Science and Technology news... :: View topic - when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativity ca

doug · Guest

Spaceman wrote:

[quote]doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:33 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:03 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

Poor PD, he thinks a clock with a different local rate

I didn>t say "different local rate".
SAME local rate.

Wrong.
The clocks prove they have different local rates when they
get back together and show different times on thier faces.
Again you are either an ingorant idiot, or a con man.

No, when they are together, they have identical rates. When they
are NOT local to each other is when they have different NONlocal
rates. However, their LOCAL rates are the same.

Total bullshit and they have not done such is proven when they
return together.
You truly prove you have no clue about precision timing.
LOL

I know this is confusing to you. Always has been.

Bullshit on top of bullshit that time.

Translation: He has no clue what is going on so he just
blusters. What do you think -1 x -1 is now?

It is equal to your brain capacity in the amount
of thought processes you can run at once.

Still don>t know then?

The answer has been given.
The answer is 1 using the basic rules of math.
The answer is - 1 using the basic logic of reality.
[/quote]
As usual, you are wrong. The answer is +1 no matter how
much you dislike it. It is funny to watch you squirm
and try to deny reality. Keep it up.

[quote]Apparently you can not grasp such logic since you
still say apples times apples will equal oranges.
:)

[/quote]

Spaceman · Guest

doug wrote:
[quote]Spaceman wrote:
The answer has been given.
The answer is 1 using the basic rules of math.
The answer is - 1 using the basic logic of reality.

As usual, you are wrong. The answer is +1 no matter how
much you dislike it. It is funny to watch you squirm
and try to deny reality. Keep it up.
[/quote]
So you say apples time apples = oranges
but oranges time oranges = more oranges.
You are in denial, not me.
LOL

PD · Guest

On Oct 13, 9:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the internet
that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.
[/quote]
Sorry, Spaceman, just because I>ve done the work does not entitle you
to having it spoonfed by me to you. In this case, it is *entirely*
reasonable to expect you to look it up, just like everyone else. STOP
WHINING. It>s unbecoming and makes you look even more like a lazy,
worthless, low-life that couldn>t get anything accomplished if he
tried.

[quote]So far all I see is a bunch of lies and con man games from him.
And of course a little cheerleader named Doug.[/quote]

PD · Guest

On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Why do you have the expectation that people have to clamor to teach
you?

I only expect when people state facts that they can back them up with
examples.
It is called science.
[/quote]
No sir. Spoonfeeding is not science. In science, people can state
facts and provide pointers to where the examples are and expect the
others to LOOK THEM UP. Grow up.

[quote]But of course.. We all know you are not into science.
You are into scifi where you can state anything you want and it
is law just because you say it.
LOL[/quote]

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Why do you have the expectation that people have to clamor to teach
you?

I only expect when people state facts that they can back them up with
examples.
It is called science.

Yes, and a crucial part of science is the literature reference.

You are given the literature reference, and you are expected to read
it.

I was told it had an observer speed , I asked that
someone to explain such.
They did not.
They are full of shit so far just like you are.
[/quote]
Sorry spacecase, you can>t bait your way into an education.

PD · Guest

On Oct 14, 10:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Sorry, Spaceman, just because I>ve done the work does not entitle you
to having it spoonfed by me to you. In this case, it is *entirely*
reasonable to expect you to look it up, just like everyone else. STOP
WHINING. It>s unbecoming and makes you look even more like a lazy,
worthless, low-life that couldn>t get anything accomplished if he
tried.

In the same amount of words you could have just explained
[/quote]
Whether I *could have* is irrelevant. Whether it is the right thing to
do is what counts.
What is the right thing to do is to tell you to look it up yourself,
and tell you to stop sniveling and whining like an 11-year-old that
doesn>t get what he wants.

[quote]how the observer
is in motion along with some basic about how the speeds were measured
by the observer.
You won>t do such because what you had said is a lie.
You are a con man.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman[/quote]

PD · Guest

On Oct 13, 8:42 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 13, 5:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I>m sorry. Physics Today is not a physics journal. It is a physics
news magazine.

Isn>t it both?

[...]
[/quote]
No, I really don>t think so. I don>t think of Scientific American as a
physics journal either.
Physicists usually don>t publish new material to Physics Today, though
they may write an article about the kind of work that>s being done in
a particular area of physics there. The editorial reins for Physics
Today have more to do with *journalistic* fidelity of the article than
on the *scientific* fidelity of the work.

