"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:YzLPe.796$4P5.594@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
| news:5O1Oe.12347$Il.9878@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1124639321.263347.36420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
| > | Pentcho Valev quotes:
| > "Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light
| > speeds over the distances of a few metres for the
| > last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated,
| > expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle
| > Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over
| > distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment
| > costing just $500."

| [Androcles]
| > Sagnac did it in 1913.
| > http://www.wbabin.net/babin/sagnac.htm
| > "Relativists will claim the Sagnac effect is valid in relativity,
| > thereby sanctioning the precise opposite of what the theory
| > was to achieve, which is a single wave front common to all
| > observers ! A moment's reflection will convince you that
| > without this objective, the theory is redundant."
| >
| > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
| > "In ballistic theories (such as advocated by Ritz) the speed of
| > light is the sum of the speed of the source plus a velocity of
| > magnitude c. On this basis, there should be no Sagnac effect
| > at all (for a circular loop), so these theories can be ruled out."
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action
| > of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
| > here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
| > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
| > distinction between the two cases in which either the one or
| > the other of these bodies is in motion." -- The "customary view"
| > of Sagnac is the apparatus is revolving, the observer stationary.
| > The Galilean view is that the apparatus is "stationary", the
| > observer orbiting. The observer perceives c+v, c-v, the apparatus
| > perceives c. Thus Einstein can be ruled out by the experimental
| > evidence, Ritz cannot.
| > Androcles.
| >
| [hanson]
| Andro, the "beauty" with relativity is that because of
| relativity you can explain anything, in any way, shape
| or form to match experimental results.

Oh, I know... Don't you just love the relativist's look-up table?
gamma Desired velocity
1 0.000000000000000
10 0.994987437106620
100 0.999949998749938
1000 0.999999499999875
10000 0.999999995000000
100000 0.999999999950000
1000000 0.999999999999500
10000000 0.999999999999995
The velocity is always within the limits of experimental error.
The best part is that some people (Auntie Alice in particular)
actually believes this crap.

I .... if the straight forward application of relativity doesn't
| sound too convincing then you invoke frame dragging
| or frame jumping, imaginary rotations, stretches, delays
| and other esoterics... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA....

Yeah.... I've laughed long and hard. Once I was rolling
on the floor and uncontrollably farted, laughing my arse off.
ROFLMAO...

| Right or wrong, it doesn't matter as long as the story
| (read theory) has a remote connection to relativity.
| Then the Einstein fans will feel vindicated... or so,
| they FEEL.... ahahaha... AHAHA... ahaha... AHAHAHA
| Therefore: Let'em sing!... All of'em... it's a beautiful choir!

Yeah, but if you don't have someone like me as choirmaster,
they'll not reach the high notes as I squeeze their balls.

| There's an unacknowledged refrain to all this which is only
| whispered about though.... [*1*] since it brings excruciating
| embarrassment to the Relativity fans... who jump up and
| down in go into total denial... that takes on the form or the
| usual loud cajoling... as if they would have to defend some
| thing they are not so sure of... but hopelessly hooked on.

Its ok, they are good comedians. They want centre stage, I make
'em perform. People like you are the audience, I love it when
you laugh, I'm doing a great job. Now... about the ticket price...
you snuck in the emergency exit, right? :-)
Androcles.

| Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does not need GR *****"
| Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No *****"
| Anybody who works in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the shitload"
| Any Jew protects it as his cultural heritage whether "GR is ***** or
| not".
| To boot, the Bavarians have made GR/SR courses NOT mandatory
| any longer in their Univs physics curriculum since/in 1996 and just
| a few days ago I glanced at a post from a US student who wondered
| what book to study about GR since it was no longer offered at his
| Uni... .... ahahaha... Them times are changing, ... AHAHAHAHA.....
| ahahaha... ahahanson
|

I bet your head would explode if you were forced to type complete
sentences, use paragraphs, and not use "ahhahah".

[1] My bad.
[2] I am not sure...
[3] not use "ahhahah".

<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1125152029.732585.84390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1124639321.263347.36420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=3Ddn2796
| > |
| > | Pentcho Valev
| >
| > "Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over
the
| > distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with
the
| > aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle
| > Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over
distances
| > of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just
$500."
| >
| > Sagnac did it in 1913.
| >
| > http://www.wbabin.net/babin/sagnac.htm
| >
| > "Relativists will claim the Sagnac effect is valid in relativity,
| > thereby sanctioning the precise opposite of what the theory was to
| > achieve, which is a single wave front common to all observers ! A
| > moment's reflection will convince you that without this objective,
the
| > theory is redundant."
| >
| > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
| >
| > "In ballistic theories (such as advocated by Ritz) the speed of
light is
| > the sum of the speed of the source plus a velocity of magnitude c.
On
| > this basis, there should be no Sagnac effect at all (for a circular
| > loop), so these theories can be ruled out."
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >
| > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
| > a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative
| > motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view
draws
| > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or
the
| > other of these bodies is in motion."
| >
| > The "customary view" of Sagnac is the apparatus is revolving, the
| > observer stationary.
| >
| > The Galilean view is that the apparatus is "stationary", the
observer
| > orbiting.
| >
| > The observer perceives c+v, c-v, the apparatus perceives c.
|
| That's not Einstein's Theory, though, But Lorentz's.

