FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
This is What Einstein Actually Did.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 36 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 34, 35, 36, 37 Next
Author Message
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:23 pm    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.16.26.09.144026@earthlink.net...
| On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:51:32 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@earthlink.net...
| > | On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
| > message
| > | > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be
more
| > or
| > | > less
| > | > | > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two
separate
| > | > | > | > | experiments.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > | > | > Therefore
| > | > | > your
| > | > | > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a
| > | > | > | > fucking idiot. Androcles
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | > | > | impossible.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take
a
| > | > | > step forward
| > | > | > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and
take
| > your
| > | > | > medication.
| > | > | > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time
t'A-tA.
| > | > | > A mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) =
| > | > | > c. A shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and
| > | > | > pretend he
| > | > knew
| > | > | > mathematics, like this:
| > | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > | > |
| > | > | The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.
| > | >
| > | > And according to the definition of a vector.
| > | >
| > | > | The same
| > | > | logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back
| > | > | to
| > NY
| > | > | would also have an average speed of 0.
| > | > |
| > | > Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
| > | > starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks
| > | > in Boston
| > | > and his wristwatch is unreliable?
| > | > Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient
| > information.
| > | > It is UNDEFINED.
| > |
| > | No, it's zero.
| >
| >
| > Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
| > according to Ghost. Case closed.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | Proof:
| > |
| > | event 1: (0,0)
| > | event 2: (0,t)
| > |
| > | where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but
greater
| > | than zero, that yields 0.
| >
| >
| > Ok, case confirmed closed. Well done for providing a proof of c = 0.
|
| It's your proof.

My proof? Nay, I proved undefined.


|
| >
| > Good enough for physics, although to a mathematician we have: event 2:
| > (0,0)
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
| > | event
| > |
| > | event 1A: (d, t/2)
| > |
| > | and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),
| >
| >
| >
| > An even more reasonable mathematician would definitely include as an
| > extrapolation of the intermediate event:
| >
| > event 1B: (d+delta d, t/2+delta t) where delta>0.
| >
| > c = [f(d) - f(d+h)]/ h = -300,000km/sec
| >
| > | but never mind.
| >
| > You should mind. c is negative by your "reasonable sort" reasoning. I
wish
| > you'd make up your unreasonable mind and prove c = the set {300,000, 0,
| > -300,000} instead of handwaving.
| >
| > I call that UNDEFINED, but never mind, I'll settle for c = 0 as a
| > compromise
| > to be a reasonable sort.
| >
| > Oh wait.... you said AVERAGE speed. So you are right, it is zero.
| >
| >
| >
| > | > Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and
speed
| > | > is the magnitude
| > | > of velocity.
| > |
| > | In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?
| >
| > Your question is ambiguous.
|
| Is it?

Yes, it is.


| I said speed for a reason, not velocity.

I don't care what your reason is, your question is ambiguous.
The definition of speed is the magnitude of velocity, so you mean
meters/sec, mph or radians/sec. Radians/sec can be constant, but speed
cannot be constant in a circular orbit.


| > The instantaneous speed is the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity.
| > The instantaneous velocity is not constant, therefore the speed is not
| > constant.
|
| For most orbits, it's not. The circular orbit is a special case, and is
| occasionally used because the math is far easier.
|
| > The average is zero. You did ask for average, right?
|
| No, I simply said speed.

Ok, then the answer is no. Speed is constant for four occurences in a
square orbit, which is a special case to make the math easy.
We don't need easy math, we have computers for that, so all real orbits
have some eccentricity > 0 and can be solved with Kepler's equation.
Making things easy is for education, not science where the work is never
easy. Modelling planets as points is easy, but our real planet has
tides that points do not model. The angular velocity of the half moon facing
the Earth is less than the angular velocity of the half moon facing away,
causing the moon to rotate on its axis once a month and keep the same
face toward the Earth. After all, the far side travels further than the near
side.

|
| > Now if you want the angular speed you can use the angular velocity,
| > measured in radians/sec, not fps.
|
| I said speed for a reason. For a circular orbit, one gets the following
| parameters:
|
| s = sqrt(gr)
| x = r * cos(t*s/r)
| y = r * sin(t*s/r)
| v_x = -s * sin(t*s/r)
| v_y = s * cos(t*s/r)
| z = 0

The only constants I see are z=0 and r, the rest are functions, operators
and variables. I don't know what g is.
What's the reason?



| I'm not sure if there's a concept of "angular velocity";

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22angular+velocity%22&btnG=Search&meta=

1,780,000 hits for "angular velocity"

| if there is, it's
| probably pointing in the z direction for various weird reasons. The
| angular speed is a scalar, and is of course sqrt(gr) / (2*pi*r)
| = (1/(2*pi))*sqrt(g/r).

It probably means you are more ignorant of physics and mathematics
than I ever imagined possible, even though I knew you were a shithead.



|
| >
| > If you want to include rotating frames of reference, use a rotating
| > coordinate
| > system and don't call it "inertial."
| >
| > Y'know, your concept of "reasonable" is "be persuaded by the
| > unreasonable", and your examples are non sequitur. You've gone from c =
0
| > to average c to c in water and flint glass to c going round in circles.
| > You are not succeeding
| > in your persuasions.
| > You are not reasonable. You are fuckin' unreasonable, and we haven't
even
| > gotten past 2AB/(t'A-tA) yet, let alone the cuckoo transformations.
|
| But it's not 2AB/(t'A-tA). It's (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA). That gives c=0, by
| your logic.

Tell Einstein that, since you disagree with him.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif

I disagree with him too.
However, (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA) = 0/(t'A-tA), and it takes no time at all
to go from A to A. AB is distance, not velocity. One must divide by
time to obtain velocity from distance. As Einstein says, "Hieraus folgt,
wenn
mann x´ unendlich klein wählt".
English translation:
"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small" and x' is AB.

