The crackpots

[Henry Wilson, DSc]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:15:58 +0100, "Androcles"

It's clear his poor bloody partner was driven to drink, she should
have dumped him.
I didn't respond to his vitriol directly, I'd already plonked the bitter
bastard and would not have seen what he wrote had you not
answered him.

You must have had a very long and intimate knowledge
of Bill and all his family members to be able to come out
with such an array of unhesitant conclusions.
Alen
=========================================
Someone that unhesitatingly refers to "weak characters" can be
rapidly assessed. As to his family members, he said his partner
was a lush (for which we only have his word) and he remained
in the relationship for over 40 years. As to the vague "sexual
mistreatment by older sober members in AA of a deranged child",
what is a deranged child doing meeting older ex-lushes?
Let's just say I have had a long but not intimate knowledge of
weaseling weak characters just like him. They appear on third
rate TV shows displaying their woes for the public to see as they
wallow in self-pity, just as "Bill" is doing here. Poor Bill, his
childhood sweetheart got herself laid by someone she met at an
AA meeting, and sci.physics.relativity is just the forum to report
the matter as he sanctimoniously justifies his devotion to her.
Ok, he's holier than me and that's my ignorant fanatical opinion.
Now I'm crying crocodile tears.

Maybe you're too inexperienced

Maybe you need another glass of ozzie Shiraz, you old drunkard.

There are times when I do. I wont deny that.


Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

........the broad picture specialist.

[archie]

Einstein's x'/(c-v) was t = (x'+vt)/c because the reflector was

moving

away
frothe light. and x'/(c+v) was t=(x'-vt)/c because the light was

toward

the
origin which was moving toward it.
That is, c=c only.

So are you saying (x'+vt)/c = (x'-vt)/c = t and telling me that's a
fact,
or are telling me it's a fact that Einstein wrote it?

Of course not. Two separate times with no need to use different notation
since the discussion separated them.

Do you mean two DIFFERENT times?

Of course. The timeone way and then the time back.

Einstein says "We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless 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", so the two separate "times" ought to have
the same value. By his definition.

No. The TAUs of the two times, the t' values of the two times are supposed
to be the same.

The t values are "stationary" system measures, and they are not equal by
anyone's reckoning.

However Einstein did say: "But the ray moves relatively to the

initial

point
of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v

...".

The k system was the moving system, and that quote does use c+v.

It does, doesn't it?
The speed the ray is c-v (MEASURED, remember, so it has to be right)
and the speed of light is c in ALL frames of reference.
I conclude rays are not light.

How many of the Aunty Als noted that Einstein did say such a thing?
How many denided it?

You tell me... I'm just delighted to have discovered rays are not

light.

I've always thought they were rats, actually.

I recognize the sarcasm, but fact is Einstein's whole setup was NOT c+v,
but
as I showed, the two times were both distances the light travelled

divided

by c.

No you didn't, and I recognise the stupidity.
The only fact here is you are a babbling cretin and a complete moron.

thanks

Work it out for yourself, call the first one whatever you want, t1?

Fine, t1.

t1 = x'/(c-v)
t1(c-v) = x'
ct1 - vt1 = x'
t1 = (x' + vt1)/c

Ah well, now you have t1 on both sides. That won't do, will it?
Where did you learn algebra, from Einstein? In jail? Backwoods
of Alaska? Hmm... bellsouth... Louisiana swamps?
Smart enough to recognise sarcasm and stupid enough to
write that crap.
So I suppose
t2 = (x' - vt2)/c, right?

By George, you've got it!

Does t1 = t2? Only it's supposed to, you see.

Once again, no. The t values are stat sys values, and it is moving sys
values that are suposed to be equal.

Einstein says "We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless 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", so the two separate "times" ought to have
the same value. By his fuckin' stupid definition.

No common time for stat sys. Equal times in the moving system.

The measuring rod end started at x=x' and moved to x'+vt before the

light

hit it.

Which end?

Much the same for the other "half" time.

Much the fuckin' bullshitter, aren't you?
Fuck off, arsehole.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed,

There is indeed mercy in the world!

Archie