PD

Spaceman · Guest

PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 13, 9:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Sorry, Spaceman, just because I>ve done the work does not entitle you
to having it spoonfed by me to you. In this case, it is *entirely*
reasonable to expect you to look it up, just like everyone else. STOP
WHINING. It>s unbecoming and makes you look even more like a lazy,
worthless, low-life that couldn>t get anything accomplished if he
tried.
[/quote]
In the same amount of words you could have just explained how the observer
is in motion along with some basic about how the speeds were measured
by the observer.
You won>t do such because what you had said is a lie.
You are a con man.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

Spaceman · Guest

PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Why do you have the expectation that people have to clamor to teach
you?

I only expect when people state facts that they can back them up with
examples.
It is called science.

No sir. Spoonfeeding is not science. In science, people can state
facts and provide pointers to where the examples are and expect the
others to LOOK THEM UP. Grow up.
[/quote]
You are a con man.
Thanks for the proof.

Spaceman · Guest

Eric Gisse wrote:
[quote]On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never
actually read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Why do you have the expectation that people have to clamor to
teach you?

I only expect when people state facts that they can back them up
with examples.
It is called science.

Yes, and a crucial part of science is the literature reference.

You are given the literature reference, and you are expected to read
it.

I was told it had an observer speed , I asked that
someone to explain such.
They did not.
They are full of shit so far just like you are.

Sorry spacecase, you can>t bait your way into an education.
[/quote]
You are the one lacking the education.
You actually think clocks are precise even if one is years
off after years of operation like the twins paradox clocks.
LOL

Spaceman · Guest

PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 14, 10:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:34 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 3:01 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:37 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh

So you can>t give the proof, and of course you can not
even explain the experiment at all since you never actually
read it all either.

Of course I have.

Then explain how it works con man PD.

No.

Thanks for yet another proof that you can>t.
OR
You won>t because then you would be caught in your lying
con man game even more than you are proving now.
:)

Notice that all you>ve demonstrated so far, Spaceman, is that
you>re a liar, claiming to have looked up something on the
internet that is not available on the internet.

bullshit PD,
I looked up the experiment and stated the data is not on the
internet

So don>t be so lazy. Go to a library and look it up.

Why should I have to look it up, PD said he knows all about it.
He should easilty be able to post the observers motion speeds
and a bit of the setup of the experiment.

Sorry, Spaceman, just because I>ve done the work does not entitle
you to having it spoonfed by me to you. In this case, it is
*entirely* reasonable to expect you to look it up, just like
everyone else. STOP WHINING. It>s unbecoming and makes you look
even more like a lazy, worthless, low-life that couldn>t get
anything accomplished if he tried.

In the same amount of words you could have just explained

Whether I *could have* is irrelevant.
[/quote]
No it is not.
You used it as proof in an open forum, you should be able to
back up the proof while in the open forum.
As usual, you have no proof and just babble away and dance,
dance, dance...

glird · Guest

On Oct 13, 1:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
[quote]glird wrote:

Are you aware, Dirk, that the "a" in Einstein>s ensuing equation
denotes dtau/dt, not an acceleration?
The equation dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unrelated to any
acceleration.

Are you aware what a painfully ignorant and utterly arrogant
fool you are? Dirk
[/quote]
Evidently ignorant and arrogant Dirk can>t answer the question.
I will therefore repeat the rest of my reply, which he omitted:
"Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue by asking aout the value
of dtau/dt in accelerating systems? If you really want to know the
answer to this GR-germinating question, the method is described in a
three-part 1907 paper by Einstein. It DOES require a bit of calculus,
but even that has nothing to do with setting x' infinitesimally
small."

The issues in this ongoing discussion were and remain these:
In Einstein>s 1905 relativity paper he tried to derive the Lorentz
transformations set forth by Poincare'. After defining a method to
insert Lorentz>s "local time" into consecutive clocks of a given
system, he wrote,
"To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the
place and time of an event in the stationary system [K], there belongs
a system of values xi, eta, zeta, tau, determining that event
relatively to the [moving] system k, and our task is now to find the
system of [transformation] equations connecting these quantities.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be *linear*
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time."

Issue 1: Although the symbol delta appears in several equations on the
rest of that page, I say that his "delta tau/delta t" could as well be
written as "dtau/dt" BECAUSE the equations are "*linear*" (his
italics).

A short paragraph that people such as Androcles never understood came
next:
“If we place x' = x - vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first
define tau as a
function of x', y, z and t. We first define tau as a function of x',
y, z, and
t. To do this we have to express in equations that tau is nothing
else than the
summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been
[set]
according to the rule given in #1."