He's differentiating with the constant c = 0/0, not c = AB/(tB-tA).


| >
| > | > Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is
| > half
| > | > of (t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is
| > reasonable
| > | > (if imprecise),
| > |
| > | Actually, it depends on one's assumptions.
| >
| >
| > Mathematicians do not make assumptions, mathematicians prove.
|
| And mathematical axioms are precisely...what?


Get a fucking dictionary, I'm not your mother. I can wipe your arse, I can't
s**t for you.


| > Physicists make assumptions. The worst assumption a physicist makes
| > is that he understands mathematics.
|
| Well, there is that issue. Of course, you've measured the speed of light,
| right?

Yes, many years ago. It's quite easy. Get one each of these and these,
http://www.complex.cz/images/section/o_technologii_led/led-diagramcz.jpg
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~jdw/figs/close_ptrans.jpg

hook up them up to one of these:
http://vbk.campus.luth.se/~vbk/radio/oscilloscope.jpg

No need for smoke and mirrors.
You can use your computer in place of an oscilloscope these days
if you know how, computers are fast electronically.



| > | For instance, one might direct
| > | the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube
| > | of flint glass on inbound.
| >
| > Non sequitur, das Licht im leeren Raume was stated. It isn't possible
for
| > a
| > reasonable sort to assume flint glass or water.
| > You are fucked, c = { 300,000, 0, -300,000 }, average zero.
|
| Correct. c=0. This means you can't possibly read my post. :-)

You are not a mathematician. The velocity of light is C = AB/(tB-tA),
not 'c', I can use that to read your post.
Aren't you the shithead that likes to say "pedant point"?
How come you object to me being pedantic?
Pedant point:
Acceleration is by definition a change in velocity.
Mirrors reverse the velocity of light. Therefore mirrors are
light accelerators. Therefore light can be and is accelerated.

| >
| >
| > | > but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of
order.
| > | > Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the
| > distance
| > | > from
| > | > NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally
small".
| > | > It is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a
| > | > discontinuity.
| > He
| > | > is violating the rules of mathematics. You cannot tell me the person
| > | > taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2 hours, therefore he takes
1
| > | > hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it over easily.
| > |
| > | Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX
| > | showed no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.
| >
| > Yes it did as it was rotated, you didn't look. Rotating MMX is Sagnac.
|
| Only if the rotation is done *during the conduction of the measurement*.
| AIUI, the general idea was rotate, stop, measure, rotate, stop, measure.

As you understand means nothing, you don't understand at all.

|
| If one does a Sagnac/MMX one indeed sees a difference, and one will see a
| delta anyway, since the Earth is revolving around the Sun and rotating
| while one is observing the phase shift. However, these elements are much
| smaller than the result the scientific types expected.

Georges Sagnac and Albert Michelson were scientists. Albert Einstein
was a scientific type of huckster.
Sagnac's experiment is used as a gyroscope today, it gives precise results.
http://www.meos.com/images%20for%20photonics%20experiments/EXP16-Nur-Kreisel.gif| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm| >| > You'd measure the velocity of cars on a toll road at the toll booth, you| > would.| > You didn't measure, therefore you didn't see. That doesn't mean itdidn't| > happen,| > why should one take into account missing measurements?| >| >| >| >| >| >| > | > It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the| > | > clock| > at| > | > Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says| > | > himself,| > | > x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then heplays| > his| > | > frame-hopping| > | > game and pretend to use rigorous math, bur we really don't care what| > | > the time| > | > is by a photon's wristwatch.| > || > | Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s(relative| > | to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two posts| > | in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also| > | traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.| > || > | In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take| > |
100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then| > | going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.| > || > | Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99| > | seconds.| > || > | In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100| > seconds.| > || > | As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least| > | given the parameters of this thought-experiment.| > || > | If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe| > | going crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as| > | the canoe is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one| > | plots its course relative to the river.| > || > | This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"| > | problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a| > | trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, withthe| > | current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in| > | still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferousaether.| > || > | And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (onemight| > | contemplate,
for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel| > | within the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and| > | the canoes are racing through different paths).| > || > | That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to| > | Einstein's "fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to atthe| > | time, but slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were| > | discarded.| > || > | This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, andquite| > | willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money.| > | After all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting| > | Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).| > || > | However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than| > | that. Smile| >| > Here's a thought for you.| > Physicists are failed mathematicians and greedy bastards without qualms.| > Scientists are a little more reasonable than that. Physicists are not| > scientists.|| Ah, OK. This is an interesting statement. Are you a scientist?Yes. I adhere to the scientific method and I'm reasonable. Not polite, butreasonable. I gave you credit for proving c = 0, prov
ing how reasonable Iam.I do not need to prove how impolite to shitheads I can be, the evidencespeaks for itself. Tom Roberts is a shithead.| > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message| > news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...| > | This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely| > | irrelevant.| >| > That's someone who calls himself a "physicist", partially responsiblefor| > the relativity FAQs.| >| > This IS because physicists still are desperate for grant money, andquite| > willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. I'mnot| > a physicist, I'm a mathematician, engineer and astronomer.| >| > BTW, the guy that headed the team that designed the electronics for| > Concorde was a civil engineer, I knew him. He knew more aboutelectronics| > than bridges because he chose to. What does this tell you? It tells mehe| > was competent at both, but he wasn't an artist. Bridges have to do more| > than span gaps, they have to be beautiful. Whatever design is submitted,| > all are expected to function. The chosen design is the one that pleases| > aesthetically, and that decision ultimately rests with someone that| > doesn
't design bridges.|| So you're telling me that physicists are greedy, conniving bastards who| love Einstein because his theory is more beautiful than reality?Yes, I am, although beauty is in the eye of the beholder and m.o.n.e.y ismorebeautiful than a r.o.s.e or a c.e.p.h.e.i.d or a r.a.i.n.b.o.w to manybeholders.|| Definitely interesting stuff.You can even make money out of it. Sell crap or truth, either way it canpay.Lawyers do that all the time, they are professional persuaders and surrogateliars,speaking on behalf of their clients. It is quite legal to lie unless underoath, thenit is verboten. Often what is NOT said is more important than what is.What Einstein did NOT say is this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.GIFbut what he did say is "c+v", as much as he hated to. He had to, buthe kept it to the barest minimum. I believe there are only two occurencesin the entire paper of "c+v", where he hoped the reader would overlook them.This is the mark of a true huckster, his intelligence is not in question.Hence his "c+v" is buried in an equation that you should not look attoo closely. Indeed, it should be, pedantically, v+c and v-c. Lightchanges direction
, the "moving" frame does not.Pedant point:t = -x' /(v-c) and t = x' / (v+c)Hence v = 0 and c = 0/0.| > | > Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then| > | > say he's| > | > being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who| > | > didn't know| > | > what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.| > | > Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is| > belief,| > | > faith.| > | > I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.| > || > | I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for| > | various phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that| > | Einstein's computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without| > | alternatives that can show various phenomena that are well-documented| > | in the scientific literature.| > || > | Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a| > | result that SR and GR cannot predict.| >| > Sure:| >| > 1) Sagnac.| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm|| GR.Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Einstein.| > 2) V1493 Aql.| >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm|| More data required.That's for you to gather, I've done my homework. I've complied with yourrequestto describe an experiment which shows a result that SR and GR cannotpredict.| At best, it's an interesting phenom in its own right,| but only shows one "U" from the double explosion. Are there others?There are two generally recognised types of novae, recurrent and super.Recurrent novae are common, I haven't researched all of them, and asfor supernova ...things fall into our sun: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ (check out the movie collection, especiallythe two comets.)If a planet sized object fell into a distant star, ka-boom! If two starscollided,http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000206.htmlThat can't happen, of course, even though there are billions of stars,becausenobody wants to believe it. They'd rather have their head up their arse,like you.Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:32 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152900791.855038.162870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > | >
| > | > But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
| > | > track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild
| > muons
| > | > are 150 times faster than feral photons,
| > |
| > | Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
| > | energy.
| >
| > Wrong. No feral photon has as much energy as this wild particle:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
|
| That's a proton, not a muon.

