Lorentz Contraction programmed w/ graphics

Uncle Ben

2009-06-30 15:49:26 UTC

http://www.4shared.com/dir/17166012/1f190735/sharing.html
Excel spreadsheet programmed in
Visual Basic for Applications.
Download and run. Examine the code and see if it is correct!
Uncle Ben

The above is the replacement link to the updated Excel spreadsheet.
Uncle Ben
==============================================
Does "correct" mean in agreement with Lorentz or with Einstein?
It can't be both.
The sphere of radius R is the Earth rushing through the aether, the moving
frame k. The stationary frame K is the aether itself, and resists the
motion
of the Earth, compressing it and causing it to spiral into the Sun.
This one-sided compression is exactly what is needed to explain MMX,
which is on the surface of the moving sphere with radius R, in
Cleveland, Ohio.
The Moon too is compressed on one side and stirs the aether, it spirals
into the Earth. However, aether is so rigid no stirring by the Moon
causes the slightest turbulence.
The rigid fluid aether is the preferred frame at absolute rest, you see.
So all our clocks, which we built based on the position of the Sun in
the sky, are actually running on tau-time, and would go faster if we
stopped moving around the Sun. This is not a problem because the
Earth is the centre of the universe and is at absolute rest for all
relativists;
Einstein was the genius that took us back to Ptolemy and his epicycles.
Just think, if Einstein had written
1/2 [ tau(x',0,0,t) + tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(0,0,0, t+
x'/(c+v))
instead of
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
x'/(c-v))
he could have confused fuckwits like you even more, AND been in
agreement with Lorentz, instead of deriving the Einstein Expansion.
Oops, my mistake, you can't think, can you?
You are stunningly simple, Bonehead.

Well, we all have to live with our handicaps and limitations, I
suppose. I get the same result that all relativists get,
==============================================
Yes, all handicapped sheep will bleat the same "baa". They don't
have a clue about mathematics, though.
with which
you disagree, but at least from your point of view, the code is quite
trasparent and clear.
If it is wrong, as you say, you will quickly be able to point to my
error, probably in one line of code.
===============================================
I did, many times.
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] < tau(x',0,0,
t+x'/(c-v))
We establish by definition that the time for light to go from A to B
(a distance x' at speed c-v) equals the time it takes to go from B to A
(at speed c+v), don't we, Bonehead? We do because Einstein said so
and all the relativist sheep agree.
Oh wait... some don't.
It's simple: Einstein never said that. However, lunacy is certainly
something you know a lot about.
There's a relativist who denies Einstein ever derived the "Lorentz
transformations".
"He never said that at all. "
There's another relativist who denies Einstein ever derived the "Lorentz
transformations".
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
There's another relativist who denies Einstein ever derived the "Lorentz
transformations".
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
There's another relativist who denies Einstein ever derived the "Lorentz
transformations".
According to Bonehead Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956 Johns Hopkins "American
Redneck of Science"
"c+v is not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything"
There's another relativist who denies Einstein ever derived the "Lorentz
transformations".
"I get the same result that all relativists get" -- Bonehead Green.
There's your error, you bleated Einstein's "baa".
What you should really do is show time slows at the poles (or equator)
as Einstein says it does. That would be some impressive programming
to show off your "skills".
We establish by proof that Bonehead is an ignorant lying wanker and a
fuckwitted sheep.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I love you too, darling.