"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
It appears that there will be no valid rebuttal of the logical
refutation that I offered a few days ago.

[snip a load of waffle]

Can you please post your so-called argument more briefly and clearly ..
you waffle on too much.

I suspect if he/she did that then its weakness would be all too apparent.

Thanks
Bill

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 1:56 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"dlzc" wrote in message

...
Hello Androcles:

On Dec 27, 10:48 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: You will rant about how ignorant you are, how you
: refuse to comment on-group or even on-thread, and
: you will please go away?

Why don't YOU go away, Smiffy?
You are ignorant, rude, useless, refuse to answer
sensibly and constantly whine about your precious
"charter", and you appear to be a ****ing queer
too, "Dear" Smiffy. Are you a poofter, Smiffy? An
arse bandit? Eh?

: Coming from you, Androcles, this is high praise.
: Thank you very much.

You don't know praise from a question, Smiffy.
Are you queer, Smiffy, or just peculiar?
You certainly don't discuss physics or mathematics in
any logical manner with the gentleman and he hasn't
been rude to you personally, even though he's upset
your crank religion. I'll do it for him. You are a
hypocritical disgusting arsehole, Smiffy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_t...istency_proofs


Wackypedia isn't Einstein's paper.


: ... his assertions were trivally disproven, as they are inconsistent
: in even 2D Euclidiean space. If you are interested in the layout of
: such a challenge, I can certainly provide it.

: But I realize that you are only interested in sniping... so keep on
: keeping on.


Einstein's assertions are trivially disproven, as they are inconsistent
in even 2D Euclidean space.
But I realize that you are only interested in sniping... so keep on
keeping on.

Have another snipe.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice. I'd be grateful if this subscriber or any
other would point out to me a post showing that the falsehood of Q
does not follow from principle of non-contradiction. Q is the
following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in Ausralia and another
in America, are correctly claimed by one party to be simultaneous and
by another not simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this proposition are
not contradictory.

Apparently the subscriber is thinking of several posts that discussed
the non-contradiction of different uses of terms such as "left," and
likened the two appearances of the term "simultaneous" in Q to these.
Yet of course such defenses fail, since, as I have shown at some
length, obviously Q is not like these. As I have explained hitherto,
this interpretation of the doctrine of the "relativity of
simultaneity" would trivialize it. The theory does not make the
trivial claim that the term "now" differs in sense in different
applications, like the term "left" or other relative terms, or, for
that matter, the term "cat." Rather, the theory claims (by
implication) that the two car crashes of Q may be both simultaneous
and not simultaneous in precisely the *non-trivial* sense, since,
unlike the different uses of term "left" or "cat," the claims of both
parties of Q *have the same referent.*

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

So again, I (patiently) await an argument rebutting the logical
refutation of SR. If it attacks the second premise, "Not Q," on the
ground of equivocation in the term "simultaneous," then I expect
citations from pertinent texts and coherent explication showing that
the doctrine of the relativity of simultaneity, as expounded by
Einstein and other principal advocates of SR, is to be understood in
the trivial rather than the non-trivial sense of the term
"simultaneous."

Have fun. ;-)

G. Harnett

Dear gharnett:

wrote in message
...
Q is the following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in
Ausralia and another in America, are correctly claimed
by one party to be simultaneous and by another not
simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this
proposition are not contradictory.

"one party" = "simultaneous"
"another [party]" = "not simultaneous"

Not contradictory, since it is two different situations. Two
different observers, and two different measurements (namely the
separation in time of the *observation* of the two events, one
zero separation, one non-zero separation).

David A. Smith

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

You really are full of **** .. it is leaking repeatedly into your replies.

wrote in message
...

Lets see if I can distill down all this verbosity

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice. I'd be grateful if this subscriber or any
other would point out to me a post showing that the falsehood of Q
does not follow from principle of non-contradiction. Q is the
following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in Ausralia and another
in America, are correctly claimed by one party to be simultaneous and
by another not simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this proposition are
not contradictory.

Ok .. so because the time that distant event happens depends on your frame
of reference, you think that means SR doesn't work.

Let me show you how your 'logic' is wrong by applying the same logic to the
simpler pre-relativity physics

If you have a ball bouncing up and down in a train (with not forward motion
in the train) then from an observer on the ground, the ball DOES move with
forward motion. So you have the ball both not moving forward, and moving
forward, at the same time. Therefore physics is wrong.

Did I miss something out there?

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
: Dear gharnett:
:
: wrote in message
: ...
: Q is the following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in
: Ausralia and another in America, are correctly claimed
: by one party to be simultaneous and by another not
: simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
: terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this
: proposition are not contradictory.
:
: "one party" = "simultaneous"
: "another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
:
: Not contradictory, since it is two different situations. Two
: different observers, and two different measurements (namely the
: separation in time of the *observation* of the two events, one
: zero separation, one non-zero separation).
:



The only separation in time is the finite speed of signal on its way
to the observer, not the events themselves. No observer is
part of the statement "the lightning crack of thunder and the
flash of light are simultaneous", although to a remote observer
they are not observed simultaneously.
Hence "one party" = "simultaneous"
"another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
is a contradictory statement, there being only one event observed
by both light and by sound. Science is objective, not subjective.
Further hence you are an idiot of the first order, arse bandit Smiffy.