I didn't say it was a muon.

| And that one was also going slower than a
| feral photon, according to your own reference. So you seem to be lying
| again, Androcles.

Nah, that's a fucking meteorite, some shitheaded mormon moron
wouldn't know the difference between a rock and a proton.
Meteorites burn up, they are called "shooting stars". One happened
to get past his detector, that's all. But it still has more energy than
a photon, and so do muons. After all, scintillators detect them
by sending out photons, and then they carry on to the next scintillator
and shine again, you fucking ignorant cunt.


| > You are lying again, Phuckwit Duck, and definitely confusing
| > speed with energy. Wild muons are faster than feral photons
| > because feral photons takes 333 usec to travel 62 miles, whereas
| > the life of a wild muon is 2.2 usec
|
| No it doesn't. If you think it does, provide the measurement of the
| lifetime of the feral muon, not a domesticated muon.

I'd have to calculate it the hard way. t = D/s.
D = 62 miles. s = 151c. err... let me think... 2.2 usec!

For a photon, 62/(186,000) = 333 usec.
My muon is faster than your photon.


|
| > and it covers the same distance
| > in that time. Wild muons don't live any longer than domesticated
| > muons.
|
| Precisely, and the domesticated ring muons live longer than 2.2 usec.
| Measured. In the same reference frame that the wild cosmic muons are
| observed.

They'll have to live for 333 usec to be slower than a photon.
They can travel for 62 miles and reach sea level. I know you
think they do live that long, but you've got your tau's and t's mixed up.
tau is the journey time in the muons FoR, t is how we measure it,
and we measure t = 2.2 usec proper time for 62 miles proper distance.
That is what makes you a phuckwit, duck.


Androcles.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
_____________________
| |________|=============
| ___--- O
|__---




|
| > You thought they did, but you were frame jumping. It
| > is true that the Earth doesn't decay in 2.2 usec, probably because
| > it is time dilated in the muon's frame of reference.
| >
|
| PD
|
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:32 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152899566.405260.95850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > | > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > | > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > | > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > | > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Calculated?
| >
| > Yes, calculated.
| >
| > | Don't you mean *measured*?
| >
| > No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
| > Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
| > has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
|
| Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed but
| a *calculated* speed.


That is quite correct.

| It measures the distance and it measures the
| time, and it calculates the speed. Oh, wait, it doesn't. It
| accomplishes that with a *calibration*.

Not really, it measures the force exerted by friction on a rotating disk
against a spring, usually referred to as a "hairspring". It has nothing to
do with hair and everything to do with curls.

Speedometers do not measure time. The odometer calculates distance.
You could call that "calibration", I suppose. It is really a gearbox.
Big wheel on road turns little wheels of odometer via "speedo" cable
and gears. The other end of the cable is usually attached to the
transmission.
If you like, you can compare the odometer with your wristwatch to
calibrate the speedometer. \That's another comparison of turning wheels,
the wheels in your watch. Sometimes the wheels are electronic wheels,
the wheel was reinvented with the quartz xtal.


|
| So what your bathroom scale reports is not a measured weight but a
| *calculated* weight.

