Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?

[JT]

Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the
honest
one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly
stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!!

    Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER
been
    an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JmanNo42?feature=mhw4#p/a/f/1/evcIPAXPhNY
The candy man rules...
Oooooh it feels just like it should.....
JT

   Jonas--Take a read of this A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/-
D lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

Well you should have read it i really think critical right now i am
most critical to a moron coming in to a thread stating, i have not
read any of it, but it is wrong. I do not read any of it but it
wrong.
I will not read any of it but is wrong.
I do not fucking need your field guide i need you to get a properly
working brain.
I had 178 in IQ last time i measured there is some critical thinking
in the box.
I do not repeat dogma, do not learn by heart, i do not parrot, i
evaluate and think about subjects.
Regarding relativity i am done, i do not use turd meters i prefer
units.

You're a moron and a liar.  It shows- D�lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

You really beleive that the distances shift just because you change
point of view in a cordinate system.

They don't shift.  Moving observers measure differently because their
clocks
settings are different.  WE know about these clocks differences
experimentally

Basicly you are ***crazy*** the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation.

That is exactly what I have been telling you is the case in SR

I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try
to lie.

Neither
You are clearly doing both.

You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse
backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c

No .. at c.  Light does not 'fire' at anything other than c.

Oh so if it is fired at c in both opposite direction and also in the
vector of motion.
An object at 0.9999999999 c and fire the lightpulse at c towards and
***instantly*** the pulse start to move at 3 cm/s relative object. And
the backward pulse move 299 999,99997 km/s.

Oh everyone should notice ***INERTIAL*** just ***reinvented*** the
Lorentz aether...
I always thought Einstein dismissed it and that Michel Morley
disproved it........

have a  spatial separation  to
the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial
separation bacward that is  299 999.9997 km backwards.

That is what some other observer may measure .. because the source has moved
after the light was emitted.

You are an idiot distances is not observer dependent they are based on
units and globally valid. Your fucking turd universe have zero spatial
extension at c.

And this discrepancy just get bigger the more time elapse,

No .. it stays in the same proportion unless the object the emitted the
light pulse changes its velocity again.  What it does after it emits the
light does not change the light

No fuck you want to claim ROS but the discrepancy is in ***DISTANCE***

this
separation is same for every observer using units,

NO .. it is not.

YES IT IS STUPID FUCK WHO DO NOT USE UNITS, I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT
ECDT ***IT DOES NOT MEASURE SHIT***
I USE UNITS TO MEASURE THE SEPARATION BACWARD AND FORWARD.

And it is what i say it is afer one second, a minute, an hour, a day,
a year...

JT

it has nothing todo
with relativity of simultanity.

Yes .. it does

That is not invariant light.

Yes .. it is

This have been known since Euclid...........

And it hasn't changed in SR

Bwahahahaha 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in SR after one second,

Noone says 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in any theory

YES YOU DID ABOVE ANYONE CAN USE THE CRAYONS AND CHALKBOARD
THE WAY YOU SUGGESTED B-A always the same for any speed of C and D in
my scenario.

If A and B was 300 000 km apart "spatially separated.
C and D travel towards system A ->B and fire lightpulses when they
parallel on each side of A.

C travel at 0.0000000001 c and D travel at 0.9999999999 c

Now the spatial separation after 1 second when both lightpulses reach
B.

D's spatial separation relative the lightpulse when it reach B is 3
cm.
C's spatial separaton relative the lightpulse when it reach B is 299
999,99997 km.

You are a liar....................

****have not changed in SR bwahahhhahahha****

"the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation."

YOU ARE A LIAR AND AN IDIOT FUCKING USE YOUR CHALKBOARD AND CRYONS.

That is is correct in SR.  However, it does affect what the moving observer
will measure as the distance between them due to differences in clock
settings

YOU ARE AN IDIOT DISTANCES ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVERS THEY ARE
DEPENDENT UPON SPATIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN OBJECTS.

3 cm <> 299 999,99997 km understood?????????

But somehow was forgotten under the reign of Einsteinian physic.

No .. you simply don't understand enough of SR to know.- Dölj citerad
text -

Oh  yes i do better than you.

No .. as you keep making false statements about it.  Go try to learn some
physics instead .. maybe you are just enough not-quite-a-moron-yet and can
be saved.  But I doubt it.- Dölj citerad text -

Well at least i perform logic stringent lines of thougt...............

- Visa citerad text -

[JT]

Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the
honest
one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly
stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!!

    Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER
been
    an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JmanNo42?feature=mhw4#p/a/f/1/evcIPAXPhNY
The candy man rules...
Oooooh it feels just like it should.....
JT

   Jonas--Take a read of this A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/-
D lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

Well you should have read it i really think critical right now i am
most critical to a moron coming in to a thread stating, i have not
read any of it, but it is wrong. I do not read any of it but it
wrong.
I will not read any of it but is wrong.
I do not fucking need your field guide i need you to get a properly
working brain.
I had 178 in IQ last time i measured there is some critical thinking
in the box.
I do not repeat dogma, do not learn by heart, i do not parrot, i
evaluate and think about subjects.
Regarding relativity i am done, i do not use turd meters i prefer
units.