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
: Dear gharnett:
:
: wrote in message
:
...
: Q is the following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in
: Ausralia and another in America, are correctly claimed
: by one party to be simultaneous and by another not
: simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
: terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this
: proposition are not contradictory.
:
: "one party" = "simultaneous"
: "another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
:
: Not contradictory, since it is two different situations. Two
: different observers, and two different measurements (namely the
: separation in time of the *observation* of the two events, one
: zero separation, one non-zero separation).

The only separation in time is the finite speed of signal on its way
to the observer, not the events themselves.

So you assert. LT (which is shows experimentally to be a better model than
the gallilean transforms) says otherwise.

No observer is
part of the statement "the lightning crack of thunder and the
flash of light are simultaneous",

Yes .. it is .. implicitly.

although to a remote observer
they are not observed simultaneously.

It doesn't matter if the observer is remote .. the position of an observer
within a given frame of reference makes no difference to when the events
happened within that frame .. only when they are physically seen (or heard
etc) by an observer. Sr says there is an actualy difference (not just a
perceived one) between the time events happen realtive to one frame vs
relative to another.

Hence "one party" = "simultaneous"
"another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
is a contradictory statement,

No .. it is not .. unless the two observerse are at teh same location.

there being only one event observed
by both light and by sound.

So you are saying no matter where you are, or how you are moving, you will
perceive (eg via light or sound) that the two separated events are
simultaneous?

Science is objective, not subjective.

Yes .. yet your biases and religious dis-belief in SR blinds you to reality.

Further hence you are an idiot of the first order, arse bandit Smiffy.

Charming as always

wrote in message
...
In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice. I'd be grateful if this subscriber or any
other would point out to me a post showing that the falsehood of Q
does not follow from principle of non-contradiction.

The refutation followed. The fact you obviously ignored it speaks volumes.

Q is the
following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in Ausralia and another
in America, are correctly claimed by one party to be simultaneous and
by another not simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this proposition are
not contradictory.

Then you noticed incorrectly. Exactly as Tom said - a person in a building
is up for one observer and down for another. The fact that up and down are
contradictory concepts in the sense they can not be true simultaneously for
the same observer, yet can be different for different observers, is not a
contradiction. Exactly the same for simultaneous.

Bill


Apparently the subscriber is thinking of several posts that discussed
the non-contradiction of different uses of terms such as "left," and
likened the two appearances of the term "simultaneous" in Q to these.
Yet of course such defenses fail, since, as I have shown at some
length, obviously Q is not like these. As I have explained hitherto,
this interpretation of the doctrine of the "relativity of
simultaneity" would trivialize it. The theory does not make the
trivial claim that the term "now" differs in sense in different
applications, like the term "left" or other relative terms, or, for
that matter, the term "cat." Rather, the theory claims (by
implication) that the two car crashes of Q may be both simultaneous
and not simultaneous in precisely the *non-trivial* sense, since,
unlike the different uses of term "left" or "cat," the claims of both
parties of Q *have the same referent.*

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

So again, I (patiently) await an argument rebutting the logical
refutation of SR. If it attacks the second premise, "Not Q," on the
ground of equivocation in the term "simultaneous," then I expect
citations from pertinent texts and coherent explication showing that
the doctrine of the relativity of simultaneity, as expounded by
Einstein and other principal advocates of SR, is to be understood in
the trivial rather than the non-trivial sense of the term
"simultaneous."

Have fun. ;-)

G. Harnett

On Dec 27, 11:34*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in ...
: Dear gharnett:
:: wrote in message

...
: Q is the following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in
: Ausralia and another in America, are correctly claimed
: by one party to be simultaneous and by another not
: simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
: terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this
: proposition are not contradictory.
:
: "one party" = "simultaneous"
: "another [party]" = "not simultaneous"
:
: Not contradictory, since it is two different situations. *Two
: different observers, and two different measurements (namely the
: separation in time of the *observation* of the two events, one
: zero separation, one non-zero separation).
:

The only separation in time is the finite speed of signal on its way
to the observer, not the events themselves.

You have apparently never understood the point that two observers,
even AFTER taking into account the finite speed of light and their
distances from two separated events, can disagree on whether the
two events are simultaneous.

Imagine the following scenario: You are involved in a first car
crash and are 9,314 miles from a second car crash. You see the
second crash 0.0500 seconds after the first, therefore you conclude
that the second car crash happened at exactly the same time as your
own accident. You evidently believe that ALL observers of the two
crashes, after taking into account their distances from the two
events and the finite speed of light, and performing the trivial
computation to compensate for the time delays in their witnessing
the events, must come to the same conclusion that you did.

Is that not so?

[snip totally irrelevant comment about a completely different
scenario]

Jerry