Prev: What does a gluon look like?
Next: Length Expansion, not Real?
From: buenno on 24 Apr 2010 04:59
relativity is the only theory i know requiring
effort to understand

i have no problem with the other theories, like
entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so
on, but only relativity

you cant just come here and say you understand
relativity without effort, because you need to put
effort in it in order to understand

relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 06:02

"buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> relativity is the only theory i know requiring
> effort to understand
>
> i have no problem with the other theories, like
> entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so
> on, but only relativity
>
> you cant just come here and say you understand
> relativity without effort, because you need to put
> effort in it in order to understand
>
> relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real

Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult
is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation.
Consider a rod, length 1, at rest.
This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of
1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that
length "contraction".
The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of
7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2).

The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math
doesn't lie.





From: buenno on 24 Apr 2010 06:13
On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring
> > effort to understand
>
> > i have no problem with the other theories, like
> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so
> > on, but only relativity
>
> > you cant just come here and say you understand
> > relativity without effort, because you need to put
> > effort in it in order to understand
>
> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real
>
> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult
> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation.
> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest.
> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of
> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that
> length "contraction".
> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of
> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2).
>
> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math
> doesn't lie.

thanks for your input

allow me to ask, which formulas you derive
and use in your calculation

and please, explain what the eventually symbols
stands for, in details
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 06:40

"buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
news:cac76c0d-a489-446e-b127-56b64d944949(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> wrote:
>> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring
>> > effort to understand
>>
>> > i have no problem with the other theories, like
>> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so
>> > on, but only relativity
>>
>> > you cant just come here and say you understand
>> > relativity without effort, because you need to put
>> > effort in it in order to understand
>>
>> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real
>>
>> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult
>> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation.
>> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest.
>> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of
>> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that
>> length "contraction".
>> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of
>> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2).
>>
>> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math
>> doesn't lie.
>
> thanks for your input
>
> allow me to ask, which formulas you derive
> and use in your calculation

Not my calculation, the idiot Einstein's calculation:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
where
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif


>
> and please, explain what the eventually symbols
> stands for, in details

Greek letters refer to the "moving" frame, Roman letters refer to
the "stationary" frame, primed Roman letters refer to the other
"moving" frame.

Refer to http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The other moving frame uses x' = x-vt.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF

The idiot Einstein didn't understand he was combining functions,
he was hopeless at mathematics.







From: buenno on 24 Apr 2010 07:18
On Apr 24, 12:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cac76c0d-a489-446e-b127-56b64d944949(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> > wrote:
> >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring
> >> > effort to understand
>
> >> > i have no problem with the other theories, like
> >> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so
> >> > on, but only relativity
>
> >> > you cant just come here and say you understand
> >> > relativity without effort, because you need to put
> >> > effort in it in order to understand
>
> >> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real
>
> >> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult
> >> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation.
> >> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest.
> >> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of
> >> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that
> >> length "contraction".
> >> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of
> >> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2).
>
> >> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math
> >> doesn't lie.
>
> > thanks for your input
>
> > allow me to ask, which formulas you derive
> > and use in your calculation
>
> Not my calculation, the idiot Einstein's calculation:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
> where
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
>
>
>
> > and please, explain what the eventually symbols
> > stands for, in details
>
> Greek letters refer to the "moving" frame, Roman letters refer to
> the "stationary" frame, primed Roman letters refer to the other
> "moving" frame.
>
> Refer tohttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> The other moving frame uses x' = x-vt.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF
>
> The idiot Einstein didn't understand he was combining functions,
> he was hopeless at mathematics.

beta is a scaling factor to time in
that paper, i cant understand

what stands your beta for exactly?

what was the prerequisites of Einstein,
bachelor in physics?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: What does a gluon look like?
Next: Length Expansion, not Real?