Issue 2: In the equation x' = x - vt, x is a point on X of cs K and v
is the velocity of system k. other than systems k and k, there is no
other system present.
Explanation: If a point xi is at x = 6 at t = 0, and is moving at v
= .6c along X, it will have moved .6 units along X in one second, thus
will be at x = 6.6 at t = 1. In order to simplify his next few
equations, instead of writing
x_2 = (x_1 + vt_2)
for successive positions of point xi on X, E substituted x'; in which
x' = x - vt = (x_1 + vt_2) - vt_t = x_1 at t_1
the value of x' remains constant "independent of time".
Androcles thinks that x' is a co-ordinate of a different system,
"kappa", and that failing to mention that (non-existing) "kappa-frame"
is the main error in Einstein>s entire paper. With that as his
premise, Anro misunderstood the rest of E>s attempt to derive the LTE.

Einstein>s next paragraph (in which I substituted d for delta) is:
"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau_0
along the
X-axis to x', and at the time tau_1 be reflected thence to the origin
of the
co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau_2; we then must have
½(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1,
or, by inserting the arguments of the function tau and applying the
principle of
the constancy of the velocity of light as measured in the
'stationary' system:
½[tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0, t + x'/{c-v} + x'/{c+v})] = tau(x',0,0, t
+ x'/{c-v}).
Hence, if x’ be chosen infinitesimally small,
½[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + [1/(c-v)]dtau/dt
or
dtau/dx' + [v/(c2-v2)]dtau/dt = 0."

Issue 3: If we set x’ = 1 the same equations will be there.
Accordingly, other than to make it LOOK like calculus, setting x'
infinitesimally small was meaningless.

Issue 4: From 1 and 3, tau/dt and dtau/dx' should be taken as algebra
rather than calculus expressions.
Explanation: For any constant value of v, the value of dtau/dt is
also constant. Therefore the value of dtau/dt isn>t a function of t,
it is an algebraic function of v.

Issue 5: In the expression dtau/dx', dtau denotes the difference in
settings of two k clocks x' units apart as measured by K; regardless
of the value of x'. That>s why setting x' infinitesimally small has no
affect on what is and always was this algebra expression.

Issue 6: Because Einstein omitted a symbol denoting an essential
ingredient of the LTE, the meaning of dtau/dx' is misunderstood by
physicists; and so is the mathematical and physical meaning of his
prior two and next three equations.

In a later posting, entitled "The missing symbol", I will prove that
the two "calculus" equations are totally defective. Then I will show
how they led to the equations that followed his next two, "delta tau/
delta y, delta tau/delta z". Then I will state the needed symbol and
explain what it physically means.
Finally, I will show WHY E eliminated the needed symbol and thereby
screwed up the rest of his derivation; and how that blocked all
mathematical physicists from understanding the physics imposed by the
rest of the equations in his 1905 paper AND by the LTE - which he
neither understood or derived therein.

Regards,
glird

Paul B. Andersen · Guest

glird skrev:
[quote]On Oct 13, 1:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
glird wrote:

Are you aware, Dirk, that the "a" in Einstein>s ensuing equation
denotes dtau/dt, not an acceleration?
The equation dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unrelated to any
acceleration.
Are you aware what a painfully ignorant and utterly arrogant
fool you are? Dirk

Evidently ignorant and arrogant Dirk can>t answer the question.
I will therefore repeat the rest of my reply, which he omitted:
"Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue by asking aout the value
of dtau/dt in accelerating systems? If you really want to know the
answer to this GR-germinating question, the method is described in a
three-part 1907 paper by Einstein. It DOES require a bit of calculus,
but even that has nothing to do with setting x' infinitesimally
small."

The issues in this ongoing discussion were and remain these:
In Einstein>s 1905 relativity paper he tried to derive the Lorentz
transformations set forth by Poincare'. After defining a method to
insert Lorentz>s "local time" into consecutive clocks of a given
system, he wrote,
"To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the
place and time of an event in the stationary system [K], there belongs
a system of values xi, eta, zeta, tau, determining that event
relatively to the [moving] system k, and our task is now to find the
system of [transformation] equations connecting these quantities.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be *linear*
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time."

Issue 1: Although the symbol delta appears in several equations on the
rest of that page, I say that his "delta tau/delta t" could as well be
written as "dtau/dt" BECAUSE the equations are "*linear*" (his
italics).

A short paragraph that people such as Androcles never understood came
next:
“If we place x' = x - vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first
define tau as a
function of x', y, z and t. We first define tau as a function of x',
y, z, and
t. To do this we have to express in equations that tau is nothing
else than the
summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been
[set]
according to the rule given in #1."

Issue 2: In the equation x' = x - vt, x is a point on X of cs K and v
is the velocity of system k. other than systems k and k, there is no
other system present.
Explanation: If a point xi is at x = 6 at t = 0, and is moving at v
= .6c along X, it will have moved .6 units along X in one second, thus
will be at x = 6.6 at t = 1. In order to simplify his next few
equations, instead of writing
x_2 = (x_1 + vt_2)
for successive positions of point xi on X, E substituted x'; in which
x' = x - vt = (x_1 + vt_2) - vt_t = x_1 at t_1
the value of x' remains constant "independent of time".
Androcles thinks that x' is a co-ordinate of a different system,
"kappa", and that failing to mention that (non-existing) "kappa-frame"
is the main error in Einstein>s entire paper. With that as his
premise, Anro misunderstood the rest of E>s attempt to derive the LTE.

Einstein>s next paragraph (in which I substituted d for delta) is:
"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau_0
along the
X-axis to x', and at the time tau_1 be reflected thence to the origin
of the
co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau_2; we then must have
½(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1,
or, by inserting the arguments of the function tau and applying the
principle of
the constancy of the velocity of light as measured in the
'stationary' system:
½[tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0, t + x'/{c-v} + x'/{c+v})] = tau(x',0,0, t
+ x'/{c-v}).
Hence, if x’ be chosen infinitesimally small,
½[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + [1/(c-v)]dtau/dt
or
dtau/dx' + [v/(c2-v2)]dtau/dt = 0."

Issue 3: If we set x’ = 1 the same equations will be there.
Accordingly, other than to make it LOOK like calculus, setting x'
infinitesimally small was meaningless.

Issue 4: From 1 and 3, tau/dt and dtau/dx' should be taken as algebra
rather than calculus expressions.
Explanation: For any constant value of v, the value of dtau/dt is
also constant. Therefore the value of dtau/dt isn>t a function of t,
it is an algebraic function of v.

Issue 5: In the expression dtau/dx', dtau denotes the difference in
settings of two k clocks x' units apart as measured by K; regardless
of the value of x'. That>s why setting x' infinitesimally small has no
affect on what is and always was this algebra expression.

Issue 6: Because Einstein omitted a symbol denoting an essential
ingredient of the LTE, the meaning of dtau/dx' is misunderstood by
physicists; and so is the mathematical and physical meaning of his
prior two and next three equations.

In a later posting, entitled "The missing symbol", I will prove that
the two "calculus" equations are totally defective. Then I will show
how they led to the equations that followed his next two, "delta tau/
delta y, delta tau/delta z". Then I will state the needed symbol and
explain what it physically means.
Finally, I will show WHY E eliminated the needed symbol and thereby
screwed up the rest of his derivation; and how that blocked all
mathematical physicists from understanding the physics imposed by the
rest of the equations in his 1905 paper AND by the LTE - which he
neither understood or derived therein.

Regards,
glird

[/quote]
So is your point that the Lorentz transform doesn>t follow from
the postulates of SR? :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dirk Van de moortel · Guest

glird <glird@aol.com> wrote in message
44f278ab-fb08-4787-a39a-5204c904e7f1@17g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
[quote]On Oct 13, 1:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
glird wrote:

Are you aware, Dirk, that the "a" in Einstein>s ensuing equation
denotes dtau/dt, not an acceleration?
The equation dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unrelated to any
acceleration.

Are you aware what a painfully ignorant and utterly arrogant
fool you are? Dirk

Evidently ignorant and arrogant Dirk can>t answer the question.
I will therefore repeat the rest of my reply, which he omitted:
[/quote]
Does the rest of that reply explain how -without calculus- to
calculate the quantity dtau/dt for an object with proper
acceleration a for which the proper time is given by
tau(t) = c/a arcsinh(a t/c)
where t is coordinate time in some inertial frame, and then how
to express the object>s velocity v(t) from the equation
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
?

Dirk Vdm

glird · Guest

On Oct 19, 2:47 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
[quote]glird wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
glird wrote:

Are you aware, Dirk, that the "a" in Einstein>s ensuing equation
denotes dtau/dt, not an acceleration?
The equation dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unrelated to any
acceleration.

Are you aware what a painfully ignorant and utterly arrogant
fool you are? Dirk

Evidently ignorant and arrogant Dirk can>t answer the question.
I will therefore repeat the rest of my reply, which he omitted:

Does the rest of that reply explain how -without calculus- to
calculate the quantity dtau/dt for an object with proper
acceleration a for which the proper time is given by
tau(t) = c/a arcsinh(a t/c)
where t is coordinate time in some inertial frame, and then how
to express the object>s velocity v(t) from the equation
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
? Dirk Vdm
[/quote]
Yes, as you saw in the following message you quoted;
"snip"

Regards,
glird


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 13 of 14