sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 17, 6:54=A0am, "Androcles" wrote:

> Don't you know how to judge for yourself?
>
> Catch 22:
> =A0http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> =A0http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
>
> specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were=

> real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
> "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he ha=
d
> to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and woul=
d
> have to fly more missions.
>
> "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
> was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
> to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
>
> In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c =3D (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
> the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
> use c+v.
>
> Troll kooks such as
>
> Uncle Schwartzschit,
> Blind Poe,
> Moron McCullough,
> Humpty Roberts,
> Phuckwit Duck Draper,
> Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
> Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
> Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
> Ghost ewill,
> Goosey Gisse,
> Wanker Olson,
> Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
> Fecal Jekyll,
> Bilewacky,
> Dork Van de merde et. al.
> fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
>
> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
>
> between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
> shown here:
> =A0http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
>
> Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
> moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
>
> Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
> If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
> you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is =A0petitio principii, circularity.=

> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>
> c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
> part where Einstein screws up is:
> '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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
>
> What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
> reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
> in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
>
> =A0http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=3DtBA.gif
>
> Here are some mathematical proofs:
> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
>
> Not included are
> Proof by "because I say so",
> Proof by "everybody knows",
> Proof by "it is written",
> the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
> but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
> indoctrination like lemmings.
>
> Catch 22:
> =A0http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> =A0http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> Prediction:
> =A0The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
> proof.
>
> RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
>
> RULE I.
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both tru=
e
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
>
> To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
> and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
> simplicity,
> and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
>
> -- Sir Isaac Newton
>
> ["tj Frazir"]
> =A0If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 yea=
r.
>
> ["CWatters"]
> Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
> hammer.
> Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?
>
> [Androcles]
> Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
> of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit =
to
> the speed of sound in a material body.
> Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
> not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
> an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
> space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
> atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
> and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
> the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
> rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.
>
> "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
> have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
> black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.
>
> [1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.

Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

nade