EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.

Funny you don't have an opinion. You are normally such a loudmouth.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| Funny you don't have an opinion. You are normally such a loudmouth.
|
Funny you are such an ignorant ****. You are normally only stupid.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:14:24 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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

I really don't care.

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

The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent.

Totally consistent. You don't understand it, and its you're problem.

So, claiming the Lorentz
transform transforms something beautifully does not mean jack ****.

Pretty clearly, you don't know what it means when the transform holds
Maxwell's equations invariant.

That's fine. I really don't care if you're ignorant.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:14:24 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:
|
| 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
|
| I really don't care.
|
| The math, however, the Lorentz
| transformation - that's just the transform that holds Maxwell's
| equations invariant.
|
| The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent.
|
| Totally consistent. You don't understand it, and its you're problem.
|
Bull****:

"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine
the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the length
of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein

"This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall
find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.

AND THE ANSWER IS...

"xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.

Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.

In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.


"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A -tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in
empty space." -- Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes
to get there is undefined. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.


You don't understand it, you are a ****ing imbecile.



| So, claiming the Lorentz
| transform transforms something beautifully does not mean jack ****.
|
| Pretty clearly, you don't know what it means when the transform holds
| Maxwell's equations invariant.
|
| That's fine. I really don't care if you're ignorant.

I really don't care if you are a Martian, you are ****ing stoooopid.

On 6/9/11 6:59 AM, kenseto wrote:


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

No, Seto. The traveling twin has aged less when they get together, and
here's why:

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

On Jun 9, 11:05*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 6/9/11 6:59 AM, kenseto wrote:



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

* *No, Seto. The traveling twin has aged less when they get together, and
* *here's why:

No wormy....they assumed that the passage of a traveling clock second
corresponds to an earth clock second. Such assumption is dead wrong.

Ken Seto


* *http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
* *http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

On 6/9/11 6:30 PM, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:05 am, Sam wrote:
On 6/9/11 6:59 AM, kenseto wrote:



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

No, Seto. The traveling twin has aged less when they get together, and
here's why:

No wormy....they assumed that the passage of a traveling clock second
corresponds to an earth clock second. Such assumption is dead wrong.

Ken Seto


http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif


Nobody made any assumptions about clock seconds, Seto--that's all in
your head.

Look at the annotated spacetime diagram:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

Print it out! Digest it!