"stevendaryl3016@yah" wrote in
message ...
Androcles says...

It is when YOU have YOUR frames mixed up and YOU are MISQUOTING
Einstein, who does NOT specify the frame but apply it to ALL frames.

Here's what Einstein said:

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an
observer at A can determine the time values of
events in the immediate proximity of A by finding
the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
with these events. If there is at the point B of
space another clock in all respects resembling the
one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine the time values of events in the immediate
neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without
further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We
have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B,
for the latter cannot be defined at all unless 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. Let a ray of light
start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B,
let it at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the
direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time''
t'_A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize
if

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

He is clearly talking about time AS MEASURED by clocks at
points A and B.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says. There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary" frame
or a "moving " frame, those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it. You all sing the same tune, "LA!LA!LA!,
I can't hear you, snippety snip, oh how we can clip".

Up front we have an example of the PoR, the reciprocal dynamic action of
a conductor and a magnet, where "the observable phenomenon [here]
depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet",
something you are fully aware of when you correctly stated "Also, by
symmetry let the speed of frame G as measured in frame B also be v."


And as we found using your mosquito example
t_B- t'A = 16,
t'A - t_B = 4,
in at least one frame, because all we need do is scale 1 ft to 60,000
km.

So once again I'm asking (although really rhetorically), why does
Einstein think that in accordance with HIS definition the clocks at the
points in space A and B synchronize if 16 = 4 ?

We then must have, clearly, in agreement with experience, a cluster-
screw from a half-wit with a cluster of half-wits looking on, nodding
their empty heads and saying that is how Nature really works, as
measured by those that are sane enough to be called mathematicians and
physicists, including Newton, the genius that gave the imbecile Einstein
invariant, absolute time in ALL frames of reference, inertial or
otherwise, and fully supported the PoR as a true postulate, not to be
tampered with by prominent theoretical half wits.
Nature does not work by one man's imagination, no matter how imaginative
he is.


VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity


THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to
which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows,
or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight
lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.


[I'm not a child in school, neither are you, and all velocities
are relative to something. All things should be as simple as possible,
but not simpler]

At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is
the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum
of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours
during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour.

[Actually there are radio galaxies that are out of position with
respect to there optical counterparts, but this is not something
Einstein could have known in his lifetime. It is a minor point, however,
since the speed of radio emissions is very close to the speed of light,
so close as to be undetectable except over great distances]

By means of similar considerations based on observations of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion
of the body emitting the light.

[De Sitter was not able to show that, and Einstein was no
astronomer or mathematician. DeSitter assumed that what he saw was what
is there, and was debunked 40 years later]

The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on
the direction “in space” is in itself improbable.

[direction is an irrelevancy]

In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of
the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child
at school.

[There you have it. "Justifiably believed" by schoolchildren.
There is NO justification for belief, belief is not science. Michelson
justifiably believed he could measure the speed of light as the Earth
moved through the aether, and the justifiable belief was not justified.
Pretending 16 = 4 isn't going to justify it either. Even the child in
school is not going to swallow that candy, so it must be wrapped in
algebra that the child in school will not understand. ]


Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties?


[ Yes indeed. Who would have thought that 16 = 4 is so simply
wrong that Einstein got away with it for 100 years? ]

Let us consider how these difficulties arise.

[ "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." "Education is what remains after one
has forgotten everything he learned in school." "Imagination is more
important than knowledge." ]

Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light
(and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate
system).

[A universal frame]

As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall
imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent
along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will
be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let
us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as
that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us
inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative
to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration
of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the
man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man
relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light
relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with
respect to the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
[We did this with Sam, Joe and the mosquito]

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c.

[And u = c+v on the return]

But this result comes into conflict with the principle of
relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to
the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from
our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible.

[It IS impossible]

If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment
with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another
law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the
carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity.

[Then something, either the speed of light or the PoR must be
wrong, and it is NOT the PoR]

In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it
than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of
the propagation of light in vacuo.

[Einstein chooses the wrong one.]


Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion
are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of
relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is
so natural and simple.

[Yes, and the empirical data has been there all the time, but not
understood by DeSitter]


The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to
be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of
relativity.

[There is no "law" that the propagation of light in vacuo is
relative to a universal frame. The more complicated law is nothing more
complicated than the speed of light is source dependent, there is NO
aether. It is in fact a simpler law, because it IS the PoR and
automatically becomes self-compatible. Light is two waves, one electric
and the other magnetic, Gauss and Faraday have correctly given us curl
B= dE/dt, curl E = -dB/dt, no velocity needed]

The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we
cannot pursue this course.

