Andro the CUNT snip and runs when proven wrong

[Lord Androcles]

You hold an untenable position, Henry. Experiments demonstrate
that lightspeed is invariant; consequently, it is the wavelength
that changes
with relative velocity.

You hold a mental patient's position for believing that there are
experiments
which show light sped to be invariant.

Since my position is in the majority, you are the one who will be
locked up
:-)
Enjoy your new home. Or perhaps you have been writing from there for
the last 20 years ....
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

So either Galileo was a crackpot or Baez is a cunt who ran away from
me.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.

So either Galileo was a crackpot or Baez is a cunt who ran away from
beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for v = 0.9994c,
beta = 1/sqrt(1-0.9994^2)
= 28.87184456102242327529861961622
Clever Michael Moroney agrees!
Speed of Astronaut in the frame of Sirius = distance /time
= 8.6 ly / 8.605 years = 0.9994c
Clever Michael Moroney agrees!
Speed of Sirius in the frame of Astronaut =( 8.6 * beta ) / (
8.605/beta) = 0.9994 * beta^2
= 834.7c
"Nothing can exceed the speed of light"
Stupid Mickey Moron doesn't like it. Stupid Mickey Moron wants his
own relativity to replace Einstein's. Stupid Mickey Moron ran away.
I already told you, this is wrong. Speed is distance/time, so you
can use either v=x/t or v=xi/tau. From Einstein's paper that you
don't quote enough, tau = beta(t-vx/c^2), xi=beta(x-vt), the betas
cancel.
If you want the speed of Sirius in the astronaut's frame, it is the
distance Sirius moves (8.6/gamma) divided by the time it took Sirius
to move that far (8.605/gamma). Or use symmetry, it's easier, it's
the same speed (w/sign change) as the speed of the astronaut in
Sirius' frame.
==============================================================
Go ahead, Clever Mickey Moroney, show v = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2) with your
Mickey Mouse algebra now that I've cancelled beta for you.
"Between the quantities x, t, and tau, which refer to the position of
the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
Loading Image...
Wanna see it done?
tau = beta(t-vx/c^2)
= (t- v.[vt] /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [substitute x for its value]
= (t- tvv /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [rearrange]
= t(1-vv /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [factorise t]
= t(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [vv = v^2]
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [ sqrt(q) = q/sqrt(q)]
= t /beta -- which is what Einstein said.
The betas don't cancel, they MULTIPLY.
xi=beta(x-vt) is an expansion, not a contraction!

It's neither. It is a transform of coordinates. But you can work out
whether that is going to give you a contraction or expansion of the
measured length. You would need to consider two different xi values
and see what x values they correspond to at a give time t and take the
difference ... that's the length of the moving object.
We have
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
and the transform
xi = gamma(x - vt)
Let's make the rest length of the object (in its own frame) as L, so
if we place one end at its origin, the end poitns are at xi_1 = 0 and
xi_2 = L and time t = 0
for xi_1 = 0, t = 0 we get x_1 to be
xi_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt)
0 = gamma(x_1)
x_1 = 0
========================================================
gamma is a close to 1 for v << c so we'll ignore it.

You don't need to ignore it there, moron . it doesn't appar in x_1 = 0

Loading Image...
for xi_1 = 0, x1 = vt so that vt - vt = 0.
for xi_2 = L, t = 0 we get x_2 to be
xi_2 = gamma(x_2 - vt)
L = gamma(x_2)
x_2 = L/gamma
==========================================================
gamma is a close to 1 for v << c so we'll ignore it.
x2 = xi2.

You can't ignore it, moron.

t doesn't stay at 0 for very long.
-vt vanishes into thin aether?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
x2 +vt = xi2

Rubbish

Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...
xi=beta(x-vt) is an expansion, not a contraction, because beta is
greater than 1.

No moron .. I just showed you it was a contraction. BUt you're too
dishoenst and stupid a little fuckier to even keep it in your reply.

You have to snipp out the proof that you're wrong instead of dea l with
it

What a DISGUSTING FUCKING CUNT YOU ARE.

======================================
Oooh, you are upset...
Nobody except you said anything at all about L, poor upset imbecile.
x' = (x-vt) * gamma
for x = 1,000,000 km and t = 10,000,000 hours, v = 0.1 kph,
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 /300,000 * 300,000 kph)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 / 90,000,000,000)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 1.11e-13)
= 1/sqrt(0.99999999999988888888888888888889)
= 1/ 0.99999999999994444444444444290123
= 1.0000000000000555555555555601852

which is close enough to 1 that I'll ignore it.

The coordinate transformation from 1,000,000 km to 0 km is
(1,000,000 - 10,000,000 * 0.1 ) * 1.0000000000000555555555555601852
at t = 10,000,000 hours.

Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...

So nice to see how upset you are.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Lord Androcles]

Post by Lord Androcles

You hold an untenable position, Henry. Experiments demonstrate
that lightspeed is invariant; consequently, it is the wavelength
that changes
with relative velocity.

You hold a mental patient's position for believing that there are
experiments
which show light sped to be invariant.

Since my position is in the majority, you are the one who will be
locked up
:-)
Enjoy your new home. Or perhaps you have been writing from there for
the last 20 years ....
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

So either Galileo was a crackpot or Baez is a cunt who ran away from
me.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.