Correct. Weight on the moon is different to weight on the earth,
and the masses must not be in an accelerated frame of reference
relative to the force of gravity. All acceleration is relative. You can
prove it by jumping up and down on the bathroom scale.
Actually you need not jump, just exert enough pressure on your toes
to raise you heels and lower them, cyclically, say once a second,
and the scale will oscillate because your weight oscillates

| It measures the distance of compression,

Which is proportional to the force, by Young's law.

| and it
| measures the spring constant in the scale and calculates your weight.
| Oh, wait, it doesn't. It accomplishes that with a *calibration*.

Of course it has to be calibrated, Europeans use kilograms,
Americans use pounds. You can calculate kilograms to pounds
and mark the dial with both if you like to save repeating the
calculation, but the calculation has to be done at least once, usually
by the engineer designing the thing.
Bathroom scales do not usually offer a gain adjustment, but they do
an offset so that you can set them to zero and not weigh the platform.
(or your clothes and shoes if you want to keep them on).



| So what the double-arm balance at the produce section of the
| supermarket reports is not a measured weight of your melon but a
| *calculated* weight.

Correct. Such devices measure angle.



| It measures the sliding weight, and it measures
| the length the weight is displaced from the pivot, and it calculates
| the weight of your melon. Oh, wait, it doesn't. It accomplishes that
| with a *calibration*.
|
No no, it measures the angle. It calculates the weight, it is a
mechanical calculator. Again, calibration is only unit conversion,
ounces or grams from the angle. it is calibration that makes
calculation possible. You can't calculate unless you know what units
the use.



| >
| > | Now if you have a 4 mile ring,
| >
| > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
| > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
| > a cosmic muon and a photon.
|
| Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| difference arises.

Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in circles
and that slows them down. Cosmic muons travel in straight lines.
The physical difference is in the experiment, not the particle.
Perhaps you've heard of Heisenberg.

You'll need mirrors in the ring to have a race between a photon and
a muon, but I expect the photon to win that race. You could try it,
I hear that photons are going slow these days.

http://tinyurl.com/losoo


| Unless you want to say what you've said before --
| something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
| different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
| folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
| time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
| out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
| deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
| c by the same piece of scintillator, right?
|
| PD
Nah, the muons are not different. A caged cheetah can't run at 70 mph
in a tiny box 20 feet long, but wild cheetah can. The difference between
wild and domesticated is the cage, for both muons and cheetahs,
you cheater. There is no gamma, that's frame hopping.
See you on Monday, you'll be gone for the weekend. I'll save
this reply until then.
Androcles, 14/6/06
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:58 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 19:02:38 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 23:19:10 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:


Not so. Light is made up of em waves, not t'other way round.
I don't know why you ask about waves, since you should know
that light propagates in a spherical fashion from its source as
successive waves of em energy.

A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

What you're talking about is measurement of a wave, but that is
not an em wave, that is a graphical representation of a wave. A
wave is a disturbance of the medium through which it moves. In
the case of em waves, they are waves of em energy emanating
from a heat source and moving through their medium.

Well I can't really see the connection here between EM, heat sources and waves.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.

In such a case, you plot the interaction of an em wave with a
Dark Matter particle at the instant of collision. Assume that the
following is a graphical representation of what I just said:
) ) = Parts of the em waves moving through the medium of DM.
O = A DM particle having negative mass and no energy.
Below is an em wave moving toward DM particles. Since the
DM medium is everywhere in space, the very first em wave from
its source moves through the DM medium. It cannot do otherwise.
) O O O
The em waves move in succession through the same DM particles
and "light them up" each time they go through them. I cannot show
that here, so think of each em wave having crashed into each DM
particle just behind it instead of already having passed it:
O ) O ) O ) O )
At that instant, energy from the em wave is imparted to the DM
particle, causing it to become transformed into a real matter (RM)
particle from the virtual particle it was as DM, and in so doing, the
photon is created and it is visible to us because it has positive
energy and mass now, but just for an instant. As the wave passes
through, the photon reverts back to an DM negative mass, no
energy particle. That, IMHO, is how light is created.

Most would think you are plain crazy for expounding such a theory.

Yess! Wonderful, thanks. By historical precedence, that shows I am

more likely correct than wrong in what I say.
Quote:

I wony condemn you outright because your DM might be something like my second
mass sub-dimension.
I say there are three mass and three time subdimensions. The mass ones are
connected with 'fields' and possibly light.. and the time ones are required to
explain timeflow.
I

How are you using the term, "dimension"? In physics, it is a

property that defines a physical quantity: any of a group of
properties or magnitudes, such as mass or time, that
collectively define a physical quantity. (Microsoft® Encarta®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.)

And how can there be "sub-dimensions" of dimensions? And
how can mass and time have any of those?
Quote:

Not entirely true. Your single photon is a particle that you
cannot explain in any other way than the way my model
describes the creation of light. I agree that a single photon
is "released" when an electron falls back to a lower energy
level within its atom, or rather, that it appears that way.

Yet, when you explain light as a single photon, you are
ignoring the part of it that is a wave in light. Light is
"dual-natured", composed of both waves and particles. You
can ignore either part of it to some degree, but you cannot
exclude it because sooner or later it gets in the way of your
explanation. My explanation has it both ways in one.

my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists.

That is the same as my model has it, so how is yours better?

They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.

So do mine, so what's different or better there? My model
argues that photons have mass, and for a particle to be
able to oscillate, it must have some mass. What do you
say about that?

I see nothing wrong with photons having mass, which I regard as a type of
manifestation of fields. Anything that has physical properties must have a
structure and a structure implies the presence of fields and energy, ie. mass.


Each em wave "lights up" the DM particles as it moves
through the medium of DM particles, and each one moves
so fast that they light up the universe for us.

I that why the universe appears black? Now I know....

Yes, that does logically follow what I said.

I was being sarcastic...If it is 'lit up' it wont be black.

