"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v, whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must
be
greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.



He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then
SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the
velocity transform is the identity).

Yeah, that's right. If it were false, the event of the muon meeting the
ground
would not be simultaneous with the event of the ground meeting the muon.


You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and
ass-picking?

Yes, you are a psychotic, ineducable, boring ass-picker and a phuckwit.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles.



= 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma
= 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort,
which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

|
| I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
| what "velocity" means.
| As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
| BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
| I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v, whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not, the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think you "got" it.




He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then
SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the
velocity transform is the identity).

Yeah, that's right. If it were false, the event of the muon meeting the
ground
would not be simultaneous with the event of the ground meeting the muon.

Simulataneity is a term that is reserved for two events, and that
description is observer-dependent.



You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and
ass-picking?

Yes, you are a psychotic, ineducable, boring ass-picker and a phuckwit.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles.



= 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma
= 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort,
which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

|
| I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
| what "velocity" means.
| As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
| BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
| I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|

PD wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v, whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
Answer: cuckoo transform.
Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck?
Answer: cuckoo transform.

You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck?
You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea
how Einstein derived his relativity, no idea of what is meant
by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic.
Androcles.





It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not, the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think

I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck.
Now **** off.
Androcles.

wrote:
PD wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v, whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
Answer: cuckoo transform.
Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck?

Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the
ground.
Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior.

Answer: cuckoo transform.

You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck?

I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant.

You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea
how Einstein derived his relativity,

Neither do you. You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's
neither here nor there.

no idea of what is meant
by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic.
Androcles.





It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not, the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think

I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck.
Now **** off.
Androcles.

Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
PD wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"

wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course
Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it
means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that
it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating
information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the
double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other
things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also
Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly.
SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding
c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are
thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I
suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for
2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v,
whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it
must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
Answer: cuckoo transform.
Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck?

Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the
ground.
Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior.

The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be
hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like.



Answer: cuckoo transform.

You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck?

I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant.

Here's the cuckoo transforms, Phuckwit Duck.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot?
Answer the ****ing question, moron.

You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea
how Einstein derived his relativity,

Neither do you.
Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as
stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it.
You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole.


You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's
neither here nor there.

**** off, you ****. You don't understand it, so you say it's irrelevant.
****ing moron!




no idea of what is meant
by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic.
Androcles.





It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere
is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of
the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not,
the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is
not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way
you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100
km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the
top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to
read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think

I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck.
Now **** off.
Androcles.

Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk.
Go ahead, arsehole, I'm having fun right now, I've got
an arrogant idiot that doesn't know v = dx/dt, what
a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines
he knows any physics.

Androcles.

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message . uk...

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:

[snip]

| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.


| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)
= 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma
= 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort,
which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

For those who might be (;-) interested in Androcles' major errors:

1) He writes
dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s

Error:
dx = 100km (height of atmosphere)
in the Earth frame
dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
in the muon frame
v = [ dx/dt = ] 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
meaningless: distance in Earth frame
divided by time in muon frame

Since in what follows he will use this v as if it is the velocity
of the muon in the Earth frame, he should have taken the
measured lifetime of the muon in the Earth frame. This is of
course not 2.2 usec.
Anyway, these values dx and dt are the distance and time
intervals between two events taking place *on* the muon,
as measured in the Earth frame.
Since these events take place on the muon, these events
obviously satisfy the equation
d(xi) = 0
which is consistent with the Lorentz transformation equation
d(xi) = ( dx - v dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
combined with
v = dx/dt

2) He then writes
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

That should of course be
d(xi) = ( dx - v dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
d(tau) = ( dt - v dx/c^2 ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which becomes, when looking at two events *on* the muon,
and therefore filling in the velocity v = dx/dt:
d(xi) = 0
d(tau) = dt * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

These give the distance and the time covered by the muon
in the muon frame, so obviously we get
d(xi) = 0
since the muon does not cover any distance in its own frame.
For the time we get
d(tau) = dt * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is a lifetime that is much shorter than what we measured
on Earth.
When we divide these quantities, we obviously get the velocity
d(xi)/d(tau) = 0
which gives the velocity zero of the muon in its own frame.

