On Feb 27, 2:12 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 27 Feb, 04:12, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Using Euclidian you could not plot out the positions of the lightpulse
wavefront 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.

Oh maybe you can, but just refuse to because that would invalidate SR.

Except the nature of the proof is like saying since the sum of the
triangle's interior angles is less than 180 degrees in hyperbolic
geometry, hyperbolic geometry is wrong.

Using Euclidean geometry to "disprove" special relativity is
fantastically stupid and a bright shining beacon that brings attention
to your amazing stupidity.- Dölj citerad text -

j...@tele2.se> wrote in messagenews:1172520568.212797.36540@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

If you would understand the basics of analytic geometry
(taught at the age of 15 at school), you would understand
the remarks I made on that thread.
What is your age, Jonas?

Dirk Vdm- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

If you would understand the basics of analytic geometry
(taught at the age of 15 at school), you would understand
the remarks I made on that thread.
What is your age, Jonas?

Dirk Vdm- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Hello Dirk i just have a hard time to understand why everyone duck the
actual question.

j...@tele2.se> wrote in messagenews:1172671745.471308.258050@s48g2000cws..googlegroups.com...

On 26 Feb, 12:47, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

If you would understand the basics of analytic geometry
(taught at the age of 15 at school), you would understand
the remarks I made on that thread.
What is your age, Jonas?

Dirk Vdm- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Hello Dirk i just have a hard time to understand why everyone duck the
actual question.

I gave a few answers, but you just don't have what it takes to
understand them, so I will not bother trying to explain.

Dirk Vdm

SR supporters seem to take *ZERO* notice of symmetri when regarding
motion when they claim that light moves invariant in vaccum with a
velocity of 300 000 km.

Studying their argument a bit closer one find out that their group
velocity in Euclidian space actually end up to be Newtons c+v with
other clothes, in Minkowski spacetime.

Ships that pass an Euclidian cordinate systems origo along the x-axis
*AT DIFFERENT VELOCITIES* firing a lightpulse positive along the x-
axis at t0 will have different lengths of the light path in the
euclidian cordinate systems after 1 second AKA t1

In fact according to a t0 *OBSERVER IN ORIGO* they they will perfectly
match the Newtonian notion of c+v, and even c-v if ship pass origo
negative along the x-axis.

Just look at my my earlier thread velocity dependent trajectories and
you will see.

You see the diagonal argument does not just apply to lightpulses fired
along the y-axis, the argument is perfectly valid for lightpulses
fired along the x-axis the ships travelling direction if positive or
negative.

Best regard Jonas Thörnvall

On 27 Feb, 21:34, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Feb 27, 2:12 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 04:12, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Using Euclidian you could not plot out the positions of the lightpulse
wavefront 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.

Oh maybe you can, but just refuse to because that would invalidate SR.

Except the nature of the proof is like saying since the sum of the
triangle's interior angles is less than 180 degrees in hyperbolic
geometry, hyperbolic geometry is wrong.

Using Euclidean geometry to "disprove" special relativity is
fantastically stupid and a bright shining beacon that brings attention
to your amazing stupidity.- Dölj citerad text -

There is no stupidity involved in chosing the Euclidian space as
cordinate system for plotting event in space. You are the one who
claim spacetime exist and is curved AKA different worldlines "straight
lines" between A and B can have as many paths in spacetime.

Oh sorry i have hard to see your argument here, i think i lost you.

On Feb 28, 1:30 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:





On 27 Feb, 21:34, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:12 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

On 27 Feb, 04:12, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[...]

You couldn't figure out SR 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.
Minkowski space and Euclidean space are very, very different.
Minkowski space is the manifold that describes special relativity, and
Euclidean space is the manifold that describes Galilean relativity.

I suggest you stop posting to this newsgroup, because arguing from
ignorance will only get you laughed at.

Using Euclidian you could not plot out the positions of the lightpulse
wavefront 8 years ago, and it seems you still can't.

Oh maybe you can, but just refuse to because that would invalidate SR.

Except the nature of the proof is like saying since the sum of the
triangle's interior angles is less than 180 degrees in hyperbolic
geometry, hyperbolic geometry is wrong.

Using Euclidean geometry to "disprove" special relativity is
fantastically stupid and a bright shining beacon that brings attention
to your amazing stupidity.- Dölj citerad text -

There is no stupidity involved in chosing the Euclidian space as
cordinate system for plotting event in space. You are the one who
claim spacetime exist and is curved AKA different worldlines "straight
lines" between A and B can have as many paths in spacetime.

STOOOPID, choosing Euclidean space redefines the manifold of which you
are working. SR and Euclid are exactly as compatible as Euclidean and
Hyperbolic geometry.

[snip remaining garbage]- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On Mar 1, 12:05 am, j...@tele2.se wrote:

[snip sad insults]

Why are you getting so mad over a subject you don't understand?