Where it is "lit up" it won't be black, but there are many

places where there is no light, and since light has to be
created, we see the universe as a dark place except
where light exists.
Quote:


But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when
obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

No Tom. Speed only exists as a relative quantity.

Yes, but only because speed is a measurement of the rate of
motion and as such it is only a number.

No Tom, speed is a measurement of the rate of change of an object's position
relative to another object. We give it a number in terms of our defined
standards.

No, you give it a number to make it a measurement, as I said.

Without a number, it is not a measurement, just motion.
Quote:

However, the motion
is real and not just a math construct like its speed, and that you
cannot really deny, can you?

Motion is real. Relative speed is also just as real and is certainly not a
maths construct.

No, sorry, but relative speed is only a measurement, a math

construct, of the speed between objects.
Quote:

IOWs, we acknowledge that even in their own frame where
they appear to be at rest, they are not really at rest, they are
instead moving along within the expansion process of the
universe, right?

The universe is not expanding.

I had not heard of that since AE propounded a static universe.

You obviously haven't been listening.

Yes, I have, but you are the only one who has ever said

that here, that I know of. Why is that, do you think?
Quote:

You are raving...

That is again your personal and unsupported opinion....

Which has never failed....

Until now, that is. What cheek you exhibit.

You are raving mad...
Worse than Seto..

For someone who thinks the universe is static, you're a fine
one to say that....

Plenty of people know the universe is not expanding into a space that is
expanding into another universe that is expanding into even more expanding
space......etc, etc....

You are raving mad in thinking that is possible or even anything

other than fantasy.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:48 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.


Well, let's see. You say you don't know what's being plotted in the
case of a photon, and yet you think a photon is a *standing* wave
running from end to end. You haven't said what determines the ends of a
photon by the way. Moreover, a standing wave is created by the
superposition of two traveling waves, combined with physical
constraints (called boundary conditions) at the ends. So please make
sense of your statements above, Henri.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:50 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 11:40:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 10:52:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?

Yes, calculated.


| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,

Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.

Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?

Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Quote:

Atmospheric muons originate in elastic collisions and can easily start out at
c wrt the Earth's surface.

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:54 am    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@earthlink.net...
| On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
|
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more
or
| > less
| > | > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | > | experiments.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > | > Therefore
| > | > your
| > | > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a fucking
| > | > | > idiot. Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | > | impossible.
| > |
| > | > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a
| > | > step forward
| > | > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take
your
| > | > medication.
| > | > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. A
| > | > mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) = c. A
| > | > shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and pretend he
| > knew
| > | > mathematics, like this:
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > |
| > | The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.
|
| > And according to the definition of a vector.
|
| > | The same
| > | logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back to
NY
| > | would also have an average speed of 0.
| > |
| > Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
| > starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks in
| > Boston
| > and his wristwatch is unreliable?
| > Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient
information.
| > It is UNDEFINED.
|
| No, it's zero.


Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
according to Ghost. Case closed.


Androcles:
There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.

PD:
Billy runs around a closed track and crosses the finish line
at the same point he started the race. What is his average *velocity*
during this race?

Androcles
Zero.

PD:
Yes, exactly. And yet you just told me there is "no velocity for a
round trip, a*****le". But you just found one, a*****le.

Now Billy runs around the same closed track at a speed of 8 m/s and
crosses the finish line at the same point he started the race. What is
his average *velocity* during this race, a*****le?

Androcles:
Still zero, you stupid cunt.
You haven't found me wrong yet, imbecile.

PD:
That's right, it is zero.
Now light runs back and forth on a closed circuit at a speed of
299,792,458 m/s and crosses the finish line at the same point it
started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
a*****le?

Androcles:
It can't, speed is the magnitude of velocity and the velocity is zero.

| and crosses the finish line at the same point it
| started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
| a*****le?

Zero, ignorant cunt.

PD:
But Billy runs around the same closed track at a *speed* of 8 m/s (not
zero, a*****le), and crosses the finish line at the same point he
started the race, and as you said, a*****le, his average *velocity*
during this race is zero, a*****le.
8 m/s is the magnitude of zero, a*****le?

Androcles:
No he doesn't. On an oval track Billy runs 100 yards at 8 m/s, changes
velocity as he goes around turn 1 and turn 2, run 100 yards at -8 m/s,
changes velocity again at turns 3 and 4 and finishes at zero distance.
(And he's not in an inertial frame of reference, cunt.)
Total distance moved, zero. Total velocity, zero. Total speed, zero.
His speed for 100 yards is 8 m/s, his speed on the back straight
is -8 m/s, his TOTAL speed is zero, because 8-8 =0.
His velocity is constantly changing on the curves, arsehole,
so we refer to that as instantaneous tangential velocity.
You never did learn calculus, did you, arsehole? Typical relativist.
When you learn to integrate you'll find the integral of the velocity
is zero and the derivative of distance is positive and then negative
for a TOTAL of zero.

PD:
Now, since speed is the *magnitude* of the velocity, it's reasonable to

ask whether the *magnitude* of Billy's velocity is changing as he
rounds the bend from the front straightaway to the back straightaway.
Certainly according to you, the *magnitude* of the velocity has to
change from 8 m/s to -8 m/s somewhere along that bend. In fact,
assuming that his velocity is continuous, the *magnitude* of that
velocity has to be zero somewhere along that bend, it appears. He has
to have stopped momentarily. Tell that to Billy, who doesn't recall his

legs not moving at any point.

But never mind, because surely as someone with a mathematics degree and

profound experience in engineering, you recall that a *magnitude* of a
vector is by definition non-negative. That is, it has a value of zero
or greater, just in case you don't quite remember what non-negative
means. So when you tell me that speed is the magnitude of velocity, you

must mean that it is non-negative. And so when you told me "his speed
on the back straight is -8 m/s", you must surely realize now that your
brain had fallen out of your ear, which it must often do, as small and
shriveled as it is.

