The Theory of Relativity should be unquestionably deemed erroneous.

[Rafael Valls]

On 14 ene, 16:04, "Androcles"

On 14 ene, 12:26, "Androcles"

On 14 ene, 08:28, "Androcles"

| On 14 ene, 01:27, "Androcles"
| >
| > Remember that the unknown distance cannot be known
without
a
| > clock.
| > Do not forget that the unknown distance cannot be
known
without
| > a clock.
| >
| Totally false. The distance between any two points of an
Euclidean
| space can be measured in principle using only a
measuring
rod
Remember that in principle you are a LYING bastard.
The distance to the Moon cannot be measured with a rod,
it is "remote from the watch".

Read the beginning of paragraph 1 of the 30Jun1905 Einstein
s
paper
with title Definition of Simultaneity .
================================
I did, it's a load of ignorant crap, totally false, and it
does
NOT
say distance is defined remote from the watch.

You read already the text where 1905 Einstein says very clear
that
it
is using Euclidean geometry and Cartesian co-ordinates.
=============================================
Irrelevant, we are discussing time (clock synchronisation).

<snip rant>
How can you say now that Euclidean geometry
and Cartesian co-ordinates are “irrelevant”?
===============================================
Because they have nothing whatever to do with time, you
imbecile.
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system
k
must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. "

You are violating the more elemental logic rules when referring
the
content of paragraph 3 if we are addressing the content of
paragraph
1.
============================================
Are you saying Einstein contradicts himself between SECTION 3
(not paragraph 3) and section 1? I'll agree, he was an idiot.

I am saying nothing about a 1905 Einstein’s contradiction.
=======================================
So you have nothing to say about SR. Fuck off.
More ever,
I am saying nothing about the content of section 3.
=======================================
MoreOVER, so you have nothing to say about SR. Fuck off.
You are the one
violating the natural order of things.
================================
Moreover, there is no "natural order" to discussion.

This is not your first time incurring in this elemental logic error
==================================
<Loading Image...>

I checked that img6 is [tB-tA=t’A-tB] in section 1.>
<Loading Image...>
I checked that img11 is [tB-tA=rAB/(c-v) and t’A-tB=rAB/(c+v)] in
section 2.

Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1

I explained to you
===========================
Fuck off, you couldn't explain swimming to a fish.

Thanks a lot for your continued attention and nice talking. You remain
being my favorite opponent in this group.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
============================================
You are a pushover. Verbose without substance.
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
[ If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not
accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it
is so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have
been put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
went to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there turns out to be nothing.]
The one thing you cannot do, Cuban, is present the evidence.

This is the third time I present to you the same evidence (always
{ I explained to you already what is your error
==============================================
I haven't made an error, and telling me I have isn't presenting any
evidence,
it is flaming. That gets a flame in return.
YOUR ERROR is not presenting the evidence, you STUPID FUCK!
NOW FUCK OFF!

The evidence is the 1905 text where your [r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v)]
(from where you derived 4=1) does not exist in any part.
What exist in section 1 is [tB-tA=t’A-tB], a LOGIC CONDITION for
synchronism. If TRUE the clocks are synchronized, if FALSE the clocks
are NOT synchronized.
What exist in section 2 is [tB-tA=rAB/(c-v) and t’A-tB=rAB/(c+v)],
from where we can derive that [tB-tA] is NOT equal to [t’A-tB] (4 is
NOT equal to 1), being then the clocks NOT synchronized.
The evidence is the 1905 text. Read it:
“Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light we find that
tB-tA=rAB/(c-v) and t’A-tB=rAB/(c+v)
where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod –measured in the
stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus
find that the two clocks were not synchronous.”
Your error is to assume that [tB-tA=t’A-tB] is valid ALWAYS.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[YBM]

...

As rAB/(c-v) is NOT equal to rAB/(c+v) in the situation considered,
1905 Einstein concludes that
(tB-tA) is NOT equal to (t’A-tB),
=============================================
Fuck off, you LYING cunt. I'm done with you.
--
*plonk*

Hum... John Parker has just realized he's been proven wrong again.