Simple question about SR paradox

On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|

| | I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice
| for
| | answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
| |
| I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
| I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| means you cannot appreciate it.
| Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
| and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
| that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.
|
| Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit
| of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for
your
| image...
| Try to avoid such errors in future will you.
|

You want to get serious?
All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said anything
about any gamma.
He did write
"Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every
rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the
X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the
greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."
but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi =
(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.
Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?

Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving
clocks run slow and moving rods are shortened. Even little eric knows that.

So it must be true.









SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
|
| | | I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good
practice
| | for
| | | answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
| | |
| | I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
| | I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| | means you cannot appreciate it.
| | Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
| | and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
| | that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.
| |
| | Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible
habit
| | of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for
| your
| | image...
| | Try to avoid such errors in future will you.
| |
|
| You want to get serious?
| All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said
anything
| about any gamma.
| He did write
| "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of
every
| rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion,
the
| X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the
| greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."
| but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi
=
| (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.
| Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
| Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?
|
| Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving
| clocks run slow

Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

| and moving rods are shortened.

Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for
"wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".

| Even little eric knows that.
|
| So it must be true.

Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR.
Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you?

On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:47:32 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
|
| | | I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good
practice
| | for
| | | answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
| | |
| | I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
| | I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| | means you cannot appreciate it.
| | Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
| | and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
| | that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.
| |
| | Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible
habit
| | of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for
| your
| | image...
| | Try to avoid such errors in future will you.
| |
|
| You want to get serious?
| All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said
anything
| about any gamma.
| He did write
| "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of
every
| rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion,
the
| X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the
| greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."
| but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi
=
| (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.
| Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
| Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?
|
| Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving
| clocks run slow

Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

| and moving rods are shortened.

Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for
"wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".

| Even little eric knows that.
|
| So it must be true.

Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR.
Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you?

It's well past your plonk time....

SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:47:32 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| |
| | | | I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good
| practice
| | | for
| | | | answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
| | | |
| | | I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
| | | I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| | | means you cannot appreciate it.
| | | Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
| | | and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
| | | that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.
| | |
| | | Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible
| habit
| | | of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good
for
| | your
| | | image...
| | | Try to avoid such errors in future will you.
| | |
| |
| | You want to get serious?
| | All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said
| anything
| | about any gamma.
| | He did write
| | "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of
| every
| | rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the
motion,
| the
| | X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e.
the
| | greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."
| | but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is
xi
| =
| | (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.
| | Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
| | Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?
| |
| | Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR,
moving
| | clocks run slow
|
| Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t *
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| | and moving rods are shortened.
|
| Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for
| "wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".
|
| | Even little eric knows that.
| |
| | So it must be true.
|
| Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR.
| Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
| Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you?
|
| It's well past your plonk time....
|
| SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
| http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg
|
| Henry Wilson DSc
| Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

You need to fix that chronic form of psychosis, self-deluded SRian Wilson.
SR claims 2 is shorter than 1 in the ratio 1: 0.5
Wilson contradicts himself. Why try to defend him?

On 5/29/11 6:05 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!
...and they are still as desperate as they were in 1905 to find just ONE
piece of CONVINCING evidence....

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Special Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of
relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial
frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the
considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri
Poincaré[citation needed] and others) in the paper "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] It generalizes Galileo's principle
of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no
absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference
frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the
laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[2]
Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is
the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of
the source.[3]

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[4] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers. (On the other hand, it introduces the space-time interval, which is invariant.) Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.[5][6] The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared with the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but
rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.


Physics FAQ: Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ip_puzzle.html

"John Bell described this Special Relativity paradox in the essay, "How
to teach special relativity", in his collection "Speakable and
Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics." He did not originate the puzzle, but
we'll call it Bell's Spaceship Paradox.

"To begin, a statement of the paradox—and if you notice some ambiguities
in my formulation, that's the point! (That's always the point in SR
paradoxes.) Bell asks us to consider two rocket ships, each
accelerating at the same constant rate, one chasing the other. The
ships start out at rest in some coordinate system (the "lab frame").
Since they have the same acceleration, their speeds should be equal at
all times (relative to the lab frame) and so they should stay a constant
distance apart (in the lab frame). But after a time they will acquire a
large velocity, and so the distance between them should suffer Lorentz
contraction. Which is it"?

See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ip_puzzle.html

Lorentz Contraction
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section13.html

Bell's spaceship paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox

Paul B. Anderson's analysis of Ralph Rabbidge's
thought experiment at: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/ralph2.pdf





SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On 5/28/11 11:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:09:06 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/28/11 5:25 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Empty space has no permeability of permittivity.


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permitt...m_permittivity

Yep. Truly empty space doesn't have one.

When anyone tries to measure it, they simply destroy the emptiness and
measure the properties of the fields thay introduce.



See" http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-06-03/

these toy problems, universally deployed
"on the x-axis, because we can set-up the coordinates
in any way we like," always omit acceleration,
which is a bit of a problem in getting beyond "gedanken"
to any actual physical test ... of which plenty
have been made, of course.

anyway, why is it so hard to see that
the internal (angular) momenta of atoms has
to be considered, in accelerating them --
that these sub-atomic entities are also limited
by the speed (not velocity) of lightwaves
(not 0d rocks o'light, as in Newton's untheory,
where corpuscles go faster in a denser medium) ??

why do we need an aether,
when all of the major properties of interstellat plasma
have been worked-out in the lab
by the school of Alfven?

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html