If Androcles' 2.2 usec was supposed to be the characteristic
lifetime of the muon in its own rest frame, then it is clear that he
should have written
d(tau) = 2.2 usec.

The above equation can then be written as
dt = d(tau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which gives a much longer lifetime as seen in the Earth frame.
This is what is called "time dilation of the moving muon".

Obviously we can't make the calculation, because we
don't know what v is.
Indeed, in the transformation equations
d(xi) = ( dx - v dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
d(tau) = ( dt - v dx/c^2 ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
only 3 quantities dx, d(tau) and c were given, which leaves us
with 2 equations with 3 unknowns dt, d(xi) and v.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in
message ...

For those who might be (;-) interested in what [Moortel] is all
about..........

You think stalking me in other NGs is gonna get rid of me in this one, think
again, **** for brains. I've pretty much ignored your anger, bitterness, and
general small mindedness for nearly a year now, but I post just a couple of
messages here lately and you come and stalk me not only here, but in other NGs?



What's the point of that, Van Moortel? Did I strike a nerve way back then? Was
outing you as the bitter, lowly, immoral, pathetic old man all that hurtful?



Does my mere presence remind you of the fact that you have no life and no claim
to fame and that you've accomplished nothing in your pathetic life? Is that why
you've posted here for so long and devoted yourself to McCarthy-like tactics to
silence those who challenge you? Is it because this is all you have, and to
have it challenged in any way would destroy the only reason you have for
continuing to waste fresh air?



Well, think again, asshole. Whatever your motive in going after me for
absolutely no reason could possibly have been, it backfired. I'm not going
anywhere, cum breath. Deal with it. I'm going to re-devote myself to exposing
you for the empty shell of a person you really are.

AllYou! wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in
message ...

For those who might be (;-) interested in what [Moortel] is all
about..........

You think stalking me in other NGs is gonna get rid of me in this one, think
again, **** for brains. I've pretty much ignored your anger, bitterness, and
general small mindedness for nearly a year now, but I post just a couple of
messages here lately and you come and stalk me not only here, but in other NGs?



What's the point of that, Van Moortel? Did I strike a nerve way back then? Was
outing you as the bitter, lowly, immoral, pathetic old man all that hurtful?



Does my mere presence remind you of the fact that you have no life and no claim
to fame and that you've accomplished nothing in your pathetic life? Is that why
you've posted here for so long and devoted yourself to McCarthy-like tactics to
silence those who challenge you? Is it because this is all you have, and to
have it challenged in any way would destroy the only reason you have for
continuing to waste fresh air?



Well, think again, asshole. Whatever your motive in going after me for
absolutely no reason could possibly have been, it backfired. I'm not going
anywhere, cum breath. Deal with it. I'm going to re-devote myself to exposing
you for the empty shell of a person you really are.

AllYou!, if you have something to add to the *content* of this thread,
please do so. Otherwise, you are violating the posting standards of
this group.

PD

Androcles wrote:

Androcles, you really must get a real newsreader. Your attribution
flags are broken, and it's hard to tell who said what. Please fix, or
at some point it won't be worth sorting out your messages.

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
PD wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"

wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course
Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it
means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that
it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating
information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the
double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other
things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also
Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly.
SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding
c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are
thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I
suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for
2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v,
whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it
must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
Answer: cuckoo transform.
Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck?

Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the
ground.
Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior.

The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be
hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like.

The cuckoo transforms are *coordinate* transforms, not length and
duration transforms. Lengths are defined as spatial coordinate
differences taken at the *same* time, and durations are defined as time
coordinate differences taken at the *same* place.

Yes, indeed, the cuckoo transforms change both the time and space
coordinates. This does not mean that length and time will change for
the *same* object as seen by the *same* observer. This is Luttgen's
mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake.




Answer: cuckoo transform.

You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck?

I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant.

Here's the cuckoo transforms, Phuckwit Duck.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot?
Answer the ****ing question, moron.

Look, if you have two events and
I^2 = Dx^2 - (c*Dt)^2 is invariant, so that it is also equal to
D(x')^2 - (c*D(t'))^2, then yes, if Dx changes to Dx', then Dt will
change to Dt'.
But then the question to ask is, which one is length contraction, and
which one is time dilation, as seen by which observer?


