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

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
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

So, will the travelling twin be younger, older or the same age as the
stay-at-home twin when they are re-united?

Why won't you tell me?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
| ...
| 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
|
| So, will the travelling twin be younger, older or the same age as the
| stay-at-home twin when they are re-united?

The same age.

| Why won't you tell me?

You've been told, you ****ing imbecile.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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)

Well, if you know, that is good.

What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron?


I don't know.

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


Well, it would involve me looking it up. And I can't see why I should have
to look up physical constants for you to answer a simple question which only
has three possible answers, being "faster", "slower" or "the same speed".
This would not depend upon the precise half-life of the muon, and you are
clearly just asking this as a means of avoiding answering the question.

So, do muons travelling at (say) 99% of c decay at the same rate, slower or
faster than stationary muons?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
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

You seem to know a lot about physics.

I have a physics question for you.

We have two twins. One travels to a distant star and back, a round trip of
some 20 light years conducted entirely at 0.9c. The other stays on earth.

When they are re-united, will the travelling twin be younger than the stay
at home twin (as predicted by Special Relativity), older, or the same age?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
| ...
| 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
|
| You seem to know a lot about physics.
|
| I have a physics question for you.
|
| We have two twins.

Congratulations! You are very fortunate that you didn't have three twins.
Did your partner have difficult time birthing them?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "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)
|
| Well, if you know, that is good.
|
I looked it up.

| What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron?
|
|
| I don't know.

So you believe SR will prophecy you don't know?
But anyway, tell us what SR prophesies the decay time of a muon at rest
relative to the cyclotron will be.
|
| This is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?
|
|
| Well, it would involve me looking it up.

Too ****ing lazy, are you?

| And I can't see

Got to an optician, you ****ing blind moron. The prophecies of SR are
completely wrong.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "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)
|
| Well, if you know, that is good.
|
I looked it up.

| What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron?
|
|
| I don't know.

So you believe SR will prophecy you don't know?
But anyway, tell us what SR prophesies the decay time of a muon at rest
relative to the cyclotron will be.
|
| This is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?
|
|
| Well, it would involve me looking it up.

Too ****ing lazy, are you?

| And I can't see

Got to an optician, you ****ing blind moron. The prophecies of SR are
completely wrong.


Including the prophesy that muons travelling close to the speed of light in
a cyclotron should decay slower than those at rest?

Is that prophecy of SR wrong?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | "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)
| |
| | Well, if you know, that is good.
| |
| I looked it up.
|
| | What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron?
| |
| |
| | I don't know.
|
| So you believe SR will prophecy you don't know?
| But anyway, tell us what SR prophesies the decay time of a muon at rest
| relative to the cyclotron will be.
| |
| | This is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?
| |
| |
| | Well, it would involve me looking it up.
|
| Too ****ing lazy, are you?
|
| | And I can't see
|
| Got to an optician, you ****ing blind moron. The prophecies of SR are
| completely wrong.
|
|
| Including the prophesy that muons travelling close to the speed of light
in
| a cyclotron should decay slower than those at rest?
|

What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron,
and what does SR prophecy it is, you stupid ****?


| Is that prophecy of SR wrong?

What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron,
and what does SR prophecy it is, you stupid ****?

On Jun 9, 5:09*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

...





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

You seem to know a lot about physics.

I have a physics question for you.

We have two twins. One travels to a distant star and back, a round trip of
some 20 light years conducted entirely at 0.9c. The other stays on earth.

When they are re-united, will the travelling twin be younger than the stay
at home twin (as predicted by Special Relativity), older, or the same age?

The same age....you need to convert the traveling twin's age into the
earth time by a factor of gamma. When you do that you will find that
they aged the same amount. What this mean is that you can't compared a
traveling second accumulated during the journey directly with an earth
clock second....Why? Because a traveling clock second is worth gamma
seconds on the earth clock.

Ken Seto