[theoretical crap, created by Einstein himself. He said it: "We
can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them."]


The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on
the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies
show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of
electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence.

[ In agreement with experience, Poe and Perry sing the same tune
as McCullough, and Einstein and Lorentz did likewise. "We can't solve
problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created
them."]

Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to
reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no
empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this
principle.

[ No empirical data had been found. Actually, it was not
recognized, it was and still is there. The speed of light will, if
source dependent, produce the recurrent novae, cepheids, flare stars and
the so-called "eclipsing" variables, which it DOES]


At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As
a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space,
it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility
between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically
rigid theory could be arrived at.
[Provided 16 = 4]

This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to
distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later.
In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the
special theory of relativity.-- Einstein 1920


[Rehash of the 1905 paper in kiddy terms, playing puff-puff trains]

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:

He is clearly talking about time AS MEASURED by clocks at
points A and B.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says.

In section 1.

There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary"
frame
or a "moving " frame,

Because in section 1 there is no relative motion. There
is only one reference frame.

those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it.

Because Einstein introduces them in section 2, where
he explicitly calculates that the times in a non-
comoving frame are NOT the same in both directions.

And then he uses this result in section 3.

You see, 3 comes after 2, which in turn comes after
1. The material in section 3 is based not only on
1 but also on 2. And in 2 we have introduced the
concept of different points of view getting different
results.

In 3 (which comes after 2) the language of "moving
frame" and "stationary frame" are introduced. I think
even you, with your reading difficulties, will agree
that those words occur in section 3. You are correct
that they do not occur in section 1. However, what
does occur in 1 is the statement that the discussion
of "equal time" refers to clocks which are not in
relative motion to A or B. So although Einstein does
not use the actual words "stationary frame" in section
1, he is quite explicit in his statement that the clocks,
A and B are not in relative motion. In the language of
Einstein's section 3, they are all in the same frame
of reference.

A little more study will reveal that Einstein is not
making the ridiculous claim that x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v)
since section 2 derives those two quantities and
comments on their NON-EQUALITY.

- Randy

Androcles wrote:
[snip]
[Rehash of the 1905 paper in kiddy terms, playing puff-puff trains]

Androcles.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.


Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?

Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).

Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.

Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.

What people are saying to you is that

1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c

So

L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'

On the other hand,

L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c

Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?


Hey idiot Androcles,

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be

reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.

Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.

Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are ****ed,
idiot Androcles.

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are ****ed, idiot
Androcles.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-****ed psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.

Androcyst and logs:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...torSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles says...

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says. There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary" frame
or a "moving " frame, those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it.

Okay, let's take a step back. Randy Poe, and Perry, and I and
just about everyone who has ever studied relativity have one
understanding of the meaning of relativity. Our interpretation
is self-consistent and sensible. You, on the other hand, have
a different understanding of the meaning of relativity, and
according to *your* interpretation, relativity is inconsistent,
and is complete nonsense.

Once again, I ask: is it more likely that *you* made an error
and got nonsense because of your error, or is it more likely
that every other person who has studied relativity made an
error, and *accidentally* created a sensible, consistent theory
from Einstein's nonsense?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:

He is clearly talking about time AS MEASURED by clocks at
points A and B.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says.

In section 1.

Of course, ****wit.

There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary"
frame
or a "moving " frame,

Because in section 1 there is no relative motion. There
is only one reference frame.

****wit, if he doesn't mean all frames, you ain't a'gonna get no time
dilating Lorentz equations, no how no way. Trust me, you are fighting
yourself on that one.





those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it.

Because Einstein introduces them in section 2, where
he explicitly calculates that the times in a non-
comoving frame are NOT the same in both directions.

Read the other post, ****wit.


And then he uses this result in section 3.

You see, 3 comes after 2, which in turn comes after
1. The material in section 3 is based not only on
1 but also on 2. And in 2 we have introduced the
concept of different points of view getting different
results.

Read the other post, ****wit. I wrote the reply before this one.

In 3 (which comes after 2) the language of "moving
frame" and "stationary frame" are introduced. I think
even you, with your reading difficulties, will agree
that those words occur in section 3. You are correct
that they do not occur in section 1. However, what
does occur in 1 is the statement that the discussion
of "equal time" refers to clocks which are not in
relative motion to A or B. So although Einstein does
not use the actual words "stationary frame" in section
1, he is quite explicit in his statement that the clocks,
A and B are not in relative motion.

Nor are the ends of the rod or ladder, ****wit.

In the language of
Einstein's section 3, they are all in the same frame
of reference.

A little more study will reveal that Einstein is not
making the ridiculous claim that x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v)
since section 2 derives those two quantities and
comments on their NON-EQUALITY.