You're a moron and a liar.  It shows- D�lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

You really beleive that the distances shift just because you change
point of view in a cordinate system.

They don't shift.  Moving observers measure differently because their
clocks
settings are different.  WE know about these clocks differences
experimentally

Basicly you are ***crazy*** the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation.

That is exactly what I have been telling you is the case in SR

I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try
to lie.

Neither
You are clearly doing both.

You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse
backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c

No .. at c.  Light does not 'fire' at anything other than c.

Well you did prove in the second scenario that the lightpulses
relative C and D travelled different distances.

A and B are at rest and spatially separated 300 000 km apart. They
have lightsensors.

Emitter C travels at 0.0000000001 c and emtitter D travels at
0.9999999999 c towards the *restsystem * "A and B".
Now at the moment C and D are on each side of A they both fire a
lightpulse.

***********************************************************************************************
According to ***INERTIAL*** both lightpulses will travel parallel all
the way from
"A to B" ***YOU REMEMBER*** you claimed in other setup Y(B-A)=X(B-A)
where X and Y is emission moments at different veliocities for C. And
B-A are the recorded passby as recorded by lightsensors
************************************************************************************************
So now i did gave some numbers for the velocities of C an D and now we
can calculate how far the light travelled relative each emitter C and
D at the moment that the pulses pass lightsensor B.

When the lightpulse from D hit the lightsensor of B, object D is just
3 cm behind pulse(And B).
So the lightpulse have moved 3 cm relative D.

When the lightpulse from C hit the lightsensor of B, object C is 299
999,99997 km behind pulse (And B).

As you all can see this is not invariant and it have nothing todo with
ROS this is spatial separation, differing after some elapsed time.

So lightpulse D have moved 3 cm relative D.
So lightpulse C have moved 299 999,99997 km relative C.

That is hardly invariant.

have a  spatial separation  to
the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial
separation bacward that is  299 999.9997 km backwards.

That is what some other observer may measure .. because the source has moved
after the light was emitted.

No distances is not about observation it is about what the actual
spatial separation is between two objects. It has nothing spatial
separation have none whatsoever todo with observers.

And this discrepancy just get bigger the more time elapse,

No .. it stays in the same proportion unless the object the emitted the
light pulse changes its velocity again.  What it does after it emits the
light does not change the light

I do not know what proportion you suggest, if ***S*** denotes seconds
the spatial separation between will be S * 3 cm and S * 299 999,99997
cm after S seconds.

this
separation is same for every observer using units,

NO .. it is not.

The distance is not decided using observation it is the material
physical spatial separation between two objects. The distance between
the moon and earth is what it is it have nothing todo with the
observer it uses invariant ***UNITS*** not ECDT.

it has nothing todo
with relativity of simultanity.

Yes .. it does

No it has not....

That is not invariant light.

Yes .. it is

No it is not 3 cm is not equal to 299 999,99997 km

This have been known since Euclid...........

And it hasn't changed in SR

Oh see above mwahahahahahahha

Bwahahahaha 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in SR after one second,

Noone says 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in any theory

Well you said above bwahahahahhah

****have not changed in SR bwahahhhahahha****

"the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation."

No it does not see above, anyone can read your idiocies.

That is is correct in SR.  However, it does affect what the moving observer
will measure as the distance between them due to differences in clock
settings

I do not give a shit i do not measure ECDT turds i use units. 3 cm <>
299 999,99997 km.

But somehow was forgotten under the reign of Einsteinian physic.

No .. you simply don't understand enough of SR to know.- Dölj citerad
text -

Oh  yes i do better than you.

No .. as you keep making false statements about it.  Go try to learn some
physics instead .. maybe you are just enough not-quite-a-moron-yet and can
be saved.  But I doubt it.- Dölj citerad text -

Well you do not use units you do not deal with physics.

JT

- Visa citerad text -

[JT]

Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the
honest
one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly
stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!!

    Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER
been
    an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JmanNo42?feature=mhw4#p/a/f/1/evcIPAXPhNY
The candy man rules...
Oooooh it feels just like it should.....
JT

   Jonas--Take a read of this A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/-
D lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

Well you should have read it i really think critical right now i am
most critical to a moron coming in to a thread stating, i have not
read any of it, but it is wrong. I do not read any of it but it
wrong.
I will not read any of it but is wrong.
I do not fucking need your field guide i need you to get a properly
working brain.
I had 178 in IQ last time i measured there is some critical thinking
in the box.
I do not repeat dogma, do not learn by heart, i do not parrot, i
evaluate and think about subjects.
Regarding relativity i am done, i do not use turd meters i prefer
units.