Androcles:
Obviously I meant velocity and was wrong.
===================================

Good, we're caught up. On the back straight, where you now say Billy's
velocity is -8 m/s, the *magnitude* of that velocity (that is, his
speed) is 8 m/s, just like it was on the front straight. In fact, there

is no reason to think that the *magnitude* of Billy's velocity (that
is, his speed) is anything other than 8 m/s throughout the turn from
front straight to back straight. In fact, his speed throughout the
closed-loop race never varies from 8 m/s, and yet the total *average*
velocity for the trip is zero, just as you say.

And returning to something I asked you before, I'll ask you again, just

in case you think you made an idiotic mistake in your earlier answer:
Now light runs back and forth on a closed circuit at a speed of
299,792,458 m/s and crosses the finish line at the same point it
started the race. What is the average *velocity* during this trip,
a*****le?

Remember your math degree and your engineering experience in answering
this exceedingly difficult question.

(Oh, and by the way, your lengthening this undoubtedly embarassing
conversation does not make your short trip to Wrong any longer. It
simply means you're making the short trip to Wrong over and over and
over again, at a speed somewhere between 8 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152899566.405260.95850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > | > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > | > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > | > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > | > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Calculated?
|
| > Yes, calculated.
|
| > | Don't you mean *measured*?
|
| > No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
| > Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
| > has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
|
| Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed but
| a *calculated* speed.

That is quite correct.

And so time is not measured either, is it, Androcles? Because the gears
in your pocketwatch are designed to turn at a certain angular velocity
and the angular displacement of the hands are what's designed to tell
you the time, and it does that by invoking a *calibration*. So what IS
measured, Androcles?

Quote:
| > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
| > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
| > a cosmic muon and a photon.
|
| Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| difference arises.

Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in circles
and that slows them down.

Really? How so? What force slows them down?

Quote:
Cosmic muons travel in straight lines.
The physical difference is in the experiment, not the particle.
Perhaps you've heard of Heisenberg.

Yup, heard of him. And what does anything he said pertain to the
difference between ring muons and cosmic muons?

Quote:

You'll need mirrors in the ring to have a race between a photon and
a muon,

Why?

Quote:
but I expect the photon to win that race. You could try it,
I hear that photons are going slow these days.

http://tinyurl.com/losoo


| Unless you want to say what you've said before --
| something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
| different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
| folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
| time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
| out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
| deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
| c by the same piece of scintillator, right?
|
| PD
Nah, the muons are not different.

You're right. there's no difference.

Quote:
A caged cheetah can't run at 70 mph
in a tiny box 20 feet long, but wild cheetah can.

And the connection between a cheetah in cage four times the cheetah's
length and a ring muon is what?
Or are you just flinging chaff?
Got any *physical* explanation of the difference between a ring muon
and a cosmic muon?

Quote:
The difference between
wild and domesticated is the cage, for both muons and cheetahs,
you cheater.

How long does it take a ring muon to accelerate up to full speed after
rounding the bend in the ring, Androcles?

Quote:
There is no gamma, that's frame hopping.

Ah, right, no such thing as speed when going around a ring. Haven't we
been through this before, Androcles?

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152900791.855038.162870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > | > But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
| > | > track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild
| > muons
| > | > are 150 times faster than feral photons,
| > |
| > | Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
| > | energy.
|
| > Wrong. No feral photon has as much energy as this wild particle:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
|
| That's a proton, not a muon.

I didn't say it was a muon.

So what you said had no bearing on the difference between wild muons
and feral photons, or wild muons and domesticated ones, did it? Just
more chaff thrown up in the air.

Quote:


| > You are lying again, Phuckwit Duck, and definitely confusing
| > speed with energy. Wild muons are faster than feral photons
| > because feral photons takes 333 usec to travel 62 miles, whereas
| > the life of a wild muon is 2.2 usec
|
| No it doesn't. If you think it does, provide the measurement of the
| lifetime of the feral muon, not a domesticated muon.

I'd have to calculate it the hard way. t = D/s.
D = 62 miles. s = 151c. err... let me think... 2.2 usec!

Gee, that's a *calculated* time, not a measured time. Now you just got
done telling me that speed is calculated, not measured, and time is
measured, not calculated. So you've screwed up, Androcles. Moreover,
your calculation is wrong. Try again.

Quote:

|
| > and it covers the same distance
| > in that time. Wild muons don't live any longer than domesticated
| > muons.
|
| Precisely, and the domesticated ring muons live longer than 2.2 usec.
| Measured. In the same reference frame that the wild cosmic muons are
| observed.

They'll have to live for 333 usec to be slower than a photon.

Yup. They certainly do.

Quote:
They can travel for 62 miles and reach sea level. I know you
think they do live that long, but you've got your tau's and t's mixed up.
tau is the journey time in the muons FoR, t is how we measure it,

No, it's not. t is not equal to tau in any frame except the one in
which the muon is at rest, and we're measuring the time it takes a
*moving* muon to travel 62 miles. In that frame, t is definitely not
equal to tau. I don't know where you got the ridiculous idea it was.

Quote:
and we measure t = 2.2 usec proper time for 62 miles proper distance.
That is what makes you a phuckwit, duck.



PD
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:48 pm    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure if there's a concept of "angular velocity";

There is.

Quote:
if there is, it's
probably pointing in the z direction for various weird reasons.

It is.

Angular momentum is a vector quantity which is conserved,
which means orbital motion remains in the same plane
unless there is a torque acting on it to cause a change
in the angular momentum vector.

