That is a red herring, Paul, and you know it. shrug

_______________________________
No its not. It is a perfectly reasonable question. How would you measure the
speed of light without synchronising clcoks?


If you dispute the way he defined what speed is, you are welcome to
define your own definition, but be very prepared when He comes down on
you harder than Thor’s hammer. shrug
_______________________________________
So why don't you answer the question? You claimed to be able to measure
speed of light without synchronising clocks, when asked how, you go on about
Thor's hammer and some vague religious mumbo jumbo. Typical nutter.

On Dec 5, 9:42 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

So are you standing at the starting location of the traversal when you
begin the stop watch? Or are you standing at the finishing location of
the traversal when you begin the stop watch?

Whatever you want to do. It is a supposed to be a free country.
shrug

No, he was asking how *you* calculate the speed without synchronising clocks
at some point, which you claimed to be able to do. Why won't you answer?

You don’t need any synchronizations between two time flows to measure
speed, dumb ass. shrug

Is
it because you can't do this without synchronising clocks, and you don't
want to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, and so you are
ignoring the question so as to not look like an idiot?

Is peter webb now a bitch of PD? shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 9:42 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

So are you standing at the starting location of the traversal when you
begin the stop watch? Or are you standing at the finishing location of
the traversal when you begin the stop watch?

Whatever you want to do. It is a supposed to be a free country.
shrug

No, he was asking how *you* calculate the speed without synchronising
clocks
at some point, which you claimed to be able to do. Why won't you answer?

You don’t need any synchronizations between two time flows to measure
speed, dumb ass. shrug

_____________________________________
So you claim. Now show us how it is done.

Is
it because you can't do this without synchronising clocks, and you don't
want to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, and so you
are
ignoring the question so as to not look like an idiot?

Is peter webb now a bitch of PD? shrug
______________________________
No. But still you don't answer the question. Why not?

On 06.12.2011 06:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Dec 5, 2:55 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 05.12.2011 09:05, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Just how fvcking difficult is it to start your stop watch and stop
your fvcking stop watch?shrug

When playing with your stop watch, there is no synchronizations
involved. Just pressstart and thenstop. Most of the cases, the
start andstop are the same button. When measuring speed, there
is no synchronization of any sorts involved. So, just how fvcking
difficult can this be? peter webb is a malicious troll. peter webb
needs to go to hell and stay there, and enjoy the cesspool of the
fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar --- peter webb’s god.shrug

Can you please explain how you would measure the speed of light,
according to your definition of speed?

That is a red herring, Paul, and you know it.shrug

I can understand why you can't answer the question. :-)

There is no way you can measure the speed of light,
where "speed" is according to your definition;

"Speed is defined as [observed] displacement
[moved] divided by the observer’s time it takes
to traverse that said displacement."

So maybe your definition of speed isn't very sensible?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

On Dec 6, 3:12 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 06.12.2011 06:23, Koobee Wublee wrote:

That is a red herring, Paul, and you know it.shrug

I can understand why you can't answer the question. :-)

Really? What? shrug

There is no way you can measure the speed of light,
where "speed" is according to your definition;

Therefore, the question is a red herring. shrug

"Speed is defined as [observed] displacement
[moved] divided by the observer s time it takes
to traverse that said displacement."

So maybe your definition of speed isn't very sensible?

Let’s see. An object moved for 3 meters in 1 second. According to
the above definition of speed, it should read 3 meters per second.
What does your definition of speed give you? shrug

If you have issues with the above definition of speed, it is entirely
your own problem. Giggling like a tusseladd withdrawn from reality
and occasionally sucking your thumbs does not hide the fact that it is
still your problem. shrug

If you have problems with the following, you need to resolve it
yourself, and only you can do it. shrug

** Speed = sqrt((ds/dt)^2)

the galilean **** does not bother itself
with the internal (angular) momenta of atoms,
which are not simply abstract (as supposed
by the professors of quantum weirdness .-)

we can formulate a gedanken,
where you put yourself, the atom of (say) plutonium
in Einstein's superfast elevator; given that
your electrons are an 1820th of the mass
of your protons, how does acceleration & deceleration look
to your nucleus?

This is Galilean stuff.