Those are Einstein's words I've put in quotes.
Look it up, right at the start.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The reciprocal dynamic action of a magnet and a conductor
IS and example of the Principle of GALILEAN Relativity.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

Einstein knows all about it, then he pulls a mischievious hoax.

On the court docket, Science v Einstein.

Judge:
"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"

Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."

Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.

Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,

x' =3D x-vt
y =3D y
z =3D z
t =3D t

You have to agree with that, Einstein states:

"If we place x'=3Dx-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.

"Objection! cries defense counsel.

"Yes?" asks the judge.

"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defense counsel,
"my client has already named the moving system 'k'."

"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.

Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta, tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.

"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.

Prosecution continues.

Applying the Galilean function g(),

For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) =3D g(x,y,z,t).

It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.

There can be no function f such that x' =3D f(t), the judge's bench
will be the same length tomorrow as it is today. Hence there can
be no inverse function t =3D f^-1(x').

"Objection" cries the defense council.

"Shut up...err...overruled", says the judge, "I've heard this before in
another case. Don't make me hold you in contempt of Mathematics"

Defense council sits, looking sheepish.

Prosecution continues:

We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.

Now we come to the defendant's transformation. Not Lorentz's,
not Galileo's, but Einstein's own.

For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) =3D cuckoo(x',y,z,t)

We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.

Einstein would have you believe that

tau =3D cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi =3D cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))

is called the "Lorentz transformation".

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his signed statement: "But 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."

"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."

"How say you to that?", asks the judge of the prosecutor.

I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship
has been stipulated to by both parties.

"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DLunch break=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.

"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".

Thank you, your honour. As I was saying:

I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But 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".

The only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,

"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."

Thus it cannot be that x'/(c-v) =3D x'/(c+v).

As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.

As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.

"Objection!" screams the defense, prosecuting counsel is attempting
to prejudice the jury with the use of the word "cuckoo"!

"Sustained", says the judge, " the term 'cuckoo' will be stricken from
the record and the jury is instructed to disregard it."

Sidebar conference is requested by the prosecutor, jury is removed
from the court.

Prosecutor:
Your honour,
Einstein read "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells as a teenager, it was a
current best seller at the time. He became a clerk in the Swiss Patent
Office, saw many patent applications for cuckoo clocks, the main
industry of Switzerland in 1900-1905.
Not too many patents for chocolate or cheese were needed.
He got a hard-on... err... erection for time. The rest of us prefer
women, time is a fetish.

"I'm sustaining the objection",says the judge, "that is conjecture".

As the court pleases. (Prosecutor bows before the judge)

Jury is brought back, prosecution continues:

Here is that proof:

=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=

(given)

Juror passes a note to the judge via the bailiff. The note reads
"I don't understand this stuff, that equation is too long."

Judge: "The court should recess for 10 minutes."

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dten minute recess =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Prosecution continues:

Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:

tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

Synchronize clocks at t =3D 0, tau(0,0,0,0) =3D 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+

tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))

There is no relative motion between k' and kappa, the coordinate x'
is independent of time. We do not have xi =3D x'-ut or x' =3D x'+ut or
any other function xi =3D fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is n...

"Objection to 'fuckup' ", says defense counsel, "it's not nice"

"Overruled".

As I was saying, there is no relative motion between k' and kappa,
the coordinate x' is independent of time. We do not have xi =3D x'-ut
or x' =3D x'+ut or any other function xi =3D fuckup(x') for Lorentz's
sake, there is no u, v, w or velocity between system k' and system
kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between stationary and movng frames, this is the
moving frame only, the stationary frame K is simmering on the back
burner.

Hence:

tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) =3D
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) =3D
tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)),
the coordinate x' has no effect upon the time and is independent
of time, the time is independent of the coordinate. Were it not so,
the time at the front of the moving train, an example the defendant
uses in another document, would differ from the back of th...."

"Objection!", interjects defense counsel, "that document is not
in evidence before the court".

"I can produce it if necessary", says the prosecutor, but I'll withdraw
the statement".

"Objection sustained, the reference to a train will be stricken from
the record", orders the judge. "Continue with the mathemetics,
trains are physical and you rested on that."

My apology to the court. Let me reiterate, time is independent of
the coordinate. I have NOT stated that time was independent of velocity,
that is for the jury to decide.

Removing the superfluous coordinates:

tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) =3D 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))

Setting the time a =3D x'/(c-v) and b =3Dx'/(c+v) for clarity:

tau(a+b) =3D 2*tau(a)

Renaming tau as f,

f(a+b) =3D 2f(a) or

=BDf(a+b) =3D f(a)

Chosing a > b, we have an example

=BDf(1+0) =3D f(1)

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.

In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.

In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.

In the fourth place you've been had!

I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.

Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

I now rest my case as a mathematician also.

Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague,
"I'd enter him an insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".

Counsel for the defense has the floor.


| Which is obviously why the brain dead in physics,
| even after a 100 years, od STR, are doing still mirror game
| parlor tricks with their moron theory
| of inertial light and c's. And Einstein
| has a statue in Washington.

I take it you find for the prosecution, Einstein is guilty of fraud?
=20
Androcles.