- Randy
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153138425.229627.208170@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152900791.855038.162870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a
4-mile
| > | > | > track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy.
Wild
| > | > muons
| > | > | > are 150 times faster than feral photons,
| > | > |
| > | > | Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
| > | > | energy.
| > | >
| > | > Wrong. No feral photon has as much energy as this wild particle:
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
| > |
| > | That's a proton, not a muon.
| >
| > I didn't say it was a muon.
|
| So what you said had no bearing on the difference between wild muons
| and feral photons, or wild muons and domesticated ones, did it? Just
| more chaff thrown up in the air.


Yep. My turn to throw chaff in the air.

|
| >
| >
| > | > You are lying again, Phuckwit Duck, and definitely confusing
| > | > speed with energy. Wild muons are faster than feral photons
| > | > because feral photons takes 333 usec to travel 62 miles, whereas
| > | > the life of a wild muon is 2.2 usec
| > |
| > | No it doesn't. If you think it does, provide the measurement of the
| > | lifetime of the feral muon, not a domesticated muon.
| >
| > I'd have to calculate it the hard way. t = D/s.
| > D = 62 miles. s = 151c. err... let me think... 2.2 usec!
|
| Gee, that's a *calculated* time, not a measured time.

Is it? I said I'd have to do it the hard way.



| Now you just got
| done telling me that speed is calculated, not measured, and time is
| measured, not calculated. So you've screwed up, Androcles. Moreover,
| your calculation is wrong. Try again.

No. You time it.



|
| >
| > |
| > | > and it covers the same distance
| > | > in that time. Wild muons don't live any longer than domesticated
| > | > muons.
| > |
| > | Precisely, and the domesticated ring muons live longer than 2.2 usec.
| > | Measured. In the same reference frame that the wild cosmic muons are
| > | observed.
| >
| > They'll have to live for 333 usec to be slower than a photon.
|
| Yup. They certainly do.

That's a calculated time, not a measured time.
So you've screwed up, Phuckwit Duck.
Moreover, your calculation is wrong. Try again.



|
| > They can travel for 62 miles and reach sea level. I know you
| > think they do live that long, but you've got your tau's and t's mixed
up.
| > tau is the journey time in the muons FoR, t is how we measure it,
|
| No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Androcles



t is not equal to tau in any frame except the one in
| which the muon is at rest, and we're measuring the time it takes a
| *moving* muon to travel 62 miles. In that frame, t is definitely not
| equal to tau. I don't know where you got the ridiculous idea it was.
|
| > and we measure t = 2.2 usec proper time for 62 miles proper distance.
| > That is what makes you a phuckwit, duck.
| >
| >
|
| PD
|
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:16 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153138018.738496.192760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152899566.405260.95850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > | > | > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > | > | > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of
all
| > | > | > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't
in
| > | > | > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > |
| > | > | Calculated?
| > | >
| > | > Yes, calculated.
| > | >
| > | > | Don't you mean *measured*?
| > | >
| > | > No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
| > | > Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
| > | > has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
| > |
| > | Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed but
| > | a *calculated* speed.
| >
| > That is quite correct.
|
| And so time is not measured either, is it, Androcles?

Not by a speedometer, no. You are correct, Phuckwit Duck.


| Because the gears
| in your pocketwatch are designed to turn at a certain angular velocity
| and the angular displacement of the hands are what's designed to tell
| you the time, and it does that by invoking a *calibration*. So what IS
| measured, Androcles?

A count, Phuckwit Duck. The gears are a perfect counter that counts
oscillations of the balance wheel. The calibration of the balance wheel
is a ratio to another count, 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium-133 atom.
You are fucking boor, Phuckwit Duck, your ignorance know no bounds.


| > | > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > | > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
| > | > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race
between
| > | > a cosmic muon and a photon.
| > |
| > | Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| > | properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| > | difference arises.
| >
| > Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in
circles
| > and that slows them down.
|
| Really?

Yes, really.

| How so? What force slows them down?

I didn't mention a force. Do you still beat your mother?



|
| > Cosmic muons travel in straight lines.
| > The physical difference is in the experiment, not the particle.
| > Perhaps you've heard of Heisenberg.
|
| Yup, heard of him. And what does anything he said pertain to the
| difference between ring muons and cosmic muons?


He said when you meaure something you affect it. Like trying ot measure
the speed of a straight running muon by using a ring or a scintillator
to slow it down.

|
| >
| > You'll need mirrors in the ring to have a race between a photon and
| > a muon,
|
| Why?

You are like my grandson, he's not yet nine years old and asks "why?"
to everything. He has same mental age as yours, 11.
I didn't finish my sentence, cunt. BTW, this game is over, you snipped
and lost.
You snipped this:
Nah, that's a fucking meteorite, some shitheaded mormon moron
wouldn't know the difference between a rock and a proton.
Meteorites burn up, they are called "shooting stars". One happened
to get past his detector, that's all. But it still has more energy than
a photon, and so do muons. After all, scintillators detect them
by sending out photons, and then they carry on to the next scintillator
and shine again, you fucking ignorant cunt.
Androcles.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153138018.738496.192760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152899566.405260.95850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > | > | > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > | > | > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of
all
| > | > | > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't
in
| > | > | > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > |
| > | > | Calculated?
| > |
| > | > Yes, calculated.
| > |
| > | > | Don't you mean *measured*?
| > |
| > | > No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
| > | > Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
| > | > has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
| > |
| > | Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed but
| > | a *calculated* speed.
|
| > That is quite correct.
|
| And so time is not measured either, is it, Androcles?

Not by a speedometer, no. You are correct, Phuckwit Duck.


| Because the gears
| in your pocketwatch are designed to turn at a certain angular velocity
| and the angular displacement of the hands are what's designed to tell
| you the time, and it does that by invoking a *calibration*. So what IS
| measured, Androcles?

A count, Phuckwit Duck. The gears are a perfect counter that counts
oscillations of the balance wheel. The calibration of the balance wheel
is a ratio to another count, 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium-133 atom.

