|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
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 The math, however, the Lorentz transformation - that's just the transform that holds Maxwell's equations invariant. The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent. So, claiming the Lorentz transform transforms something beautifully does not mean jack ****. [rest of mystified nonsense snipped] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's
Paradox are correct? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's | Paradox are correct? | No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's Paradox are incorrect? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"Peter Webb" wrote: in message u... Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's Paradox are correct? hanson wrote: Webb, for the n-th time again. Listen up Webb: There are not 2 but there are 4 choices for you: 1) Go look into the mirror. You'll see guy in the mirror who asks, over and over again, every 48 hrs, what you've just posted, over and over again.... because he is too ****ing lazy or stupid, too drunk, senile, medicated, loaded, or otherwise intellectually challenged to investigate and answer the question to his own satisfaction, & even worse, 2) Webb, you are so badly ****ed up that you can't even decide which one out of the many answers to accept as being correct that you get from the many very kind posters. 3) Webb, since neither choice (1) nor (2) did it for you, you should begin to suspect that SR is a crock o'****, because if SR were a useful theory then you would have found what you are looking for by now, instead of you doing (1) over and over again. 4) Shall I repost for you, Peter, what Einstein himself said about the crock o'**** that is called SR & GR? Thanks for the laughs you Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahanson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"Androcles" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's | Paradox are correct? | No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called Twin's Paradox are incorrect? I believe they are correct. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to muon decay in a cyclotron? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"Peter Webb" wrote in message ... | | "Androcles" wrote in message | ... | | "Peter Webb" wrote in message | u... | | Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called | Twin's | | Paradox are correct? | | | No. Do you believe the predictions of SR as they relate to the so-called | Twin's | Paradox are incorrect? | | | I believe they are correct. I don't, but then, I can reason logically and read algebra. What's your excuse? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 PAPER IS CRAP! Lesson 1.
"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) What is the decay time of a muon at rest relative to the cyclotron? This is a very simple question, why won't you answer it? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | February 27th 11 07:24 AM |
Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics. | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 16th 08 08:43 PM |
Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics. | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 1st 08 08:52 PM |
TWIN PARADOX IN EINSTEIN 1905 PAPER | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 119 | November 17th 07 05:07 PM |
What kind of energy denotes E in Einstein's 1905 Sep 27paper? | matches | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 07 05:27 AM |