- Randy
Read the other post, ****wit.
Androcles.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
[Rehash of the 1905 paper in kiddy terms, playing puff-puff trains]

Androcles.

[snip crap]

Idiot.

Androcles

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.


Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?

Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).

Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.

Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.

What people are saying to you is that

1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c

So

L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'

On the other hand,

L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c

Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?


Hey idiot Androcles,

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be

reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.

Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.

Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are ****ed,
idiot Androcles.

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are ****ed, idiot
Androcles.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-****ed psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.

Androcyst and logs:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...torSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.


Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?

Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).

Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.

Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.

What people are saying to you is that

1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c

So

L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'

On the other hand,

L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c

Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?


Hey idiot Androcles,

http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be

reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.

Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.

Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are ****ed,
idiot Androcles.

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are ****ed, idiot
Androcles.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation. You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are ****ed, idiot Androcles.

Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-****ed psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.

Androcyst and logs:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...torSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Androcles says...

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says. There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary"
frame
or a "moving " frame, those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it.

Okay, let's take a step back. Randy Poe, and Perry, and I and
just about everyone who has ever studied relativity have one
understanding of the meaning of relativity. Our interpretation
is self-consistent and sensible. You, on the other hand, have
a different understanding of the meaning of relativity, and
according to *your* interpretation, relativity is inconsistent,
and is complete nonsense.

Once again, I ask: is it more likely that *you* made an error
and got nonsense because of your error, or is it more likely
that every other person who has studied relativity made an
error, and *accidentally* created a sensible, consistent theory
from Einstein's nonsense?

I don't know why you are asking me about psychology, sociology
and politics.
I have no training in those fields and have already told you that.
I'm talking physics and mathematics, not majority opinions.
If Hitler was a madman, why did the entire German nation follow him
and slaughter millions? If Hirohito wasn't a god, why did the Japanese
nation side with Germany?

"The imperial messages of Aug. 15, 1945, concluding hostilities in WORLD
WAR II , and of Jan. 1, 1946, declaring that the Emperor is a mortal,
were epoch-making events in the history of Japan."
http://www.ramskov.nu/krih/ww2/personer/hirohito.htm

There are wolves and there are sheep. Ewe, Poe and Perry are sheep.
There are more sheep than wolves, and I am but a fox in wolf's clothing.
Fox hunting is (today, 18th Feb, 2005, actually) banned by law in
England, but its still open season on sheep hunting. Just don't steal
anyone else's sheep.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4503561

The wolf Einstein told you that anyway.
"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must,
above all, be a sheep."

I don't even want to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own
reason for existing" and it kills lions, which are cats. Newton is *my*
lion, which is why I am Androcles.

Okay, let's take a step back 400 years. The Pope, the Cardinals and the
Bishops, and Tycho Brahe and just about everyone who has ever studied
astronomics have one understanding of the meaning of geocentricity.
Their interpretation is self-consistent and sensible and perfectly
predicts the positions of the planets. Copernicus, on the other hand,
had a different understanding of the meaning of astronomics, and
according to *his* interpretation, geocentricity is inconsistent, and is
complete nonsense; the planets do not move in epicycles and the earth is
not the centre of the universe.

Once again, ewe ask: is it more likely that *Copernicus* made an error
and got nonsense because of his error, or is it more likely that every
other person who had studied astronomy made an error, and
*accidentally* created a sensible, consistent theory from Ptolemy's
nonsense?

I think it is more likely that the Earth moves around the Sun and
Copernicus
was right than I think a flock of sheep were right and the Sun moves
around the Earth, even though the flock of sheep and ewe think ewe have
a sensible and consistent theory, and I don't think ewe are sensible.

Eat grass in the meadow, McCullough. I'm standing on the shoulder of the
giant's mountain and can see further than any fox before me, way over
the top of ewer meadow. It looks green enough down there, but up close
it is littered with sheep droppings.
I'm only inviting ewe to come and take a look, the view is magnificient,
but if ewe are afraid I'll eat ewe or are too lazy to make the climb
(which I agree is a difficult one), I'll have fun nipping at ewer heels
with only the puppy Dinky Van de boor-tel to stand watch over the entire
flock.
Leg of lamb will keep him occupied while I have my fun. He buries the
bones
at his website to bring them out on display.
Oh look, there is still some meat left on that one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rmalProof.html

Curiousity won't kill ewe, McCullough, it only kills cats and mountain
climbers.

Androcles.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count.

and uttered a jewel right in the midst of his spewing psychotic crap for
a change.

http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
is one of the only votes that count.

Here is the vote counting machine.

http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/V1493Aql.JPG

Androcles.