There is no cesium in your pocketwatch, Androcles, nor is there any in
your grandfather clock, nor is there any in your sundial. Now you may
be *calibrating* your clocks against something that is a counter, I
don't know. But apparently you don't know what a measurement is.

Quote:
You are fucking boor, Phuckwit Duck, your ignorance know no bounds.


| > | > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > | > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
| > | > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race
between
| > | > a cosmic muon and a photon.
| > |
| > | Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| > | properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| > | difference arises.
|
| > Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in
circles
| > and that slows them down.
|
| Really?

Yes, really.

| How so? What force slows them down?

I didn't mention a force. Do you still beat your mother?

So muons slow down without a force acting on them? And here I thought
you *believed* Newton and Galileo.

Quote:



|
| > Cosmic muons travel in straight lines.
| > The physical difference is in the experiment, not the particle.
| > Perhaps you've heard of Heisenberg.
|
| Yup, heard of him. And what does anything he said pertain to the
| difference between ring muons and cosmic muons?


He said when you meaure something you affect it. Like trying ot measure
the speed of a straight running muon by using a ring or a scintillator
to slow it down.

Uh-huh, and how does running a muon around a ring affect its speed,
Androcles? Please be specific.
Oh, and does a piece of scintillator 1 cm thick slow down a muon from
160c to just a hair under c? (Because that's certainly what the speed
is between two pieces of scintillator.)

Quote:

|
|
| > You'll need mirrors in the ring to have a race between a photon and
| > a muon,
|
| Why?

You are like my grandson, he's not yet nine years old and asks "why?"
to everything. He has same mental age as yours, 11.
I didn't finish my sentence, cunt.

Well that's obvious. You still didn't answer the question. Perhaps
because there isn't one.

Quote:
BTW, this game is over, you snipped
and lost.

Snipping isn't losing. That might be a rule *you* choose to post by,
but it isn't one that anyone else need live by.

You may also choose to play chess by declaring that moving rooks is
illegal and that anyone who moves a rook forfeits the game. However,
then you aren't playing chess, are you?

Quote:
You snipped this:
Nah, that's a fucking meteorite, some shitheaded mormon moron
wouldn't know the difference between a rock and a proton.
Meteorites burn up, they are called "shooting stars". One happened
to get past his detector, that's all. But it still has more energy than
a photon, and so do muons. After all, scintillators detect them
by sending out photons, and then they carry on to the next scintillator
and shine again, you fucking ignorant cunt.

Yup. And the photons that are emitted in the scinitillator have
considerably less energy than the photon that passes *through* the
scintillator. What's your point?

> Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153152057.690555.91310@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153138018.738496.192760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152899566.405260.95850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > | > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a
gamma
| > | > | > | > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > | > | > | > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a
master of
| > all
| > | > | > | > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree
isn't
| > in
| > | > | > | > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > | > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Calculated?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes, calculated.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | Don't you mean *measured*?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
| > | > | > Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated,
one
| > | > | > has to perform a division on some numbers and that is
calculation.
| > | > |
| > | > | Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed
but
| > | > | a *calculated* speed.
| > | >
| > | > That is quite correct.
| > |
| > | And so time is not measured either, is it, Androcles?
| >
| > Not by a speedometer, no. You are correct, Phuckwit Duck.
| >
| >
| > | Because the gears
| > | in your pocketwatch are designed to turn at a certain angular velocity
| > | and the angular displacement of the hands are what's designed to tell
| > | you the time, and it does that by invoking a *calibration*. So what IS
| > | measured, Androcles?
| >
| > A count, Phuckwit Duck. The gears are a perfect counter that counts
| > oscillations of the balance wheel. The calibration of the balance wheel
| > is a ratio to another count, 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
| > corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the
| > ground state of the cesium-133 atom.
|
| There is no cesium in your pocketwatch, Androcles,

Yes there is, in trace amounts.

Quote:
You are fucking boor, Phuckwit Duck, your ignorance know no bounds.


| > | > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > | > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile
long
| > | > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race
between
| > | > a cosmic muon and a photon.
| > |
| > | Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| > | properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| > | difference arises.
|
| > Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in
circles
| > and that slows them down.
|
| Really?

Yes, really.

| How so? What force slows them down?

I didn't mention a force. Do you still beat your mother?

You didn't answer the question, Phuckwit Duck. I answered yours,
you asked "Really?" and I answered yes.

Do you still beat your mother?
Androcles.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:25 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153152057.690555.91310@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|


| > | > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > | > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile
long
| > | > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race
between
| > | > a cosmic muon and a photon.
| > |
| > | Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| > | properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
| > | difference arises.
|
| > Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in
circles
| > and that slows them down.
|
| Really?

Yes, really.

| How so? What force slows them down?

I didn't mention a force. Do you still beat your mother?

You didn't answer the question, Phuckwit Duck. I answered yours,
you asked "Really?" and I answered yes.

Do you still beat your mother?

I see you are learning, Androcles, when you are embarking on the short
trip to Wrong, and when it is time to refrain from saying anything that
borders on being criminally stupid. Instead, you simply throw chaff.

So muons slow down without a force acting on them? And here I thought
you *believed* Newton and Galileo.

Quote:
|
| > Cosmic muons travel in straight lines.
| > The physical difference is in the experiment, not the particle.
| > Perhaps you've heard of Heisenberg.
|
| Yup, heard of him. And what does anything he said pertain to the
| difference between ring muons and cosmic muons?
He said when you meaure something you affect it. Like trying ot measure
the speed of a straight running muon by using a ring or a scintillator
to slow it down.

Uh-huh, and how does running a muon around a ring affect its speed,
Androcles? Please be specific.

PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 36 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 34, 35, 36, 37 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:10 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 8.5409s ][ Queries: 16 (8.4681s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]