Androcles wrote: > =
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message=
news:SGWM1fPX5DjDFw8F@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
Androcles wrote: > >> > >>"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:jEDif.11866$mm5.4674@dukeread03... > >>
You asked to be shown where you were making a logical error.
How far is it from Trafalgar Square to Trafalgar Square, moron?
Androcles
Can't say - not without knowing exactly where in Trafalgar Square t=
hat
moron is located.
But you measure the speed of light from A to A, don't you, moron?
2AB/(t'A - tA) =3D c, right moron?
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the veloci=
ty of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely grea=
t
velocity." -- Einstein the idiot.
Ref : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
That's not OUR theory, though.
It's YOURS and Einstein the idiot's theory, isn't it, moron?
You think the velocity of light is infinite, don't you, moron?
Or have you made a logical error, moron?
Can't say?
Huh?
C'mon, moron, explain how to measure the velocity of light from A to =
A.
In the real world, AB/(tB-tA) =3D c, and BA/(tA'-tB) =3D -c.
Logically, that is. Logically, c-c =3D 0.
C'mon moron that can't say.
How far is it from Trafalgar Square to Trafalgar Square, moron?
I am reminded of the story of the little old lady buying a train tick=
et.
"Can I have a return ticket please?"
"Where to Madam?"
"Here of course!"
=
:-)
=
I am a loss to understand your point however unless it is that the wo=
rd
'velocity' is wrong and has been used when it should have been 'speed=
'.
=
Ok...
The dingbat "jem" wanted to be cute and wrote elsewhere:
London tourist: How far is it between Trafalgar Square and Tower Brid=
ge?
Androcles: Starting from which?
in the hope of making me appear a fool.
The distance from the top of Nelson's column to the top of London Eye
is 0.47 miles and then on to the top of Tower Bridge, (line of sight
is possible), is 1.91 miles as measured on Google Earth.
The path is roughly a right angle. I mention that because there are
buildings in the way of a direct line of sight.
We will for the sake of argument assume a straight line path
of x miles. The return path (in our system of coordinates) is
-x miles.
We now have
A - Trafalgar Square and
B - Tower Bridge.
and (again in our system of coordinates) TWO velocities
for light, namely c and -c.
The SPEED of light is |c|, but there are two velocities involved.
Einstein states:
"Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocit=
y v
be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationar=
y
system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the
co-ordinates"...
=
So we are definitely talking about velocity and coordinates, not about
speed.
There is no ambiguity.
But Einstein also claims
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) to be a universal constant--the velocity of light
in empty space."
EinsteiN SPECiFiEs *NO particle-COUNT*, for the VELOCiTY of light.!!
(Experimental MEASUREMENTs in AiR vary with AMBiENT particle COUNT.)
So ..What are the "experimental" error-bars on the "empty space".?!!
(STP&g AiR is 10^25 Orders-of-Magnitude LESS EMPTY than a "vacuum".)
I do not share his experience or accept his assumption.
I can't go from Trafagar Square to Tower Bridge twice -=3D-
"the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =3D t"
He's actually finished, right there. That's Galilean relativity.
But he claims
=BD[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))]
=3D tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Using our two values for the velocity of light,
=BD[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(v+c)-x'/(v-c))]
=3D tau(x',0,0,t-x'/(v-c))
BUT... the =BD does not apply.
It is a NUMBER in an algebraic equation.
It should be (tB-tA)/(t'A-tA)
Without question, Einstein was perpetrating a deliberate hoax
for the advancement of Einstein.
=
His wonderful discovery of the advance of perihelion of Mercury
is also garbage.
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
Turn off "Show traces" and "Connections", turn on "Geo frame".
Start the animation and watch how closely the satellite comes to the
Moon. The point of closest approach precesses.
GUESS, Gr is 1 / (n - 1) =3D Ga / Go =3D Ga / G =3D G_uv =3D T_uv.!!
.. G*M1*m1 / r1^2 =3D (n - 1)*m1*g =3D (n - 1)*m1*v1^2 / r1 .!!
Note, n =3D mD / m1 ..is NOT a Baez-Universe particle-COUNT.!!
GR-TEST-mass CANNOT ATTRACT in GR (if it COULD have mass).!!
(Please Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < Hillman GR TEST mass >.)
NOTE personal ATTACKs are effective ..ONLY with ADVANTAGE.!!
The cHURCH-of-ENGLAND is STANDiNG in My WHOLLY of WHOLLYs.!!
WHOLLY, WHOLLY, WHOLLY, over, over, over ..and OUT, dooOP.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Butikov didn't engineer that, it is what happens when celestial
mechanics are modelled in Newtonian fashion.
In the case of our solar system, Jupiter plays the role of the third
body and the satellite is Mercury. Unfortunately Butikov did not supply=
a Luna frame in his model, which represents the Sun.
Androcles.
=
John Kennaugh "What appears to be a sloopy and meaningless use of wor=
ds
may
well be a completely correct use of words to express a sloppy or
meaningless
idea." Sir E Gower
Yeah...
Re: A little challenge for relativists.
.
