Re: A little lesson for sqrt(144) year olds.
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: sci.math trolls: Robin Chapman is the British version of David C. Ullrich"
- Previous message: Dan Christensen: "Re: Basic paradox in set theory"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: A little lesson for sqrt(144) year olds."
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: A little lesson for sqrt(144) year olds."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:05:17 GMT
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0407082303.61fc29c6@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<vclHc.1675$fU7.15308897@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:3c4afb26.0407081423.2bb85831@posting.google.com...
| > | "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:<UvfHc.178550$me.8755325@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
| > | > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:xnfHc.1305$sF4.12163181@news-text.cableinet.net...
| > | > >
| > | > > "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-guardian@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > | > > news:ce5e7813.0407080257.1f49fdf3@posting.google.com...
| > | >
| > | > [snip]
| > | >
| > | > > | By definition, every real number has two square roots.
| > | > >
| > | > > Exactly so. That is what I told Dinky the Deranged, and he posted
it
| > as a
| > | > > fumble. I said sqrt(1) has -1 and 1 as its roots, or words to that
| > effect.
| > | >
| > | > No dummy, sqrt(1) does not have -1 and 1 as its roots.
| > | > but 1 has -1 and 1 as it roots, namely sqrt(1) and -sqrt(1)
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > Therefore:
| > | > > xi = -(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | >
| > | > No little cheating pig, therefore:
| > | > | " tau = (t + vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 (PLUS) v^2/c^2)
| > | > | xi = (x + vt/c^2)/sqrt(1 + v^2/c^2)
| > | > | eta = y
| > | > | zeta = z
| > | > | You are proven wrong."
| > | >
| > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
| > | >
| > | > Dirk Vdm
| > |
| > | Let's give "squaring" a run in the REAL world, as opposed to
| > | mathematical fairyland:
| > | My house block is 1000 sq ms. Hands up those who buy land with
| > | dimensions (-100)m/side ?
| > Oops...
| > I will, that's 10,000 sq ms. Buy one, get nine free?
|
| What's a left out 0 between friends, especially if they too don't exist
:-)
Only an order of magnitude :-)
| >
| >
| > | Dirk v and friends may consider negative (less than zero) numbers
| > | real, but as there are NO "less than zeros" in nature, the application
| > | of "less than zero" numbers is impossible in reality situations; they
| > | refer to nothing apart from as a figment of imagination.
| > Hmm... is zero "real" or a figment?
| >
| > Someone once said "God made integers, all else is the work of man."
| > A mathematician replied "not integers, natural numbers".
| > The set of natural numbers do not include zero.
| > If Nature abhors a vacuum, why did she make so much of it?
|
| Shouldn't (1) be considered ALL between 0>1 ?
A distance, you mean? As in it takes v meters per second to walk v meters in
one second, and by reducing the time to almost zero (but not quite) we
reduce the distance to almost zero but not quite, giving meaning to v =
dx/dt as an instantaneous velocity? So t = x'/(c-v) = (x-vt)/(c-v) and t is
a finite time?
t = (x-vt)/(c-v)
ct -vt = x-vt
ct = x
t = x/c....
Why, that's the time in the stationary frame for the light to reach the
mirror!
After the ray reflects,
t = x'/(c+v)
ct + vt = x-vt
ct +2vt = x
t(c+2v) = x
t = x/(c+2v)
Why, that's less than the time in the stationary frame for the light to
return from the mirror to the source!
That doesn't seem right. Let's check it.
t = x/c outbound.
t = x/(c+2v) inbound.
x/c = x/(c+2v)
c/x = (c+2v)/x
c = c+2v
0 = 2v
0/2 = v
0 = v.
Ah, that's what it is.
Amazing how Einstein can make much ado about nothing.
2 ALL between 0>2 etc
| (when applied to real entities, length, time, velocity, energy, etc etc
| >
| > |
| > | ...as for that lil' formula (1-v^2/c^2) Dhr's MUST set v<c, or they
| > | run into that problem of that negative sqrt........
| > |
| > They DO.
| > Even though the tip of the ray reflects at x', it keeps on going the
same
| > way.
| > There's not a single -c in all of
| > 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))
| > Androcles
|
| Yep. Yet without demure they apply + / - to velocity of source.
| Just shows; cheats DO prosper (so far)
|
| Jim G
Einstein prospered. So has Misner, Wheeler and Thorne and their moronic ilk.
The rest of the idiots that will go on buying their silly books will pay for
it.
This has nothing to do with physics or mathematics, and everything to do
with BS.
Androcles
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: sci.math trolls: Robin Chapman is the British version of David C. Ullrich"
- Previous message: Dan Christensen: "Re: Basic paradox in set theory"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: A little lesson for sqrt(144) year olds."
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: A little lesson for sqrt(144) year olds."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
