"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158507727.164196.140350@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1158457834.963639.281040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1158431585.201046.275940@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Vergon belives that a photon has mass.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > I know he does, Brass Boor, he's a protestant relativist as
| > | > you are a catholic relativist. Same god, different flavour.
| > | > He's a moron, just like you.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > A photon is an energy transfer across space.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > He believes this because the
| > | > | upper limit on photon mass from experimental evidence is about 1 *
| > | > | 10-54 kg.
| > | >
| > | > That's ok, that's his faith. You are not going to convert faith with
| > logic.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | He thinks that the upper limit on photon mass is the smallest mass
| > | > | detected, whereas any sane person would say it means that a photon
| > | > | could not have a mass greater than it's upper limit
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Let's not bring sanity into it, you're as insane as he is.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | This being the case, he then uses the equation m = h.f / c^2 and
| > thinks
| > | > | thats this is the mass of the photon.
| > | >
| > | > A lb of apples costs 35c. Therefore apples are money, money grows on
| > trees.
| > | > c is bollocks anyway, all velocities are relative.
| > | > How fast does the changing magnetic field travel to the compass
needle?
| > | > If the compass needle is moving relative to the magnet, what
happens
| > | > to it's rate of turn?
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | He believes that the minimum frequency which a photon can have is
1
| > Hz,
| > | > | which makes h.f / c^2 greater than the upper limit on photon mass,
and
| > | > | thereby proves that the photon has a mass of h.f / c^2.
| > | >
| > | > That's ok, there are lots of religions, they can't all be right.
| > | >
| > | > | Any sane person
| > | >
| > | > You are not sane, you are as stupid as he is. You believe in that
| > | > crappy c idea.
| > | >
| > | > would realise that for an infinte number of values for
| > | > | f, h.f / c^2 is greater than the upper limit on photon mass, and
since
| > | > | the upper limit is the largest value which could be associated
with
| > the
| > | > | photon mass, then h.f / c^2 cannot possibly give the mass of the
| > | > | photon.
| > | > |
| > | > | This is even crazier than his insistance that Planck's constant is
| > | > | massive.
| > | > |
| > | > Ok, so you are both crazy.. who gives a *****?
| > | >
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | If we have two points, A and B, and the distance between those 2
points
| > | in 10 meters, then according to Androcles, if you move from point A to
| > | point B then back to point A, the length of the path you have
travelled
| > | is 0 meters, which means you didn't actually move.
| > | To sane people, the length of the path you have travelled is 20
meters.
| >
| >
| > If we have two points, A and B, and the distance between those 2 points
| > is x meters, then according to Einstein, if LIGHT moves from point A to
| > point A, the duration of the path it had travelled is 0 seconds, which
| > means its clock stopped; "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
| > part of an infinitely great velocity".
|
| No,
What do you mean, "No", fuckin' stupid insane moron?

If we have two points, A and B, and the distance between those 2 points
is x meters, then according to Einstein, if LIGHT moves from point A to
point A, the duration of the path it had travelled is 0 seconds, which
means its clock stopped; "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part of an infinitely great velocity".
That quote is from http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/,
imbecile! Are you saying your tin god never said that?

| according to Einstein, the light moves from point A to point B and
| back to point A.

ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN,
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- REF: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
SECTION 4, insane fuckwit.





| If the distance between point A and point B is x, then the length of
| the path ABA is 2x (2AB, where AB = x).

No, insane fuckwit. AB = x, BA = -x.
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.
A B A

| The light moves from point A at time t_A and reaches point B at time
| t_B.

Yes, sane fuckwit.

| The light leaves point B at time time t_B and reaches point A at time
| t_A'.

Yes, sane fuckwit.


| Therefore the start time is t_A and the end time is t_A'.

Yes, sane fuckwit.


| If the duration of the path travelled is t, then t = t_A' - t_A.

Yes, sane fuckwit.


| If x = 0 then t = 0, which means there is no ovement to measure.
| On the other hand, if x>0, then c = 2x / t,

In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"

No, insane fuckwit. x < 0 for the return.

or as Einstein gives it, c
| = 2AB / (t_A' - t_A).

Yes, sane fuckwit, that is indeed what the idiot Einstein said.
In agreement with experience it is clear the moron was a lunatic.

| > To sane people, the time duration of the path light has taken is t =
x/c,
| > a constant velocity doesn't reverse.
| > NOTE... "CONSTANT" velocity.
|
| The light that is leaving point A is not the same light that is leaving
| point B, so the constant velocity does not reverse.

Seek and ye shall find, fuckwit:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm


|
| >
| > To sane people, in a coordinate system the light travels x-x in time
| > t'_A - t_A = 0/0
|
| Only if you redefine the word 'sane' to mean 'insane'.

Seek and ye shall find, insane fuckwit:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

|
| >
| > Brass Boor is not sane, he goes back home before he gets to the store
| > to wind his old 1905 half-Hunter because it stopped.
| > http://www.stanleylondon.com/dalveyhalfhuntertop.jpg
| >
| > Androcles
|

In sci.physics.relativity, Golden Boar
<goldenboar@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 17 Sep 2006 08:42:07 -0700
<1158507727.164196.140350@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

If we have two points, A and B, and the distance between those 2 points
is x meters, then according to Einstein, if LIGHT moves from point A to
point A, the duration of the path it had travelled is 0 seconds, which
means its clock stopped; "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part of an infinitely great velocity".

No, according to Einstein, the light moves from point A to point B and
back to point A.

Yes, for an average velocity of zero (but an average speed of
299792458 m/s). This confuses Androcles quite a bit. :-)

(The fact that Einstein used the term "Lichtgeschwindigkeit", which can
be translated as either velocity *or* speed of light, doesn't help
either. However, most people can elide that minor error, and proceed --
after all, average speed on a trip from, say, Atlanta to Boston and back
to Atlanta, is easily calculable. Androcles is a somewhat interesting
exception.)

I should note, however, that Androcles is right in one particular.
For a light photon, the clock has indeed stopped; given a star
billions of light years away, the transmission of that photon
and that interception in our detectors (probably by the Hubble)
is instantaneous to *it*; it gets created and destroyed without
any time intervening, in its reference frame. (To hypothesize
otherwise gets into "tired light" theories, which have generally
been disproven.)