So either Galileo was a crackpot or Baez is a cunt who ran away from
beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for v = 0.9994c,
beta = 1/sqrt(1-0.9994^2)
= 28.87184456102242327529861961622
Clever Michael Moroney agrees!
Speed of Astronaut in the frame of Sirius = distance /time
= 8.6 ly / 8.605 years = 0.9994c
Clever Michael Moroney agrees!
Speed of Sirius in the frame of Astronaut =( 8.6 * beta ) / (
8.605/beta) = 0.9994 * beta^2
= 834.7c
"Nothing can exceed the speed of light"
Stupid Mickey Moron doesn't like it. Stupid Mickey Moron wants his
own relativity to replace Einstein's. Stupid Mickey Moron ran away.
I already told you, this is wrong. Speed is distance/time, so you
can use either v=x/t or v=xi/tau. From Einstein's paper that you
don't quote enough, tau = beta(t-vx/c^2), xi=beta(x-vt), the betas
cancel.
If you want the speed of Sirius in the astronaut's frame, it is the
distance Sirius moves (8.6/gamma) divided by the time it took Sirius
to move that far (8.605/gamma). Or use symmetry, it's easier, it's
the same speed (w/sign change) as the speed of the astronaut in
Sirius' frame.
==============================================================
Go ahead, Clever Mickey Moroney, show v = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2) with your
Mickey Mouse algebra now that I've cancelled beta for you.
"Between the quantities x, t, and tau, which refer to the position of
the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

Post by Lord Androcles

Wanna see it done?
tau = beta(t-vx/c^2)
= (t- v.[vt] /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [substitute x for its value]
= (t- tvv /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [rearrange]
= t(1-vv /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [factorise t]
= t(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [vv = v^2]
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [ sqrt(q) = q/sqrt(q)]
= t /beta -- which is what Einstein said.
The betas don't cancel, they MULTIPLY.
xi=beta(x-vt) is an expansion, not a contraction!

It's neither. It is a transform of coordinates. But you can work out
whether that is going to give you a contraction or expansion of the
measured length. You would need to consider two different xi values
and see what x values they correspond to at a give time t and take the
difference ... that's the length of the moving object.
We have
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
and the transform
xi = gamma(x - vt)
Let's make the rest length of the object (in its own frame) as L, so
if we place one end at its origin, the end poitns are at xi_1 = 0 and
xi_2 = L and time t = 0
for xi_1 = 0, t = 0 we get x_1 to be
xi_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt)
0 = gamma(x_1)
x_1 = 0
========================================================
gamma is a close to 1 for v << c so we'll ignore it.

You don't need to ignore it there, moron . it doesn't appar in x_1 = 0

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.JPG
for xi_1 = 0, x1 = vt so that vt - vt = 0.
for xi_2 = L, t = 0 we get x_2 to be
xi_2 = gamma(x_2 - vt)
L = gamma(x_2)
x_2 = L/gamma
==========================================================
gamma is a close to 1 for v << c so we'll ignore it.
x2 = xi2.

You can't ignore it, moron.

t doesn't stay at 0 for very long.
-vt vanishes into thin aether?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
x2 +vt = xi2

Rubbish

Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...
xi=beta(x-vt) is an expansion, not a contraction, because beta is
greater than 1.

No moron .. I just showed you it was a contraction. BUt you're too
dishoenst and stupid a little fuckier to even keep it in your reply.
You have to snipp out the proof that you're wrong instead of dea l with
it
What a DISGUSTING FUCKING CUNT YOU ARE.
======================================
Oooh, you are upset...

Nope
=========================================

So nice to see how upset you are.

Nobody except you said anything at all about L, poor upset imbecile.
x' = (x-vt) * gamma
for x = 1,000,000 km and t = 10,000,000 hours, v = 0.1 kph,
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 /300,000 * 300,000 kph)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 / 90,000,000,000)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 1.11e-13)
= 1/sqrt(0.99999999999988888888888888888889)
= 1/ 0.99999999999994444444444444290123
= 1.0000000000000555555555555601852

which is close enough to 1 that I'll ignore it.

The coordinate transformation from 1,000,000 km to 0 km is
(1,000,000 - 10,000,000 * 0.1 ) * 1.0000000000000555555555555601852
at t = 10,000,000 hours.

Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...

Oooh, you are upset...

*plonk* for another year.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[YBM]

Post by Lord Androcles
x' = (x-vt) * gamma
for x = 1,000,000 km and t = 10,000,000 hours, v = 0.1 kph,
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 /300,000 * 300,000 kph)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 0.01 / 90,000,000,000)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 1.11e-13)
= 1/sqrt(0.99999999999988888888888888888889)
= 1/ 0.99999999999994444444444444290123
= 1.0000000000000555555555555601852
which is close enough to 1 that I'll ignore it.
The coordinate transformation from 1,000,000 km to 0 km is
(1,000,000 - 10,000,000 * 0.1 ) * 1.0000000000000555555555555601852
at t = 10,000,000 hours.
Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...

Yes Sir, as your calculations make no sense given the problem
of length contraction. You will die without having understood
what a coordinate transformation is, as will your fellow Robert
Winn, Ralph Rabbidge, etc.

Post by Lord Androcles
Oooh, you are upset...
*plonk* for another year.

You'll be dead in a Year, John Parker.

We all will celebrate the death of a disgusting stupid crank.

Kiss Wendy for us, and your offspring will know how stupid, dishonest,
and distusting John Parker was.

[J***@home..]

Post by YBM

Honours degree in delusions of grandeur...

Yes Sir, as your calculations make no sense given the problem
of length contraction. You will die without having understood
what a coordinate transformation is, as will your fellow Robert
Winn, Ralph Rabbidge, etc.

Oooh, you are upset...
*plonk* for another year.

You'll be dead in a Year, John Parker.
We all will celebrate the death of a disgusting stupid crank.
Kiss Wendy for us, and your offspring will know how stupid, dishonest,
and distusting John Parker was.

I would like to make it clear that not all Einstein lovers are low class jews
like YBM? He is a disgrace to our race. It was because of filth like YBM that
Hitler did what he did...