Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein

On May 20, 9:16*am, " wrote:
On 19 mayo, 20:11, Darwin123 wrote:

On May 18, 5:03*pm, "Androcles" Tell us again, Judas Rosen,
that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,

* * This is a leading question. You are really claiming that Einstein
said these things, but you are stating it in the form of a question.
However, Einstein never said these things. So your leading question is
really a lie.
* * *Readers please note. Androcles could never find a citation where
Einstein said or wrote these things. When challenged, Androcles always
deflects. He will never find a citation where Einstein made those
claims. So the questions of Androcles are realy his own lies.

Indeed. Actually what Einstein so carefully explained in his paper was
the following:

He established a method to synchronize two clocks in a given frame
(stationary clocks located at different places of that frame). There
are two points A and B with identical clocks. At time t_A *(that is,
at the initial local time of clock at point A), a light signal is sent
towards point B, where it is received at time t_B (this is the
reception local time of clock at point B). *One observer at point B
can then determine the time difference t_B-t_A. Subsequently, the
light signal is reflected at point B and travels back to point A,
arriving at t_A’ (this is the reception local time of clock at point
A). One observer at point A can then determine the time difference
t_A’-t_B. It is quite evident that the two clocks will synchronize if

t_B - t_A = t_A’ - t_B = AB/c

Furthermore, if AB is the distance between points A and B, then

2AB/(t_A’-t_A) = c

Now, *if we consider another frame who is moving at a speed v relative
to the original stationary frame in the direction A--B, and moving
observers perform the same synchronization procedure, we will see
(observing from the stationary frame) that when point A emits the
light signal (which travels at c towards point B), that light signal
will take a little longer to get to point B, since that point B, while
the light signal is traveling, has already changed position, so the
time difference will be

t_B-t_A = AB/(c-v) AB/c

Similarly, the light signal reflected at point B and then traveling
towards point A, will arrive a little earlier, since A is approaching
the light signal front. So the time difference will be

t_A’ – t_B = AB/(c+v) t_A – t_B

So the moving clocks will not be measured to be synchronous by an
observer in the original stationary frame, while they are synchronous
for an observer in the moving frame.

Miguel Rios

Do you have the exact quotation where Einstein said this, exactly?
I made the mistake of quoting you without looking it up first.
Einstein said something very much like it. However, I was looking for
a quote just like this.
Please provide a citation if you have one.
Darn! Another paraphrase!

On May 26, 12:47*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

Citation because I have one:
*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
That is not a citation. It is an incomplete quote. That is a equation paraphrase. When you write an equation, you are paraphrasing the text. The equations that you are citing do not mean either that the speed of light is c-v or the speed of light is c+v. You apparently can’t read equations.. Or else you are intentionally lying. Those equations don't say what you claim.
The two points A and B are moving with respect to the
stationary system. This is what you don’t understand. Therefore, the
equations that you cite do not imply any speed of light. You got the
“cars on the highway” problem right but you can’t seem to extend it to
the “moving rod in the stationary frame”.
The two points are moving. The clocks in the stationary system
are synchronized but the two points are moving. Note two things:
1) The equations in question arise from the constancy of the speed of
light.
2) t_A has a different value than t’_A in the equations.
You consistently leave out that prime. That is why one keeps
getting nonsense when one tries to solve your wrong set of equations.
You keep on saying that “Einstein” says that the speed of light
is c+v or c-v. Einstein never says that. You have no citation where
Einstein says that. He says, again and again, the speed of light is
the constant, c.
I did clip some of the words. Here is a citation and direct quote.
If you feel that I left something out, post it. Never at any point
does Einstein say that the speed of light is anything but c. You are
lying.
No more of your bull**** interpretations of someone elses
equations. I made a mistake before, posting a paraphrase. Here is a
copy.
Direct citation (correct as I copied them myself).

“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” by A. Einstein (section $2)
(1905).
Let there be a stationary rigid rod, and let its length l be measured
by a measuring rod which is also stationary. We now imagine an axis of
the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
coordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation wirh
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, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following
two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the giving measuring rod and the
rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by
superimposing the measuring rod…
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and
synchronization in accordance with $1, the observe ascertains at what
points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod are to be
located at a definite time…
…
The length to be discovered by the operation b we will call “the
length of the moving rod in the stationary system”.
…
…We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer,
and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion
established in $1 for the synchronization of the two clocks.
…
Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light, we find that,
t_B-t_A=r_AB/(c-v) amd t’_A-t_B=r_AB/c+v)
where r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod in the stationary
system. Observer moving with the moving rod would thus find that the
two clocks are not synchronous while observers in the stationary
system would declare that the two clocks to be synchronous.

"Darwin123" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 12:47 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

Citation because I have one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
That is not a citation.

Oh dear, Judas is showing his illiteracy again:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citation
1 : an official summons to appear (as before a court)
2 a : an act of quoting

Citation because I have one:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

Leading question:
When the Tomata or Toyata or whatever it is reaches x' and "returns
thence to the origin of coordinates", has it returned to its starting
point on the road or has it returned to the "initial point of" Volkswagen?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.JPG
Show your kiddy algebra, illiterate Judas Rosen.
Darn! More bull****!

..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha....

The Jewish Stallion "Darwin123"
kiked & kicked the Head master & wrote:

Androcles" . 2011 wrote:

Andro wrote:
Rosen, Citation because I have one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

The Jewish Stallion wrote:
That is not a citation. It is an incomplete quote.
That is a equation paraphrase. When you write an equation,
you are paraphrasing the text. The equations that you are
citing do not mean either that the speed of light is c-v
or the speed of light is c+v.
You apparently can’t read equations.
Or else you are intentionally lying.
Those equations don't say what you claim.
The two points A and B are moving with respect to the
stationary system. This is what you don’t understand.
Therefore, the equations that you cite do not imply
any speed of light. You got the “cars on the highway”
problem right but you can’t seem to extend it to
the “moving rod in the stationary frame”.
The two points are moving. The clocks in the stationary system
are synchronized but the two points are moving.
Note two things:
1) The equations in question arise from the constancy
of the speed of light.
2) t_A has a different value than t’_A in the equations.
You consistently leave out that prime. That is why one keeps
getting nonsense when one tries to solve your wrong set of equations.
You keep on saying that “Einstein” says that the speed of light
is c+v or c-v. Einstein never says that. You have no citation where
Einstein says that. He says, again and again, the speed of light is
the constant, c.
I did clip some of the words. Here is a citation and direct quote.
If you feel that I left something out, post it. Never at any point
does Einstein say that the speed of light is anything but c.
You are lying.
No more of your bull**** interpretations of someone elses
equations. I made a mistake before, posting a paraphrase.
Here is a copy.
Direct citation (correct as I copied them myself).

“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” by A. Einstein
(section $2) (1905).
Let there be a stationary rigid rod, and let its length l be measured
by a measuring rod which is also stationary. We now imagine an
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
coordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation wirh
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, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following
two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the giving measuring rod and the
rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by
superimposing the measuring rod…
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and
synchronization in accordance with $1, the observe ascertains at what
points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod are to be
located at a definite time…
…
The length to be discovered by the operation b we will call “the
length of the moving rod in the stationary system”.
…
…We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer,
and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion
established in $1 for the synchronization of the two clocks.
…
Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light, we find that,
t_B-t_A=r_AB/(c-v) amd t’_A-t_B=r_AB/c+v)
where r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod in the stationary
system. Observer moving with the moving rod would thus find that the
two clocks are not synchronous while observers in the stationary
system would declare that the two clocks to be synchronous.

hanson wrote:
Rosen, old, Pal, that is not going over well with the Headmaster,
unless you point to him that in all your posts, you are bent to
prove that ======= Jewish **** Don't Stink! =======
That is a very commendable endeavor of yours.... Here is
one such gem of yours, which I really cherish & ROTFLMAO:

Rosen, the gelded Jewish stallion, wrote:
||R|| I have OCD, obsessive, compulsive disorders.
||R|| I previously talked this over with neoNazis in my work
||R|| place, believe it or not. These people run the laboratory
||R|| as though it were a stud farm for gentile white Aryans
||R|| with German backgrounds. They had no interest in science,
||R|| nor any real talent in that direction.
||R|| === I was quite willing to be their gelded stallion, ===
||R|| doing their work. I mean, they can pretend to guide
||R|| scientists and rise as high as they want in the management
||R|| center. However, I know that when Easter comes around,
||R|| they are going to organize a pogram and kill the Jews.
||R|| There is no need to castrate me because I do not even
||R|| want to have children. I am faithful to my wife who is sterile.

I love you, Rosen!... Thanks for the laughs!... ahahahanson