| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
 |
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:)
I already talked about this. In case you missed it, I said:
Such is the risk of being careless with terms. In colloquial usage,
there is no distinction made, and that>s where you get into trouble.
Back in Galileo>s day, centuries ago, people were just used to
referring to "the speed" of an object, as though it were just obvious
there is one and only one speed of a given object at a given time.
Galileo made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "speed
with respect to what?" Some folks -- like Spaceman -- still have
problems with that, as you can see. A hundred years ago, people were
just used to referring to "the length" of an object, as though it
were
obvious there is only one true length of an object. Einstein and
others made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "in
which
frame of reference?". Some folks -- like Spaceman -- think that if it
worked fine to be sloppy and casual about those terms for thousands
of
years, that we shouldn>t let some fool physicist change that.
[/quote]
Poor PD again can not grasp that just because the relative speed
of a car moving at 65 next to mine is 0, it has no bearing on
the reality that the car is moving at 65 according to anything it hits.
Again PD proves he sufffers from MSS,
Multiple Standard Syndrome.
and he appears to be non -curable.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference
frame, the length has a constant value. At the *same* time
in a different inertial reference frame, the length has a
different constant value.
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame, no
matter how hard he cries.
Well, unless something happens to compress the finger or lop it
off, like with an axe. And by "his own frame", I assume you mean
the inertial reference frame in which he is at rest.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born
into the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly
10cm. Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their
appendages side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily
checks his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm.
Meanwhile, Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s
appendage at 1cm. He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that
their fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length
contraction is about what gets measured for two objects in relative
motion, from a *single* reference frame, not in two different
reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly what
it says.
[/quote]
No it does not actually.
Again you prove you are completely brainwashed and suffering
from MSS.
You continue to prove you have no clue how to time things
properly, you have no clue about the most important function
of a clock, and of course you have no clue about "physical"
measurement.
[quote]
LOL
Poor PD, you are infected with MSS.
You really should seek help.
Before someone proves your brain is the size of 1 neuron only.
:)[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is
by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or
E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E, with relative
constant velocity v. It is easily shown that the new rate of
the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is equal to its old rate
(M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that the new rate of
clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1), or
E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial
frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is
already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of
time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is
like proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had
followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists
resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s
Theories of Relativity could mount up a better defense than
that typically employed by highly paid lawyers defending a
losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically or
experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in physical
science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient, since SR
claims something about physical reality. Mathematicians don>t
deal with physical reality, only logic. "Experimentally"
because no amount of experiments can ever prove a theory
correct; experiments can only support or subvert physical
theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it to
be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2 c)
in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects.
Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v,
and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
[/quote]
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
It is amazing you can figure this all out for anything except for waves
of light.
LOL |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:)
I already talked about this. In case you missed it, I said:
Such is the risk of being careless with terms. In colloquial usage,
there is no distinction made, and that>s where you get into trouble.
Back in Galileo>s day, centuries ago, people were just used to
referring to "the speed" of an object, as though it were just
obvious there is one and only one speed of a given object at a
given time. Galileo made it clear that you had to be more careful
and ask "speed with respect to what?" Some folks -- like Spaceman
-- still have problems with that, as you can see. A hundred years
ago, people were just used to referring to "the length" of an
object, as though it were
obvious there is only one true length of an object. Einstein and
others made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "in
which
frame of reference?". Some folks -- like Spaceman -- think that if
it worked fine to be sloppy and casual about those terms for
thousands of
years, that we shouldn>t let some fool physicist change that.
Poor PD again can not grasp that just because the relative speed
of a car moving at 65 next to mine is 0, it has no bearing on
the reality that the car is moving at 65 according to anything it
hits.
Not so. If the car moving at 65 mph hits a car moving at 62 mph in the
same direction, then the 5mph bumper will probably absorb the blow
just fine.
[/quote]
So the 0 it had in it>s own frame is yet again proven wrong.
You truly are lost PD.
Stuck in your "with reference to self" frame bullshit.
LOL |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference
frame, the length has a constant value. At the *same* time
in a different inertial reference frame, the length has a
different constant value.
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame,
no matter how hard he cries.
Well, unless something happens to compress the finger or lop
it off, like with an axe. And by "his own frame", I assume
you mean the inertial reference frame in which he is at rest.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born
into the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly
10cm. Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their
appendages side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity
of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring
Doug>s appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and
hastily checks his own appendage and is happy to know it is
still 10cm. Meanwhile, Doug peers into his telescope and
measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm. He double checks his own and
measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which
the appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their
'at rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to
the left, and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always
say that their fingers are equal based on the 'at rest'
measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length
contraction is about what gets measured for two objects in
relative motion, from a *single* reference frame, not in two
different reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly what
it says.
No it does not actually.
Ah, yes, it does. In experiment. Exactly.
[/quote]
Wrong as usual.
Not one single experiment has proven "length" contraction.
Poor PD, lying like the perfect con man he is. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1)
is by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M
(M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E, with
relative constant velocity v. It is easily shown that the
new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is equal to
its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old
rate (E1), or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial
frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense.
The defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is
already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of
time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is
like proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had
followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists
resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s
Theories of Relativity could mount up a better defense than
that typically employed by highly paid lawyers defending a
losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically
or experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in
physical science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient,
since SR claims something about physical reality.
Mathematicians don>t deal with physical reality, only logic.
"Experimentally" because no amount of experiments can ever
prove a theory correct; experiments can only support or
subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it
to be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2
c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the
assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a
confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
The photons were timed. Read the experiment.
They tied. Read the experiment.
The speed was c. Read the experiment.
[/quote]
Again, he parrots it all off with ignorance of gathering and posting
any actual facts of the experiment and just jumps on the rubber
ruler train!
LOL |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1)
is by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M
(M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E, with
relative constant velocity v. It is easily shown that the
new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is equal to
its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old
rate (E1), or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial
frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense.
The defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is
already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of
time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is
like proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had
followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists
resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s
Theories of Relativity could mount up a better defense than
that typically employed by highly paid lawyers defending a
losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically
or experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in
physical science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient,
since SR claims something about physical reality.
Mathematicians don>t deal with physical reality, only logic.
"Experimentally" because no amount of experiments can ever
prove a theory correct; experiments can only support or
subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it
to be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2
c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the
assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a
confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
[/quote]
I see nothing about an observer in motion.
I see they measured the speed from the source only.
Please enlighten me with a link that shows more about the
observers speed. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 6:41 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 11:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:31 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
confused
Let me rephrase the problem. Since most of the physicists seem to
have difficulty grasping an esoteric concept such as time, we will use
length. This is a geometric concept and it is easier to picture for
abstract-challenged minds. This is a valid analogy, as SR postulates
time changes with velocity as well as length changes.
Let me start with a simple example:
Dirk is standing in space. He extends his index finger in the +x
direction. There is a wart at the end of his finger, which is
stationary with the finger. The wart measures his finger as 10cm.
Now a neutrino passes by with v=0.995c going in the +x direction.
Using the Lorentz Transformation Equations, the neutrino measures
Dirk>s finger and notes it has contracted to 1cm. The wart makes
measurements at time=2,4,6,8,10 seconds. The neutrino makes
measurements at time=1,3,5,7,9 seconds.
Question: What happens to Dirk>s finger, does it alternate in size
from 1cm to 10cm to 1 cm to 10cm etc, as the neutrino and the wart
alternately make their measurements?
--------------
even if you intended to bypass the time problem
you cant get away with it
so the reality problem remains in the 'Time'
measurment!!
because time is always relative to some
chosen motion reference
and motion depends technically on 'time'
(the relative motion reference)
that its measuement is motion dependant!!
(it is not constant )!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
two words: space - time
one conclusion: equivalent
one advice: evolve- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
??????????
Y.P
----------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 6:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:)
I already talked about this. In case you missed it, I said:
Such is the risk of being careless with terms. In colloquial usage,
there is no distinction made, and that>s where you get into trouble.
Back in Galileo>s day, centuries ago, people were just used to
referring to "the speed" of an object, as though it were just
obvious there is one and only one speed of a given object at a
given time. Galileo made it clear that you had to be more careful
and ask "speed with respect to what?" Some folks -- like Spaceman
-- still have problems with that, as you can see. A hundred years
ago, people were just used to referring to "the length" of an
object, as though it were
obvious there is only one true length of an object. Einstein and
others made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "in
which
frame of reference?". Some folks -- like Spaceman -- think that if
it worked fine to be sloppy and casual about those terms for
thousands of
years, that we shouldn>t let some fool physicist change that.
Poor PD again can not grasp that just because the relative speed
of a car moving at 65 next to mine is 0, it has no bearing on
the reality that the car is moving at 65 according to anything it
hits.
Not so. If the car moving at 65 mph hits a car moving at 62 mph in the
same direction, then the 5mph bumper will probably absorb the blow
just fine.
So the 0 it had in it>s own frame is yet again proven wrong.
You truly are lost PD.
[/quote]
Nonsense. In its own frame, the car it collided with had all the KE.
It was, after all, moving at 3 mph in this frame.
I know this is all terribly confusing to you....
[quote]Stuck in your "with reference to self" frame bullshit.
LOL[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 6:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference
frame, the length has a constant value. At the *same* time
in a different inertial reference frame, the length has a
different constant value.
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame,
no matter how hard he cries.
Well, unless something happens to compress the finger or lop
it off, like with an axe. And by "his own frame", I assume
you mean the inertial reference frame in which he is at rest.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born
into the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly
10cm. Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their
appendages side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity
of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring
Doug>s appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and
hastily checks his own appendage and is happy to know it is
still 10cm. Meanwhile, Doug peers into his telescope and
measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm. He double checks his own and
measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which
the appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their
'at rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to
the left, and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always
say that their fingers are equal based on the 'at rest'
measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length
contraction is about what gets measured for two objects in
relative motion, from a *single* reference frame, not in two
different reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly what
it says.
No it does not actually.
Ah, yes, it does. In experiment. Exactly.
Wrong as usual.
Not one single experiment has proven "length" contraction.
[/quote]
Why, Spaceman, that>s simply not true. You have let your ignorance
drive you into the weeds.
> Poor PD, lying like the perfect con man he is. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 6:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1)
is by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M
(M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E, with
relative constant velocity v. It is easily shown that the
new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is equal to
its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old
rate (E1), or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial
frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense.
The defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is
already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of
time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is
like proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had
followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists
resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s
Theories of Relativity could mount up a better defense than
that typically employed by highly paid lawyers defending a
losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically
or experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in
physical science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient,
since SR claims something about physical reality.
Mathematicians don>t deal with physical reality, only logic.
"Experimentally" because no amount of experiments can ever
prove a theory correct; experiments can only support or
subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it
to be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2
c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the
assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a
confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
The photons were timed. Read the experiment.
They tied. Read the experiment.
The speed was c. Read the experiment.
Again, he parrots it all off with ignorance of gathering and posting
any actual facts of the experiment and just jumps on the rubber
ruler train!
LOL
[/quote]
The reference was given. There is no obligation by anyone to copy the
contents of that reference here. That is in fact copyright
infringement. Are you so insane that you expect people to break the
law for your convenience?
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 7:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1)
is by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M
(M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E, with
relative constant velocity v. It is easily shown that the
new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is equal to
its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old
rate (E1), or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial
frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense.
The defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is
already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of
time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is
like proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had
followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists
resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s
Theories of Relativity could mount up a better defense than
that typically employed by highly paid lawyers defending a
losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically
or experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in
physical science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient,
since SR claims something about physical reality.
Mathematicians don>t deal with physical reality, only logic.
"Experimentally" because no amount of experiments can ever
prove a theory correct; experiments can only support or
subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it
to be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2
c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the
assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a
confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
I see nothing about an observer in motion.
I see they measured the speed from the source only.
Please enlighten me with a link that shows more about the
observers speed.
[/quote]
The reference was given. You will have to remove your ass from the
chair. Sorry about that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:)
I already talked about this. In case you missed it, I said:
Such is the risk of being careless with terms. In colloquial
usage, there is no distinction made, and that>s where you get
into trouble. Back in Galileo>s day, centuries ago, people were
just used to referring to "the speed" of an object, as though it
were just obvious there is one and only one speed of a given
object at a given time. Galileo made it clear that you had to be
more careful and ask "speed with respect to what?" Some folks --
like Spaceman -- still have problems with that, as you can see. A
hundred years ago, people were just used to referring to "the
length" of an object, as though it were
obvious there is only one true length of an object. Einstein and
others made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "in
which
frame of reference?". Some folks -- like Spaceman -- think that if
it worked fine to be sloppy and casual about those terms for
thousands of
years, that we shouldn>t let some fool physicist change that.
Poor PD again can not grasp that just because the relative speed
of a car moving at 65 next to mine is 0, it has no bearing on
the reality that the car is moving at 65 according to anything it
hits.
Not so. If the car moving at 65 mph hits a car moving at 62 mph in
the same direction, then the 5mph bumper will probably absorb the
blow just fine.
So the 0 it had in it>s own frame is yet again proven wrong.
You truly are lost PD.
Nonsense. In its own frame, the car it collided with had all the KE.
It was, after all, moving at 3 mph in this frame.
So you think it was 0 and 3 instead of 65 and 62 like you orginally
stated.
[/quote]
There is no difference in the collision, which is how you said we
would know it was 65 and not 0, from the KE in the collision.
[quote]PD. you should make up your mind.
Is the 0 being used or the 62 being used for the lesser KE?
[/quote]
Neither the 0 or the 62 are being used for KE>s. KE>s aren>t speeds.
Do you need some basics? I can suggest something for you to read.
I do so enjoy keeping you busy making idiotic remarks.
[quote]Why do you wish to ignore the physicals and use a 0 instead?
[/quote]
I do so enjoy your insistence that the earth>s surface is the
reference for all "the physicals".
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial
reference frame, the length has a constant value. At
the *same* time in a different inertial reference
frame, the length has a different constant value.
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame,
no matter how hard he cries.
Well, unless something happens to compress the finger or lop
it off, like with an axe. And by "his own frame", I assume
you mean the inertial reference frame in which he is at
rest.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately
born into the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at
exactly 10cm. Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and
place their appendages side by side. They are exactly equal
at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant
velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring
Doug>s appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and
hastily checks his own appendage and is happy to know it is
still 10cm. Meanwhile, Doug peers into his telescope and
measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm. He double checks his own
and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which
the appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will
be *measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their
'at rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to
the left, and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can
always say that their fingers are equal based on the 'at rest'
measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length
contraction is about what gets measured for two objects in
relative motion, from a *single* reference frame, not in two
different reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly
what it says.
No it does not actually.
Ah, yes, it does. In experiment. Exactly.
Wrong as usual.
Not one single experiment has proven "length" contraction.
Why, Spaceman, that>s simply not true. You have let your ignorance
drive you into the weeds.
Poor PD.
He thinks length contraction has been physically proven!
LOL
[/quote]
Ah, you>re right. No experiment PROVES anything. However, there is
certainly experimental evidence of length contraction.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 11, 11:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1)
is by definition equal to the clock rate of M in frame M
(M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M now move with respect to E,
with relative constant velocity v. It is easily shown that
the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2) is
equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily
shown that the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is
equal to its old rate (E1), or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves
Special Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any
inertial frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense.
The defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz
transformation equations". The LTE however assumes
beforehand that SR is already correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the
so-called Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise
of time dilation is correct in its interpretation of the
result. 3) The last resort is to invoke General
Relativity. This is like proving a theorem A by invoking
corollary A, which had followed from the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the
relativists resort to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as
Einstein>s Theories of Relativity could mount up a better
defense than that typically employed by highly paid
lawyers defending a losing client.
Thanks.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically
or experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in
physical science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient,
since SR claims something about physical reality.
Mathematicians don>t deal with physical reality, only logic.
"Experimentally" because no amount of experiments can ever
prove a theory correct; experiments can only support or
subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown
it to be false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than
that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has
been attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ğ0 (~0.2
c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the
assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a
confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
The photons were timed. Read the experiment.
They tied. Read the experiment.
The speed was c. Read the experiment.
Again, he parrots it all off with ignorance of gathering and posting
any actual facts of the experiment and just jumps on the rubber
ruler train!
LOL
The reference was given. There is no obligation by anyone to copy the
contents of that reference here. That is in fact copyright
infringement. Are you so insane that you expect people to break the
law for your convenience?
The data and such is not copyright infringement.
[/quote]
Sure it is. That>s why libraries PAY for the journal subscriptions.
That>s why there are copyright notices prohibiting replication of the
content without express written consent from the publisher, printed in
the journals.
You really have no idea what you>re talking about, do you?
[quote]You are so fully of shit it is amazing you don>t just blow up
with a big bang of shit.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