You're a moron and a liar.  It shows- D�lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

You really beleive that the distances shift just because you change
point of view in a cordinate system.

They don't shift.  Moving observers measure differently because their
clocks
settings are different.  WE know about these clocks differences
experimentally

Basicly you are ***crazy*** the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation.

That is exactly what I have been telling you is the case in SR

I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try
to lie.

Neither
You are clearly doing both.

You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse
backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c

No .. at c.  Light does not 'fire' at anything other than c.

have a  spatial separation  to
the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial
separation bacward that is  299 999.9997 km backwards.

That is what some other observer may measure .. because the source has moved
after the light was emitted.

Distances is not about observations it is about spatial separation
between two objects, and the distance is same for any observer.

And this discrepancy just get bigger the more time elapse,

No .. it stays in the same proportion unless the object the emitted the
light pulse changes its velocity again.  What it does after it emits the
light does not change the light

Well if S denotes seconds then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for
D, and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.

Take this example: A and B are lightsensors, C and D emitters

System A and B are at rest, spatially separated 300 000 km apart
C travels at 0.0000000001 and D at 0.9999999999 towards system "A ->
B"

When they at same moment T(E) are on each side of A both fire a pulse.

When the both pulses at same moment, reach B they will travel parallel
there according to ***INERTIAL***.

The separation between D and lightpulse is 3 cm
The separation between C and lightpulse is 299 999,99997 km

That is not invariant, and for each second passed the distances will
follow....

If S denotes seconds, then the spatial separation is S * 3 cm for D,
and 299 999,99997 km for C after S seconds.

That have nothing soever todo with ROS.

this
separation is same for every observer using units,

NO .. it is not.

Yes distances are distances using units, they are not settled upon
observation.
Between A and B are only one distance 300 000 km.

it has nothing todo
with relativity of simultanity.

Yes .. it does

Bwahahahah S * 3 cm = S * 299 999,99997 km because of ROS bwahahahahah

That is not invariant light.

Yes .. it is

Bwahahahah

This have been known since Euclid...........

And it hasn't changed in SR

Bwahahahaha 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in SR after one second,

Noone says 3 cm = 299 999, 99997 km in any theory

Bwhahahahahah see your example above.

****have not changed in SR bwahahhhahahha****

"the spatial separation remains just the
same beween two objects the obeservers velocity do not affect their
spatial separation."
That is is correct in SR.  However, it does affect what the moving observer
will measure as the distance between them due to differences in clock
settings

Distances is not settled upon observation it is measured using
invariant units, distances is the spatial separation between objects
when using invariant units.

But somehow was forgotten under the reign of Einsteinian physic.

No .. you simply don't understand enough of SR to know.- Dölj citerad
text -

Oh  yes i do better than you.

No .. as you keep making false statements about it.  Go try to learn some
physics instead .. maybe you are just enough not-quite-a-moron-yet and can
be saved.  But I doubt it.- Dölj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -

[p***@gmail.com]

Bwahahahahahaha!
x'1 = (x1-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x1-vt = x'1 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x1 = x'1*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vt
Get back in your graveyard, zombie Rios!

So..Androfart, what again is the length of a pole?
================================================
Well this is the last time I respond to your idiocies. You are to old
and dumb to be here wasting our time.
Papa bozo is too stupid to manage simple schoolboy algebra!
"It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' --  
Einstein.
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Moving clocks run slow, moving rods get LONGER, dumbfuck who has been around
universities for 40 years, cleaning the toilets because he never learned
schoolboy algebra! Get back in your graveyard, dead zombie Rios, you
stoooooooooopid arsehole!

Book worthy...

Again, what is the length of that pole you have deep into your
asshole???
You have to use toilet paper instead of your bare hands to take it
out...your eyes are full of shit and therefore it is clear you can't
even read your prescriptions.

Let us see if you learn something. We know you are too stupid
but....you never know.

Suppose there is a pole at rest in the K system, parallel to the X
axis. Let its length, measured in this system, be L = x2 – x1 (where
x2 and x1 are the coordinates of the two ends of the pole in the K
system). Again, stupid Andro, the length of the pole is L = x2 – x1
(where x2 and x1 are the coordinates of the two ends of the pole in
the K system).
We now determine the length L' of this pole as measured in the K'
system. To do this, we must find the coordinates of the two ends of
the pole (x2’ and x1’) in this system at one and the same time t'.
From the LTE we find:

x1 =gamma*(x1’ + Vt’)
x2 =gamma*(x2’ + Vt’)

The length of the pole in the K' system is then L' = x2’ – x1’ ;
subtracting x1 from x2, we find

(x1-x2) =gamma(x1’-x2’)

Then

x1’-x2’=(x1-x2)/gamma

since gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), it follows that

L'=L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

So you see old ignorant, the moving pole is SHORTER. Again the moving
pole is SHORTER. Now fuck off you stupid arse...

Miguel Rios