|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in message On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 18, 3:50*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" * *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork’s clock is running slowly”. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 18, 10:23*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:50*am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" * *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork’s clock is running slowly”. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. http://sites.google.com/site/28octaves/home https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...attredirects=0 https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...attredirects=0 https://sites.google.com/site/28octa...tredire cts=0 Light propagates at one half the velocity of gravity |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
... On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, “If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk’s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork’s clock is running slowly”. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. ================================================== ============ The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked. I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement: "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" although it is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own admission, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." He also said: "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic, instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke? Where are the mirrors? Why is the woman hidden in a box before she is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been called and the magician charged with attempted murder? We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained. BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL? And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp over the equations and only read the hyperbole. You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert. Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel. Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR. It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him. He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
snip ... the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway If you are saying that Einstein denied light's source indecency, then I must object. Source independency was one of three reasons given by Einstein for the "Simple Law of Propagation of Light in Empty Space." (This law says simply that light's absolute speed in space is constant. More on this below.) Reason One: Light's color does not change its propagation speed. "[Light's through-space] velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Reason Two: Light's through-space motion is not affected by the source's motion. "By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light." Ibid. Reason Three: Light's direction of motion has no effect upon its speed through space. "The assumption that [light's] velocity of propagation [in space] is dependent on the direction “in space” is in itself improbable." Ibid. As I said, all of Einstein's above pertained to "the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum)," which could NOT mean one-way or two-way light speed invariance because, as Einstein said, it caused him a monstrous headache, not to mention the fact that NONE of the above would have been mentioned in support of invariance. Being forced (by the above three reasons) to ACCEPT the "simple law," Einstein had to conclude as follows: "In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise." Ibid. Einstein was GIVEN source independency, and therefore had to ACCEPT it. Q.E.D. ~RA~ but Dork is still Deranged |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
"Ron-boy" wrote in message
... On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" wrote: snip ... the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway If you are saying that Einstein denied light's source indecency, then I must object. ============================================== Fast light arrives early, slow light arrives late. Therefore the dates of arrival on this velocity curve need correction so that the saw tooth is nearer to a sinusoid and the orbit nearer to a circle. http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/sreffert/pr.html A year to get up to speed and a month to slow down? How come nobody questions that? Nature doesn't care about your objections, the speed of light is source dependent and the whole of extrasolarsystem astronomy is a farce. Look at the data, not at the theory. Open your eyes and your mind. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 18, 9:55*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" * *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork�s clock is running slowly�. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. ================================================== ============ The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked. I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement: "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" although it is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic, instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke? Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been called and the magician charged with attempted murder? We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained. BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL? And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp over the equations and only read the hyperbole. You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert. Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel. Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR. It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him. He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also enjoying effects of their magic on common people. It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in physics. So they have decided to cheat. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 19, 4:58*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:55*am, "Androcles" wrote: "Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message .... On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" * *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork�s clock is running slowly�. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. ================================================== ============ The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked. I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement: "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" although it is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic, instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke? Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been called and the magician charged with attempted murder? We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained. BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL? And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp over the equations and only read the hyperbole. You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert. Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel. Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR. It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him. He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also enjoying effects of their magic on common people. It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in physics. So they have decided to cheat. The cheating was done in a specific way,they lost patience with those absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions of Newton as they hadn't a clue what they meant so decided to invest those definitions with their own meaning instead and with all in compliance and no astronomer around to stop them,they took the vicious strain of empiricism to the extreme - "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed It just so happens that there is enough information through the resource of the internet to make sense of what Newton was trying to do in the first place,why it failed and what were the differences between the contrived framework as opposed to the genuine astronomical principles which remain intact behind the smokescreen of wordplays.Having dropped the notion that empiricists themselves would reset to a more stable narrative that is just as appealing as the aggressive version which Newton sought to impose,a number of options are left and none of them require the narrow minded,mean spirited contributors who follow ideologies with varying hypothesis and conclusions to suit a fashion,everything from climate to geology to structural astronomy. The people who lived 100 years ago lost their mandate to act in the best interests of human understanding of the celestial and terrestrial arenas by cheating in such a way as they compounded the problems inherited from the late 17th century rather than dealing with the problems properly.The difficulty is finding people who do not find a complete overhaul to be condescending but rather necessary and long overdue,not the petty dithering so as to upset some perception of a historical character but a genuine technical and historical perspective where everything is on the table. .. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
... On Aug 18, 9:55 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork�s clock is running slowly�. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. ================================================== ============ The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked. I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement: "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" although it is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own admission, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." He also said: "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic, instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke? Where are the mirrors? Why is the woman hidden in a box before she is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been called and the magician charged with attempted murder? We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained. BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL? And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp over the equations and only read the hyperbole. You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert. Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel. Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR. It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him. He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also enjoying effects of their magic on common people. It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in physics. So they have decided to cheat. ================================================== === It does no good saying "unlikely" and bemoaning top scientists. Name your target and prove your opinion. For example, in 1977 these twelve young "physicists" http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm who wanted to be top with their proud lists of institutions backing them couldn't run a cash register in a convenience store. Where are they today, thirty-five years later? Mowing grass? Stocking shelves? It's not about science, it's all about who has control of the m.o.n.e.y. Not what you know but who you know. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Here's where they are today, they and others like them: Nuclear Physics Grants Panel The Panel's role is to: •Assess and make recommendations to the STFC executive on research grant applications in nuclear physics. •Take account (as appropriate) of the recommendations of external referees and the conclusions of specialist peer review panels. The latter may be convened by the executive to advise on rolling grants, contiguous groups of research requests, or research requests which are judged (on the basis of cost or propriety) to warrant such separate, in-depth assessment. •Advise the Science Board and the executive as required on all issues relating to research grants, including monitoring the level of funding allocated to grants. •Carry out such other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require. Members •Dr David Ireland (Chair) - University of Glasgow •Prof Angela Bracco - INFN Milan •Prof Alison Bruce - University of Brighton •Prof Jacek Dobaczewski - University of Warsaw •Prof Martin Freer - University of Birmingham •Dr Alex Murphy - University of Edinburgh •Prof Robert Page - University of Liverpool •Dr John Smith - University of the West of Scotland •Dr Paul Stevenson - University of Surrey •Prof Phil Walker - University of Surrey "other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require" Peer review? Only Cardinals can choose a Pope from among themselves. That's peer review. Be an Einstein supporter and you can rise through the ranks of the Holy Church of Relativity, and just like the Catholic Church you need a faggot Jew and his twelve rent boys as a martyr then you can be given absolution by your peers for interfering with small boys. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dishonest Deranged Dork on twins
On Aug 19, 1:51*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 9:55 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Vilas Tamhane" *wrote in message .... On Aug 18, 3:50 am, "Androcles" wrote: "Dirk Van de moortel" *wrote in ... "Ron-boy" aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" * *and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Da Doo Ron Ron aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in On Aug 17, 3:35 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote (via a link): "In order for the travelling twin to make the trip, she must be in frame S' while going away and in frame S" when coming back. So at the turnaround event, she must immediately jump from frame S' to frame S" (without getting hurt!), and she must take over the time her clock is reading to her new frame." You need to ask yourself why Mr. Throop et al made no mention of "frame jumping." That is, if you are mentally capable of asking yourself a question. ~RA~ I would recommend Tom's help, but that seems to be useless in this case Either you frame jump, or you make sure the clock reading is transferred from one frame to another. That's the whole point of the little exercise. Pretending that this requires too much abstraction to understand, is of course perfectly inline with your (and Androcles') well documented dishonesty. Dirk Vdm ================================================== == "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 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein Dishonest Einstein has two frames that he calls stationary and moving, frame-jumping dishonest Dork has a well documented three that he calls S, S' and S''. Dishonest Einstein uses a non-inertial curved path whereby the X'-axis of S' becomes aligned with the Y-Axis of S and then the negative X-axis of S, stupid lying faggot Dork flips instantaneously. It is at once apparent that a deranged Belgian faggot calls his dissenters dishonest without a shred of evidence. Let the honest lurkers decide. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No need to find out what is actually happening to time. Einstein makes an insane statement, �If Dork and Dirk are in relative motion, Dork finds his won clock running normally but Dirk�s clock running slowly. Dirk finds that his own clock is running normally but Dork�s clock is running slowly�. What kind of measurement is this? But Einstein knew that this statement is meaningless and so he tried to prove that time dilation is one way result. In other words, he tried to disprove his own theory. If Dork moves in a circle, definitely this is not an inertial frame. So possibly Einstein considered motion on a polygonal lines. But whenever Dork moves on a polygonal line, during this travel, he will see Dirk moving in the opposite way and so if Dork moves on polygon, Dirks also moves on a polygon in opposite direction. In short, if path of Dork is a closed polygon, relative motion of Dirk is also a mirror image of that polygon. So his first insane statement still holds good. ================================================== ============ The real question is whether Einstein was genuinely retarded and an idiot savant, or a brilliant charlatan and psychopathic showman. He certainly has the other psychopath, Dork Van de lying Belgian faggot, hoodwinked. I'm more inclined to the latter based on Einstein's own statement: "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" although it is possible he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. By his own admission, *"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." *He also said: "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." *Every magician keeps his mouth shut on how the trick is performed, which would indicate Einstein knew damned well what he was doing. One doesn't leave the theatre in awe of real magic, instead one puzzles over how the stunt is done. Where is the smoke? Where are the mirrors? *Why is the woman hidden in a box before she is sawn in half; and where is the blood? Why have the police not been called and the magician charged with attempted murder? We know it is not real both before and after we are entertained. BUT HOW DID EINSTEIN HOODWINK HIS AUDIENCE, IN BLACK AND WHITE, ON PAPER, GETTING THEM TO BELIEVE HIS TRICK IS REAL? And the answer is simple. They cannot read mathematics so they skimp over the equations and only read the hyperbole. You give him too much credit, you assume he was fundamentally honest when he was a sociopathic womanizer who ****ed his own cousin. The only thing that mattered to Einstein was Albert. Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. I accuse Einstein and his disciples of exactly the same fraud, I only wish I could prosecute them in an international court of law in the Hague, but unfortunately magic tricks are not illegal and the UN is unconcerned. So that leaves us with taking the ****, calling Dork a faggot and let the snivelling spermless coward dare sue me for libel. Yes, of course Einstein's one-sided time dilation violates the PoR. It also violates the Principle of Simultaneity and the only way out is source dependency of light, denying which caused *the trouble in the first place. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him. He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree. He knew basic flaw in his theory. It is unlikely that top scientists of yesterday and today did not know it. They are also enjoying effects of their magic on common people. It is very difficult to come up with a single small new idea in physics. So they have decided to cheat. ================================================== === It does no good saying "unlikely" and bemoaning top scientists. Name your target and prove your opinion. For example, in 1977 these twelve young "physicists" * *http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm who wanted to be top with their proud lists of institutions backing them couldn't run a cash register in a convenience store. Where are they today, thirty-five years later? Mowing grass? Stocking shelves? It's not about science, it's all about who has control of the m.o.n.e.y. Not what you know but who you know. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Here's where they are today, they and others like them: Nuclear Physics Grants Panel The Panel's role is to: •Assess and make recommendations to the STFC executive on research grant applications in nuclear physics. •Take account (as appropriate) of the recommendations of external referees and the conclusions of specialist peer review panels. The latter may be convened by the executive to advise on rolling grants, contiguous groups of research requests, or research requests which are judged (on the basis of cost or propriety) to warrant such separate, in-depth assessment. •Advise the Science Board and the executive as required on all issues relating to research grants, including monitoring the level of funding allocated to grants. •Carry out such other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require. Members •Dr David Ireland (Chair) - University of Glasgow •Prof Angela Bracco - INFN Milan •Prof Alison Bruce - University of Brighton •Prof Jacek Dobaczewski - University of Warsaw •Prof Martin Freer - University of Birmingham •Dr Alex Murphy - University of Edinburgh •Prof Robert Page - University of Liverpool •Dr John Smith - University of the West of Scotland •Dr Paul Stevenson - University of Surrey •Prof Phil Walker - University of Surrey "other tasks associated with peer review as the executive might require" Peer review? Only Cardinals can choose a Pope from among themselves. That's peer review. Be an Einstein supporter and you can rise through the ranks of the Holy Church of Relativity, and just like the Catholic Church you need a faggot Jew and his twelve rent boys as a martyr then you can be given absolution by your peers for interfering with small boys. -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway This is all very frightening. Actually physics students and teachers should raise their voice. But may be, they are afraid. What the mighty government of US is doing about it? Is the country completely taken over by Jews? But why should I blame Jews? This is a common trait among all communities. Section of people who are different in color, race or religion, if happen to live among other majority, then they are likely to be united in preserving and promoting their people of their own kind. They don’t love their nation and the majority and are trapped in the evolutionary forces of nature which make them preserve their identity and promote their clan. We are still animals. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | August 23rd 11 04:11 PM |
The New Engima -- Dork Flow! | Androcles[_28_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 9th 10 11:45 PM |
IT'S 1950 ALL OVER AGAIN -- Scientists Still as Dishonest as Then -- No Change Since Velikovsky's Day | Ed Conrad | History | 2 | August 27th 06 07:37 PM |
non-Keplerian orbits and dork matter | BlagooBlanaa | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | August 2nd 06 05:56 PM |
Newbie, Dork but Honest Question | BenignVanilla | Misc | 1 | January 28th 04 01:44 PM |