You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea
how Einstein derived his relativity,

Neither do you.
Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as
stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it.

No you don't. You assume that scintillator paddles can slow down muons
to a hair less than c, regardless of the thickness of the paddle and
regardless of the momentum of the muon, and you'd rather hold that up
as a charming little mystery than to try to understand relativity.

You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole.


You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's
neither here nor there.

**** off, you ****. You don't understand it, so you say it's irrelevant.
****ing moron!




no idea of what is meant
by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic.
Androcles.





It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere
is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of
the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not,
the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is
not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way
you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100
km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the
top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to
read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think

I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck.
Now **** off.
Androcles.

Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk.
Go ahead, arsehole, I'm having fun right now, I've got
an arrogant idiot that doesn't know v = dx/dt, what
a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines
he knows any physics.

And you on the other hand, are happy to use dx from one frame and dt
from another frame to calculate v=dx/dt in either frame, and uses the
cuckoo transforms in the same way, and then hasve the arrogance to say
that he knows what they mean and what's wrong with them. This is akin
to you shearing off a bolt head by cranking the wrong direction with a
wrench and then proclaiming that you've discovered what's wrong with
the wrench.


Androcles.

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

Androcles wrote:

Androcles, you really must get a real newsreader. Your attribution
flags are broken, and it's hard to tell who said what. Please fix, or
at some point it won't be worth sorting out your messages.

Yeah, one these days...


"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
PD wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine"

wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course
Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it
means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that
it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating
information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the
double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other
things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also
Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly.
SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding
c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are
thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I
suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for
2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.

Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v,
whatever
t is.
In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it
must
be

Why would it be see by us to be length contracted?
Answer: cuckoo transform.
Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck?

Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the
ground.
Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior.

The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be
hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like.

The cuckoo transforms are *coordinate* transforms, not length and
duration transforms.

x-vt is a length, Phuckwit Duck. You know **** all, you ranting moron.
http://www.freefarts.com

Androcles.






Lengths are defined as spatial coordinate
differences taken at the *same* time, and durations are defined as time
coordinate differences taken at the *same* place.

Yes, indeed, the cuckoo transforms change both the time and space
coordinates. This does not mean that length and time will change for
the *same* object as seen by the *same* observer. This is Luttgen's
mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake.




Answer: cuckoo transform.

You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck?

I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant.

Here's the cuckoo transforms, Phuckwit Duck.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot?
Answer the ****ing question, moron.

Look, if you have two events and
I^2 = Dx^2 - (c*Dt)^2 is invariant, so that it is also equal to
D(x')^2 - (c*D(t'))^2, then yes, if Dx changes to Dx', then Dt will
change to Dt'.
But then the question to ask is, which one is length contraction, and
which one is time dilation, as seen by which observer?


You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea
how Einstein derived his relativity,

Neither do you.
Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as
stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it.

No you don't. You assume that scintillator paddles can slow down muons
to a hair less than c, regardless of the thickness of the paddle and
regardless of the momentum of the muon, and you'd rather hold that up
as a charming little mystery than to try to understand relativity.

You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole.


You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's
neither here nor there.

**** off, you ****. You don't understand it, so you say it's irrelevant.
****ing moron!




no idea of what is meant
by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic.
Androcles.





It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere
is
*moving*, but not to us on the ground.

For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of
the
falling muon is not 2.2 usec.

For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not,
the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is
not
100 km.

greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit?
I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations.

Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way
you
misapply them, too.


xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100
km.
Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit?
(snort).



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the
top of
the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math.

Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable.

Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax?

Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to
read his
****.
I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention
assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago.
Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow
phuckwits disagree with you.

I don't think so. I don't think

I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck.
Now **** off.
Androcles.

Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk.
Go ahead, arsehole, I'm having fun right now, I've got
an arrogant idiot that doesn't know v = dx/dt, what
a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines
he knows any physics.

And you on the other hand, are happy to use dx from one frame and dt
from another frame to calculate v=dx/dt in either frame, and uses the
cuckoo transforms in the same way, and then hasve the arrogance to say
that he knows what they mean and what's wrong with them. This is akin
to you shearing off a bolt head by cranking the wrong direction with a
wrench and then proclaiming that you've discovered what's wrong with
the wrench.


Androcles.