Nice read:
   http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

   "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
    relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
    outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
    a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm

This message is brought to you by Androcles
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:c7e55ca7-cc7e-4fda-a4fb-c0b7b56b33c8@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 8:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7-8ddd-37252c2902fb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:bd058715-c3f3-4233-a3db-a0f6efeefdca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to
explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John
Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"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. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?

| He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

| He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
| time.'' 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 he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
| you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
| "time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
| transformations.

| If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
| one pal.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.

 "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

This message is brought to you by Androcles
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:6be73fad-8b8e-4cde-a29f-5920ef56534e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 9:47 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:c7e55ca7-cc7e-4fda-a4fb-c0b7b56b33c8@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 8:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7-8ddd-37252c2902fb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com....
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:bd058715-c3f3-4233-a3db-a0f6efeefdca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to
explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van
Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John
Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"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. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?

| He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

| He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
| time.'' 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 he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
| you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
| "time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
| transformations.

| If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
| one pal.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means
of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a
day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to
you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

| You have a comprehension problem.

So you have no answer and do not comprehend mathematics, anencephalous
cretin, hoping to resort to a flame war in your extreme embarrassment.
Not much different to Dork Van de merde the local village idiot, are you?

tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.

- Show quoted text -

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:c7e55ca7-cc7e-4fda-a4fb-c0b7b56b33c8@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 8:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7-8ddd-37252c2902fb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:bd058715-c3f3-4233-a3db-a0f6efeefdca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to
explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van
Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John
Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"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. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?

| He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

| He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
| time.'' 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 he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
| you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
| "time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
| transformations.

| If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
| one pal.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means
of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a
day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to
you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you.

rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.

And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.

All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.

If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:6be73fad-8b8e-4cde-a29f-5920ef56534e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 9:47 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:c7e55ca7-cc7e-4fda-a4fb-c0b7b56b33c8@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 8:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message

news:f8727f5d-478a-4cf7-8ddd-37252c2902fb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:bd058715-c3f3-4233-a3db-a0f6efeefdca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to
explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van
Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John
Farrell.

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to
me:
"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.
" -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?

| He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

| He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
| time.'' 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 he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
| you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
| "time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
| transformations.

| If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
| one pal.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid
lie.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name
is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible
and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the
means
of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a
day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to
you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

| You have a comprehension problem.

So you have no answer and do not comprehend mathematics, anencephalous
cretin, hoping to resort to a flame war in your extreme embarrassment.
Not much different to Dork Van de merde the local village idiot, are you?

tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to
you.

The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.

All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

Good grief! sci.physics.relativity actually got a direct
mention, no less!!! Imagine us having such an impact!

Never mind about the description of 'crackpots', 'cranks',
and the like.

That is nothing new. But a recognition of
the existence of a 'burgeoning' world of 'dissent', ourselves
included! That is really something!

And look at the final remarks in the article: that there
might actually be someone, working in obscurity, with
some valid new insight! A remarkable admission that
there might actually be someone who is
"NOT A CRACKPOT"!!!!! Incredible!

On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
many times on this NG already.

For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
mumbo-jumbo" variety.

Unlike those who got stuck early on some
elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
level: basic differential geometry.

Because of that he can easily
generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
layman.

Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
this stuff usually don't bother.

After all, it makes no difference.

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg