I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,

and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Why don't you just _learn_ the theory in question - then you'll be
able to criticise it on _valid_ grounds.

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

PD- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 1 Mar, 20:01, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

I did not ever had that idea, i had though the idea that the validity
is based on the "definition" that light travels invariant in space.

And that the invariant light is based on the faulthy math of SR that
apply Lorentz transformation upon the inertial frames. That do indeed
invalidate the measured lol *calculated* light velocities using
*humbug* meters and time that are both velocity and vector dependent
within the inertial frame.

I you try to tell me that a meter can be infinitlysmall and that 300
000 000 m of infinitsmalls that along with a dilated clock can be used
to ****calculate**** a velocity of relative light to 300 000 km and
state without a blink that this velocity propagation of light in empty
space is equivalent with a propagation of light in a none moving
inertial frame with proper meter and second, you have fucking good
nerves, but i still would have to smile.

JT

JT

A

On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 1 Mar, 20:01, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

I did not ever had that idea, i had though the idea that the validity
is based on the "definition" that light travels invariant in space.

Certainly not.
The way it worked (and works) is that it was *supposed* that light
speed is invariant (since that was consistent with every measurement
to date, even if it didn't seem to make sense), and then implications
of that supposition were worked out. These implications included
several predictions of measurable effects, including the expected size
of the effect to be measured. Then the measurements were in fact done
to find out how nature *really* behaves (regardless whether that seems
to make sense to us), and sure enough the measurements matched the
predictions, down to the right size of the effect. This is sufficient
to give credence to the supposition. That's how science works.

It's important to note that none of the *measurements* involve using
any Lorentz transformations or anything you would call "relativistic
math". They are straightforward measurements of ordinary quantities.

PD

And that the invariant light is based on the faulthy math of SR that
apply Lorentz transformation upon the inertial frames. That do indeed
invalidate the measured lol *calculated* light velocities using
*humbug* meters and time that are both velocity and vector dependent
within the inertial frame.

I you try to tell me that a meter can be infinitlysmall and that 300
000 000 m of infinitsmalls that along with a dilated clock can be used
to ****calculate**** a velocity of relative light to 300 000 km and
state without a blink that this velocity propagation of light in empty
space is equivalent with a propagation of light in a none moving
inertial frame with proper meter and second, you have fucking good
nerves, but i still would have to smile.

JT

JT

A- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 1 Mar, 21:04, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 1 Mar, 20:01, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

I did not ever had that idea, i had though the idea that the validity
is based on the "definition" that light travels invariant in space.

Certainly not.
The way it worked (and works) is that it was *supposed* that light
speed is invariant (since that was consistent with every measurement
to date, even if it didn't seem to make sense), and then implications
of that supposition were worked out. These implications included
several predictions of measurable effects, including the expected size
of the effect to be measured. Then the measurements were in fact done
to find out how nature *really* behaves (regardless whether that seems
to make sense to us), and sure enough the measurements matched the
predictions, down to the right size of the effect. This is sufficient
to give credence to the supposition. That's how science works.

It's important to note that none of the *measurements* involve using
any Lorentz transformations or anything you would call "relativistic
math". They are straightforward measurements of ordinary quantities.

PD

I tell you what if they actually were correct you would have no
problem plotting my diagram, but since it not you can not because my
diagram show without any doubts whatsoever that
Oooops this start to become a bad habit......

And that have actually never been measured, what have been established
is that the aether do not exist. The null result exclude an aehter
wind but not emitter dependent theories. The result say however
nothing about if photons travel in group velocity AKA invariant. And
of course light do not, the light in MMX was emitter dependent it
tells you nothing about what an approaching object or receding object
would measure the lighspeed to.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall





And that the invariant light is based on the faulthy math of SR that
apply Lorentz transformation upon the inertial frames. That do indeed
invalidate the measured lol *calculated* light velocities using
*humbug* meters and time that are both velocity and vector dependent
within the inertial frame.

I you try to tell me that a meter can be infinitlysmall and that 300
000 000 m of infinitsmalls that along with a dilated clock can be used
to ****calculate**** a velocity of relative light to 300 000 km and
state without a blink that this velocity propagation of light in empty
space is equivalent with a propagation of light in a none moving
inertial frame with proper meter and second, you have fucking good
nerves, but i still would have to smile.

JT

JT

A- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On 1 Mar, 21:04, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 1 Mar, 20:01, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

I did not ever had that idea, i had though the idea that the validity
is based on the "definition" that light travels invariant in space.

