Hey, Self-appointed Guardian-of-Groups'-Territories:

You are wrong on all three counts -
[1] This is no troll post
[2] It does not belong solely in the SR group
[3] It does belong in the physics group

Who are you to judge me?

My post pertains to general physics because it leads to
proof that (i) physics' time measurements are incorrect,
and (ii) no one has yet presented any proved-to-be-correct
method for measuring time.

For example, no physicist has ever proved that he can
correctly measure even a relative speed (e.g., the speed
of a car relative to a road).

Why is this? It is because no physicist has ever proved
that his clocks are correctly related temporally, and no
physicist has ever proved that his clocks are not physically
slowed, and no physicist has ever proved that his ruler is
not physically contracted. Only after these three things
have been done can any physicist properly claim to be able
to make correct time and distance measurements.

"Relative time" is a euphemism for "incorrect time."
"Relative simultaneity" is a euphemism for "absolutely
asynchronous clocks."

"SRdude" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, Self-appointed Guardian-of-Groups'-Territories:

You are wrong on all three counts -
[1] This is no troll post
[2] It does not belong solely in the SR group
[3] It does belong in the physics group

Who are you to judge me?

My post pertains to general physics because it leads to
proof that (i) physics' time measurements are incorrect,
and (ii) no one has yet presented any proved-to-be-correct
method for measuring time.

For example, no physicist has ever proved that he can
correctly measure even a relative speed (e.g., the speed
of a car relative to a road).

In the words of another person who often posts here - PLONK. You answer
your own question - Who are you to judge me? People who can reason and know
rubbish when they see it. Try that **** next time you are picked up for
speeding and see how far it gets you. When they release you from the funny
farm with some new pretty colored tablets to take repost.

Bill


Why is this? It is because no physicist has ever proved
that his clocks are correctly related temporally, and no
physicist has ever proved that his clocks are not physically
slowed, and no physicist has ever proved that his ruler is
not physically contracted. Only after these three things
have been done can any physicist properly claim to be able
to make correct time and distance measurements.

"Relative time" is a euphemism for "incorrect time."
"Relative simultaneity" is a euphemism for "absolutely
asynchronous clocks."

The judge me thing was not addressed to Hobba.
It was addressed to Mr. Puppet who posted only
in sci.physics but sent my reply to the SR group.

(Of course, it may be possible that Hobba and
Puppet are one and the same, but that doesn't
seem likely.)

wrote in message oups.com...
The judge me thing was not addressed to Hobba.

So what? Who is anyone to judge you? We are all
judging you based on the fact that you have been here
for so many years with so many names, posting the
same crap, without having learned one single iota.
You continue to show your bare bottom, and we
judge it. Were you born stupid, or did your mom
drop you from the stairs?

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Vdm ranted:]
So what? Who is anyone to judge you? We are all judging you
based on the fact that you have been here for so many years
with so many names, posting the same crap, without having
learned one single iota. [snip more of the same]

Cute little tantrum, Mr. Dirk Vdm!
Hope you're getting paid for all these little vendettas!

Contrary to your above malignant misinformation, I posted
something brand new in this very thread. (Of course, you
simply ignored it because you could not cope with it.)

To spare the serious readers from having to backtrack, I
will repeat that new thing he

Even prior to Einstein's definition of clock synchronization,
which he gave to newly and uniquely guarantee invariance &
isotropy for the one-way speed of light, Einstein himself said
that a certain frame found c for light's one-way speed, without
using Einstein's definition.

This particular frame was the embankment frame mentioned at the
following site:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Can sweet little Dirk Vdm tell us how Einstein's embankment frame
obtained c for light's one-way speed without first applying Einstein's
definition of clock synchronization?

wrote in message oups.com...
[Dirk Vdm ranted:]
So what? Who is anyone to judge you? We are all judging you
based on the fact that you have been here for so many years
with so many names, posting the same crap, without having
learned one single iota. [snip more of the same]

Cute little tantrum, Mr. Dirk Vdm!
Hope you're getting paid for all these little vendettas!

Contrary to your above malignant misinformation, I posted
something brand new in this very thread. (Of course, you
simply ignored it because you could not cope with it.)

To spare the serious readers from having to backtrack, I
will repeat that new thing he

Even prior to Einstein's definition of clock synchronization,
which he gave to newly and uniquely guarantee invariance &
isotropy for the one-way speed of light, Einstein himself said
that a certain frame found c for light's one-way speed, without
using Einstein's definition.

This particular frame was the embankment frame mentioned at the
following site:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Can sweet little Dirk Vdm tell us how Einstein's embankment frame
obtained c for light's one-way speed without first applying Einstein's
definition of clock synchronization?

If you want, you can go back yo my original reply.
Otherwise I'm afraid I won't be able to help you - if help
is what you want or need to begin with.

Dirk Vdm