![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
FRAUD 1: The conclusion that reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures have the same efficiency IS A CONSEQUENCE of the empirical fact that heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Clausius: "If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies." FRAUD 2: ANY irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work." FRAUD 3: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.....From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Et si tu fermais ta gueule ?
-- C'est Ă* l'heure du repas qu'on voit les boules du chat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message s.com... : : FRAUD 3: : : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting : body... Third postulate:- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, who in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Androcles" wrote in message
. .. "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message s.com... : : FRAUD 3: : : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting : body... Third postulate:- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the same distance from B to A The only one showing themselves to be STOOOPID here is you .. at best obsessed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jeckyl" wrote
"Androcles" wrote "Pentcho Valev" wrote : : FRAUD 3: : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting : body... Third postulate:- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the same distance from B to A But he is right. Time and speed in a gravitation field depend on the intensity of the field (g value) and depend on the direction of the movement. See Inverse Square Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_Square_Law Therefore the velocity and consequently the travel time is determined by the direction of the movement within the gravity field. Even light has to obey this law, cf. the above weblink. Even Einstein has admitted this in his book. Einstein even goes further and says "... the law of constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity." (Einstein's book "Relativity", Ch.22, p.85). Ie. Einstein says that light speed is not constant even in vacuum space! This is obviously correct, also due to his own equivalence principle! Ie. accelleration/deceleration in free space can be considered like being in a gravity field. So here are even double arguments which back the fact that the speed of light is not constant when: 1) in gravity field, or 2) accellerating/decelerating What remains is that the constancy of the speed of light is valid only in situations where SR applies, ie. practically only in free space AND either at rest or at a constant v. And as everybody knows (should know) for real world applications SR is useless... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"q-bit" wrote in message
... "Jeckyl" wrote "Androcles" wrote "Pentcho Valev" wrote : : FRAUD 3: : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting : body... Third postulate:- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the same distance from B to A But he is right. Time and speed in a gravitation field depend on the intensity of the field (g value) and depend on the direction of the movement. Andro didn't say that. And Einstein was talking about in an inertial frame (not withing a gravitational field) See Inverse Square Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_Square_Law Therefore the velocity and consequently the travel time is determined by the direction of the movement within the gravity field. Even light has to obey this law, cf. the above weblink. Even Einstein has admitted this in his book. Einstein even goes further and says "... the law of constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity." (Einstein's book "Relativity", Ch.22, p.85). Of course not .. SR is the special case .. when gravitational potentials aren't taken into account. That's all its supposed to be. GR is the general case Ie. Einstein says that light speed is not constant even in vacuum space! This is obviously correct, also due to his own equivalence principle! Ie. accelleration/deceleration in free space can be considered like being in a gravity field. So here are even double arguments which back the fact that the speed of light is not constant when: 1) in gravity field, or 2) accellerating/decelerating What remains is that the constancy of the speed of light is valid only in situations where SR applies, If you're not talking locally ie. practically only in free space AND either at rest or at a constant v. SR can be used in accelerating frames of reference. And as everybody knows (should know) for real world applications SR is useless... Its a very good approximation for many many cases. Just like classical cases are good approximations at relatively low velocities. Really . you've said nothing to support andro's obsession with and ridicule of the quote from Einstein. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "q-bit" wrote in message ... : "Jeckyl" wrote : "Androcles" wrote : "Pentcho Valev" wrote : : : : FRAUD 3: : : : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting : : body... : : Third postulate:- : 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by : light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires : to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to : agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you : dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, : : Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over : without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for : light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the : same distance from B to A : It's like those commercials you see on TV. You have to keep repeating them or the public won't know that the soap powder washes whiter. Whiter than what, we aren't told. I can't give it a rest until the knuckle-dragging nym-shifting neanderthal trolls like Fecal Jeckyl understand it is bull**** that Einstein was peddling. : But he is right. Time and speed in a gravitation field depend on the : intensity of the field (g value) and depend on the direction of the movement. Nonsense, time is indepent of gravity and independent of velocity. "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration" -- Sir Isaac Newton (Principia - definition I.) The only way to try to show otherwise is to make a ridiculous and unproven statement such as Einstein did. Fecal Jeckyl is taken in by a huckster, Fecal Jeckyl cannot think. He's one of the sheep, all bleating the same "baaa", eating the same grass, treading in the same ****; one says it, they all say it. See for yourself, Einstein's third postulate means 4 = 12. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif Being a charlatan, Einstein calls it a definition instead of a postulate that he created. All con-artists have to play Mr. Nice Guy to be successful but they are still all criminals. Of course Fecal Jeckyl wants me to give it a rest. He has no reply for it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk... It's like those commercials you see on TV. You have to keep repeating them or the public won't know that the soap powder washes whiter. Whiter than what, we aren't told. I can't give it a rest until the knuckle-dragging nym-shifting neanderthal trolls like Fecal Jeckyl understand it is bull**** that Einstein was peddling. You don't show that there is anything wrong. .you just repeat the same matnra over and over. Sad Of course Fecal Jeckyl wants me to give it a rest. He has no reply for it. There is nothing to reply to .. you just quote the same thing over and over as if you doing so had some meaning.. It doesn't .. It just makes you look like a fool. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote : "Jeckyl" wrote : "Androcles" wrote : "Pentcho Valev" wrote : : : : FRAUD 3: : : : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body... : : Third postulate:- : 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by : light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires : to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to : agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you : dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, : : Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over : without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for : light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the : same distance from B to A : It's like those commercials you see on TV. You have to keep repeating them or the public won't know that the soap powder washes whiter. Whiter than what, we aren't told. I can't give it a rest until the knuckle-dragging nym-shifting neanderthal trolls like Fecal Jeckyl understand it is bull**** that Einstein was peddling. : Time and speed in a gravitation field depend on the intensity : of the field (g value) and depend on the direction of the movement. Nonsense, time is indepent of gravity and independent of velocity. "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration" -- Sir Isaac Newton (Principia - definition I.) Newton means the universal (absolute) time of the universe, not local time. But in a gravitation field towards the center of the G-field things of course accellerate (due to the attraction of the G-field), ie. get faster, and this causes its clock to go slower than in free space. For example photons reach their destination faster, ie. v_photon becomes greater than c. In the opposite direction (off the center of the G-field) things of course reverse: speed gets slower (again due to the attraction of the G-field, but oppsite direction) and time goes faster as the intensity of the G-field weakens the further the distance becomes. And if you then finally are in free space (g~0) then time again switches to go slower IF your v is 0. So, we get this famous time cone -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone (it is unfortunately wrongly called "light cone" in the literature). As I once said, you should play with this important formula of Newton g = G*M/(R + h)^2 h=0 is Earth surface. Set h to big values and see how g becomes smaller and smaller. In free space it is ~ 0, and only here is the Absolute Time Newton meant. We on Earth have only a Local Time, it runs slower than the Absolute Time of the free space. Just some easy to remember hints: The basis of time is free space (g ~ 0). If a thing goes fast then time goes slower for it. Time on Earth goes about 9.8 times slower than in free space because of the gravity field of the Earth (g ~ 9.8) I've said what my own truly independent research shows me, it's of course up to you what you believe and/or what your own research shows you. See for yourself, Einstein's third postulate means 4 = 12. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif Being a charlatan, Einstein calls it a definition instead of a postulate that he created. All con-artists have to play Mr. Nice Guy to be successful but they are still all criminals. Einstein has made errors, and has corrected some of his errors. The problem is the SR/GR charlatans of nowadays who don't want hear that their god Einstein committed errors. But as we all know it's all just business: if people hear that Einstein made some errors then the marketing clan of Einstein of course cannot sell their books; ie. it's all nothing but marketing politics... It has nothing to do with science, and it harms the scientific world what such charlatans do. Here's a good study of tricks Einstein has used and also his errors, all explained and proved mathematically; there is also a film for download: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm http://www.relativitychallenge.com/faq.htm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "q-bit" wrote in message ... : "Androcles" wrote : "q-bit" wrote : : "Jeckyl" wrote : : "Androcles" wrote : : "Pentcho Valev" wrote : : : : : : FRAUD 3: : : : : : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : : : ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905: : : : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity : : : c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body... : : : : Third postulate:- : : 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by : : light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires : : to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to : : agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you : : dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, : : : : Give it a rest andro .. you keep saying that same things over and over : : without a single reason for why that would be a problem .. why the time for : : light to travel from A to B should be different to the time to travel the : : same distance from B to A : : : It's like those commercials you see on TV. You have to keep : repeating them or the public won't know that the soap powder : washes whiter. Whiter than what, we aren't told. I can't give it a : rest until the knuckle-dragging nym-shifting neanderthal trolls : like Fecal Jeckyl understand it is bull**** that Einstein was peddling. : : : Time and speed in a gravitation field depend on the intensity : : of the field (g value) and depend on the direction of the movement. : : Nonsense, time is indepent of gravity and independent of velocity. : : "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature : flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is : called duration" : -- Sir Isaac Newton (Principia - definition I.) : : Newton means the universal (absolute) time of the universe, not local time. If it's universal then it's local too, by definition. "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably WITHOUT REGARD to ANYTHING external, and by another name is called DURATION" : -- Sir Isaac Newton (Principia - definition I.) : But in a gravitation field towards the center of the G-field things of course : accellerate (due to the attraction of the G-field), ie. get faster, and this causes : its clock to go slower than in free space. For example photons reach their : destination faster, ie. v_photon becomes greater than c. That doesn't change time, and you keep on muttering the same old garbage about c. ALL VELOCITIES ARE RELATIVE! What does it take for you to understand what RELATIVE means? Look, if you approach a sound source at v then the sound approaches you at c+v, where c is the velocity sound in air. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm : In the opposite direction (off the center of the G-field) things of course : reverse: speed gets slower (again due to the attraction of the G-field, : but oppsite direction) and time goes faster as the intensity of : the G-field weakens the further the distance becomes. TIME DOESN'T "GO FASTER". Faster than what? Soap powder doesn't "wash whiter". Whiter than what? What you measuring it to? The universal clock? It's hiding at the other focus of the Earth's ellipse around sun. : : And if you then finally are in free space (g~0) then time again switches : to go slower IF your v is 0. Slower than what? : So, we get this famous time cone -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone : (it is unfortunately wrongly called "light cone" in the literature). Wackypedia is as bent as the people that write it. : As I once said, you should play with this important formula of Newton : g = G*M/(R + h)^2 : h=0 is Earth surface. Set h to big values and see : how g becomes smaller and smaller. No I shouldn't, you should stop believing in fairy tales and Einstein's fraud. : In free space it is ~ 0, and only here is the Absolute Time Newton meant. : We on Earth have only a Local Time, it runs slower than the Absolute Time : of the free space. Nonsense. Check out a sundial. [rest of garbage snipped] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
some sorry lexical trainer merges frauds in addition to Rashid's amazing submission | Admiral Rudy U. Licausi | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 12th 07 08:07 AM |
alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories, | AJAY SHARMA | Misc | 0 | November 5th 06 03:20 AM |
ATTN: Kooks, Frauds and Saucerheads - You can be SAVED from Gubbermint Intrusion! | Twittering One | Misc | 0 | June 30th 05 06:36 PM |