Certainly not.
The way it worked (and works) is that it was *supposed* that light
speed is invariant (since that was consistent with every measurement
to date, even if it didn't seem to make sense), and then implications
of that supposition were worked out. These implications included
several predictions of measurable effects, including the expected size
of the effect to be measured. Then the measurements were in fact done
to find out how nature *really* behaves (regardless whether that seems
to make sense to us), and sure enough the measurements matched the
predictions, down to the right size of the effect. This is sufficient
to give credence to the supposition. That's how science works.

It's important to note that none of the *measurements* involve using
any Lorentz transformations or anything you would call "relativistic
math". They are straightforward measurements of ordinary quantities.

PD

I tell you what if they actually were correct you would have no
problem plotting my diagram, but since it not you can not because my
diagram show without any doubts whatsoever that *Light travel
invariant through space*

And that have actually never been measured, what have been established
is that the aether do not exist.

The null result exclude an aehter
wind but not emitter dependent theories. The result say however
nothing about if photons travel in group velocity AKA invariant. And
of course light do not, the light in MMX was emitter dependent it
tells you nothing about what an approaching object or receding object
would measure the lighspeed to.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall





And that the invariant light is based on the faulthy math of SR that
apply Lorentz transformation upon the inertial frames. That do indeed
invalidate the measured lol *calculated* light velocities using
*humbug* meters and time that are both velocity and vector dependent
within the inertial frame.

I you try to tell me that a meter can be infinitlysmall and that 300
000 000 m of infinitsmalls that along with a dilated clock can be used
to ****calculate**** a velocity of relative light to 300 000 km and
state without a blink that this velocity propagation of light in empty
space is equivalent with a propagation of light in a none moving
inertial frame with proper meter and second, you have fucking good
nerves, but i still would have to smile.

JT

JT

A- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 1 Mar, 20:01, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:33 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote:

I understand now the latest interpretation of Einsteins theory of SR
only said lightspeed to be invariant in spacetime diagrams of
inertial
frames lol.'t

Yes of course how coulld i be so fucking stupid proving that light
travels variant in real space and that the approaching velocity
differ. That proves nothing, of course i have to prove it using a
spacetimediagram mad laugh hahahhhhaaaaahhhaaa.

Yeah it is a fucking charade isn't it, now Einstein only said that
lightspeed is invariant using inertial frames and spacetimediagrams,
and the parrots don't give a shit about that the receding
approaching
velocity of light is vector dependent using the inertial frames.

Well build a fucking spacetime simulator it will be very useful with
it's two objects lol hahahhaa, and you can play twincharades all
day.

GOING NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

JT

Ever try dropping the diagrams and doing an *experiment* to see which
diagram matches reality?

Where did you get the idea that the validity of relativity is based on
a diagram??

I did not ever had that idea, i had though the idea that the validity
is based on the "definition" that light travels invariant in space.

Certainly not.
The way it worked (and works) is that it was *supposed* that light
speed is invariant (since that was consistent with every measurement
to date, even if it didn't seem to make sense), and then implications
of that supposition were worked out. These implications included
several predictions of measurable effects, including the expected size
of the effect to be measured. Then the measurements were in fact done
to find out how nature *really* behaves (regardless whether that seems
to make sense to us), and sure enough the measurements matched the
predictions, down to the right size of the effect. This is sufficient
to give credence to the supposition. That's how science works.

It's important to note that none of the *measurements* involve using
any Lorentz transformations or anything you would call "relativistic
math". They are straightforward measurements of ordinary quantities.

PD

And that have actually never been measured, what have been established
is that the aether do not exist.

The null result exclude an aehter
wind but not emitter dependent theories. The result say however
nothing about if photons travel in group velocity AKA invariant. And
of course light do not, the light in MMX was emitter dependent

it tells you nothing about what an approaching object or receding object
would measure the lighspeed to.

And that the invariant light is based on the faulthy math of SR that
apply Lorentz transformation upon the inertial frames. That do indeed
invalidate the measured lol *calculated* light velocities using
*humbug* meters and time that are both velocity and vector dependent
within the inertial frame.

I you try to tell me that a meter can be infinitlysmall and that 300
000 000 m of infinitsmalls that along with a dilated clock can be used
to ****calculate**** a velocity of relative light to 300 000 km and
state without a blink that this velocity propagation of light in empty
space is equivalent with a propagation of light in a none moving
inertial frame with proper meter and second, you have fucking good
nerves, but i still would have to smile.

JT

JT

A- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -