Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:34:48 GMT

"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gvdpd.32235$Qv5.20055@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:wRTod.31766$Qv5.28622@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:6rAod.23401$Rf1.19063@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3Neod.20139$4f.9395@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:39d6e584.0411211055.2eec5758@posting.google.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Peter Kupfer <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:<QzPnd.26626$5b1.21051@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am being intentionally clear, you are being intentionally
>>>>>>accusatory
>>>>>>and intentionally unwilling to absorb the data and think. Einstein
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>intentionally a huckster. If you are interested in physics, I'd
>>>>>>advise you
>>>>>>not to be intentionally ignorant.
>>>>>>You can't expect to learn all at once, it takes time.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not want to be ignorant, hence I simply ask you to explain.
>>>>>That
>>>>>seems to pain you, and if your goal is to spread the truth and
>>>>>engage
>>>>>in conversation about nature, I would think you would want to
>>>>>explain.
>>>>
>>>>Oh for ***'s sake, get off the whining. You don't teach kids
>>>>calculus
>>>>before they've mastered algebra, or algebra before arthmetic, do
>>>>you?
>>>
>>>Questioning = whining?
>>
>>
>> "That seems a pain to you" is NOT a question, so don't pretend it is.
>> Questions end with "?".
>> I don't see a question, I see whining.
>> Try "If you could explain" instead of "that seems a pain to you" and
>> I might respond in a reasonable manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>4) When we create a model of light from a point source moving in
>>>>>>an elliptical orbit, as a star would, and one that obeys Kepler's
>>>>>>laws,
>>>>>>the intensity of the arrival of light changes according to the
>>>>>>model.
>>>>>>Real stars such as http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>>>>>>V1493 Aql show an identical curve to that predicted by the model.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please point to the page or tell me what the left and top orbits
>>>>>are
>>>>>measuring. Is it distant (left) and intensity (top)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is time and magnitude (intensity) as clearly shown by Jly 1999
>>>>through
>>>>Nov 1999 horizontally and the 'm' at the bottom of the vertical
>>>>axis.
>>>>Astronomers (even amateurs) notice stars that suddenly brighten.
>>>>Being somewhat adept, they can measure the brightness and record
>>>>the data. Then on the next night and the nights following they
>>>>continue
>>>>to do so. They inform others as well. Then they send the data to an
>>>>organization such as the BAA (or AAVSO) and someone there will
>>>>produce
>>>>a nice graph for you to look at.
>>>>What do you think the distance is between July and November?
>>>
>>>I can't tell if you are being sincere or sarcastic with parts of
>>>this.
>>
>>
>> Both, or maybe it is pain to me.
>>
>>
>>>I though perhaps the m stood for meters, I am not an astronomer by
>>>any
>>>means, sorry. I understand that the bottom one is time (hence I
>>>didn't
>>>ask about that one), but what do the #'s on top mean? Is that some
>>>sort of universal time?
>>
>>
>> Fair enough, you have a lot to learn. For homework, draw a graph of
>> distance against time, showing speed. Make it so that a bullet leaves
>> a machine gun one every second and the machine gun is mounted on
>> a carousel, always pointing in one direction. Add the speed of the
>> gun
>> to the speed of the bullets.
>
> Right, I get what the graph represents.

Good. You'll see another, independent one at
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm, figure 2.

Sekerin uses a circular orbit. I used an elliptical orbit that obeys
Kepler's laws. I was unaware of Sekerin's work until this year.

>
>> Numbers. Astronomers has been using them since before the Gregorian
>> calendar was introduced into western society. For homework, mine the
>> internet for Julian and Gregorian calenders and tell me when the
>> changeover
>> took place in Russia. Googling is good for you.
>> Then explain to me what the numbers mean.
>
> 1918 <<http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/j/u.htm>>

Excellent. Well done.

>
> I am still not sure how to decipher those #'s. I am going to say that
> they are the Julian Dates. Having looked at a few graphs, 2451400
> seems to represent Aug (or late) 1999.
>
> 2450000 represents about the same time in 1995.
>
> 2450700 represents The same in 1997. So 450 whatevers must be one
> Julian year.
>
> Is that close?

Good try, but not quite right.
There are two numbers at the top of the page
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
as well as JD at the top left.
Subtract them.
Oh, and 2450700 - 2450000 = 700. Half of 700 is 350, not 450. Two years,
 about 700 days.
I'd go for 365 * 2 = 730 if I were you. :-)
Astronomy is the OLDEST science. VERY old.
Modern science begins with Copernicus.
That is the first time a man defies faith and says the Earth is not
the centre of everything. Galileo backed him up and the ball was
rolling,
but we still today use Julian dates.

>
>>>>Light leaves A, goes to B, returns to A. Got that?
>>>>A is at (0,0,0). B is at (B,0,0). Can you understand that (0,0,0) is
>>>>the origin of (x,y,z)?
>>>>He says the time for light to go from A to B and back to A again is
>>>>(t'A - tA). Got that?
>>>>One way is tB-tA, back again is t'A-tB.
>>>
>>>This is what generally confuses me is the notation. What do t'A & tA
>>>&
>>>tB stand for, in words?
>>
>> Ok, tA is simply the time at A. We'll suppose it is 4:03:04 pm on
>> 24th of Nov 2004.
>> Let B be 299,792,458 metres away from A. The light will arrive at B
>> at 4:03:05 pm (or tB = time at B), be reflected and arrive back at
>> t'A
>> on 4.03.06 pm, same day. We know t'A is the time at A which is
>> different
>> from tA bt 2 seconds.
>> We can then say
>> 4.03.06 pm minus 4.03.04 = 2 seconds, and
>> half of two is one seconds, so the light took one second to reach B.
>
> That makes perfect sense. I would probably set tA = 0, that would make
> life easier.

No problem with me on that one. I'm just pointing out that Einstein used
t
and we can start the experiment at any time.

>
>> So 2 * 299,792,458 meters/ 2 seconds = c
>> (in agreement with experience).
>>
>> What Einstein is very careful NOT to mention is that if A moved away
>> from B within that two seconds, the return distance BA is not equal
>> to AB.
>> Homework:
>> Suppose B is moving away from A at 0.5c.
>> Further suppose that at t = 0 (to make it easy) the light is sent to
>> B,
>> and at t = 1 it arrives at B. At what time will the light reach A?
>>
>> A------------------B t= 0.
>> A--------------------------B t= 1
>> A----------------------------------B t = ?
>
> I would say that if it covered from A to B in one second (which it
> wouldn't I don't think if B is moving, it should take 1.5s) then since
> it bounces off B and would cover the same distance back, it would take
> 2s total. So t'A would be 2s.
>
>> Now apply the PoR, and suppose A is moving away from B
>> rather than B from A. Do you get the same result?
>> ----------------A------------------B t= 0.
>> --------A--------------------------B t= 1
>> A----------------------------------B t = ?
>
> I believe 4s.

Oh boy...

> Can you please explain what I just proved or disproved?

Err... distance = time * speed.
Put some numbers in.
----------------0------0.5 t= 0.
----------0---------->1.0 t= 1, speed = 1/1 = 1
---0<-----------------1.5 t = ?

>
>>>>He says:
>>>>"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>>>>2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light
>>>>in
>>>>empty space."
>>>>but the lying *** has no such experience and neither does anyone
>>>>else.
>
> What is so wrong with this statement. That light has a speed in a
> vacuum.

Does it? What is it then?
Let's talk about speed and velocity.
You are driving East at 60 mph. I am driving West at 60 mph.
We collide. We die.
You are driving East at 60 mph. I am driving East at 60 mph.
We collide. You yell "Quit tailgating me, ***" and put your finger
up,
step on the gas and pull away from me at 1 mph faster than I'm going.
That is the Principle of Relativity in action.

> And that the speed from A to B and back again divided by that time
> will be the speed of light. Or are you countering his statement about
> it being a universal constant?

Is it? Prove it. Don't just say it is because someone told you that.
PROVE it.

>
>>>>Now we set up two frames. This is quite easy to do, all you need is
>>>>two
>>>>strips of paper. Mark them and put them side-by-side.
>>>>
>>>>A'|____________|B' ------------ k-frame
>>>>A |____________|B ------------- K-frame
>>>>Now we slide one piece of paper past the other with velocity v.
>>>>
>>>>-------A'|____________|B' ------------ k-frame
>>>>A |____________|B ------------- K-frame
>>>>
>>>>See that 2AB ? That is the distance from A to B and back again.
>>>>Remember that A is at (0,0,0)
>>>>Where is A' ?
>>>>It is moving, right?
>>>>It has travelled a distance vt from A, and continues to do so.
>>>>We can write that in equation form as A' = A-vt.
>>>
>>>Why do you subtract them? Wouldn't that imply that they are moving
>>>left?
>>
>>
>> Good question. For homework, you tell me. Here's a similar one.
>> Why does Einstein use c+v and c-v when it is c that changes direction
>> and v does not?
>> Should he not have written v-c and v+c?
>> Careful how you answer... remember BA has the opposite sign to AB
>> and time does not run backwards. t = -x'/(v-c) and x'/(v+c)
>> Also remember that Einstein is attempting to create confusion,
>> drawing
>> attention away from his deliberately missing prime. You are not going
>> to fault him on his other math. This is the work of a genius
>> huckster,
>> creating misdirection.
>
> It must be because A' is moving away from A. Is that right? So, if you
> subtract a negative, you end up adding.

A' is the NAME of the moved position of the object that once was at the
position A.

>
> I will admit that doesn't make much sense to me.
>
>>>It makes sense to me that we would say that A' is at A + vt (or
>>>(vt,0,0))
>>
>> Good, I'm glad you can see that. However, A' is actually (0,0,0)
>> as the equation shows and he is pretending the speed of light is
>> infinite.
>
> I thought you moved A' away from A?

No, I moved an object away from B.

Now: Object---------------------------B
                        A

Later: Object----A-----------------------------B
         A'
Einstein move it a zero distance.

>
>>>>Now, we give B a new name, x.
>>>>-------A'|____________|x' ------------ k-frame
>>>>A |____________|x ------------- K-frame
>>>>
>>>>I'm keeping the old name for A for the moment.
>>>>At time t, A and A' coincided.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't that be at the beginning because they start lined up, or do
>>>not actually start them lined up?
>>
>> They start aligned. They finish aligned.
>> v = 0 (or c = infinity).
>
> I don't know if it is your example or what Einstein said now, but are
> A' & x' moving or are they stationary.

Einstein CLAIMS they are moving, because he's a huckster.
In reality, his equation says they are not.

> If A' & A are aligned at the start and the end, when did A' turn
> around?

It didn't.
I just went from your desk to London and back at an infinite velocity.
My velocity was c. While I did that, you moved at velocity v
across your living room. I'm right beside you, how far did you get?
I've told you, Einstein wants to confuse, intentionally.

>
>>>>A ray of light is sent from A' to x' (was B') and back to.... where?
>>>>Is it A, or is it A' ?
>>>>If the velocity of light is infinite, it is both, there hasn't been
>>>>any time for A' to move away from A.
>>>>Einstein sets up an equation that says the time for light to go from
>>>>A' to B' is half the time it takes to go from A' to B' and back to
>>>>A'
>>>>again.
>>>>Sounds reasonable?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok, let's set that equation up. Oh, and we also want to show time
>>>>dilation, so he uses a function tau() to add more confusion. I'll
>>>>leave that
>>>>out, you'll see why.
>>>>
>>>>(1/2) [(A',t) + (A',t + (B'-A')/(c-v) + (A'-B')/(c+v) ] = (B', t +
>>>>(B'-A')/(c-v) )
>>>
>>>What do these commas represent in here. Like, when you present
>>>"A',t",
>>>what does that mean? Are you using a comma to represent
>>>multiplication?
>>
>> As a seperator to delimit the position A = (0,0,0) and t. Some might
>> think this was a vector to be written as (0,0,0,t), but t is illegal
>> as a vector component, it has no additive inverse.
>
> Yes, I see now the whole quantity {(B'-A')/(c-v) + (A'-B')/(c+v)} is
> to added to t. It is amazing that I can almost make some sense of what
> Einstein was trying to do now.
>
He was a huckster. He was hell-bent on confusion and misdirection.
He scribbled his ideas on the back of an envelope, as we all do, and
then he wrote several drafts, polished them up and wrote a paper.
He did exactly what he was trying to do. Fool the world.
Sheer criminal genius. A master at his craft.

> So, I get that (B'-A')/(c-v) & (A'-B')/(c+v) have to give you a time,
> but what purpose does he claim they serve?

Those times have to be different, don't they?
Let's suppose they are 1/3 of a second and 2/3 of a second.
We add them together, and get 1 second. Now we say
half of a second = one third of a second.
(1/3 + 2/3) / 2 = 1/3.
That's called time dilation.
We can't get away with it using numbers. We have to use algebra,
or ANYONE will see it is ridiculous. And we have to use a very
small symbol, ' , so it won't show when it goes missing.
Where's the best place to hide a pebble? On the beach, of course.
Where's the best place to hide a symbol? In a huge equation, of course.

Spot the essential prime contest.
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))
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))

>>>>What does Einstein do?
>>>>changes to (0,0,0) for A' , and x' for B'.
>>>>So the light leaves the coincident A and A', goes to B' and returns
>>>>to....
>>>>(0,0,0), which is NOT A' = (-vt, 0,0).
>>>>Thus either v is 0 or his speed of light is infinite.
>>>>QED.
>
> But the light doesn't leave A' does, it would return there?

It leaves here:
------------|
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))

and returns here:
--------------------------|
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))

It should return here
--------------------------|
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))

because 0' = 0-vt.

> They way I read was that the light would leave The origin of the
> moving system

Correct.

and travel to some point B in the moving system

Correct.

> and return to the origin of the moving system.

Correct.

> I didn't seem to me like the system interacted only to say that they
> started next to each other a long time ago. What am I mis-reading?

They started together whenever ago, and they are still together when
the light returns.

>
>>>
>>>QED = ?
>>
>> Quod erat demonstrandum, the latin form of "As I have shown".
>>
>>>>Here it is.
>>>>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)).
>>>
>>>What does tau mean?
>>
>> Tau is the greek letter for t, which I cannot reproduce here.
>> As Einstein is using it, it is a function with four arguments,
>> (x,y,z,t).
>> This is similar to y(x) = x^2, meaning if x = 2, y = 4, if x= 3, y =
>> 9.
>> I'm sure you've seen a graph of y = x^2.
>
> When he sets up the equivalence above, what is he trying to show are
> equal? Is that an extension of 2AB/(t'A-tA)? No, that can't be right.

He was a huckster. He was deliberately making a fool of us all. He
doesn't make a fool of me. There are millions of fools out there,
though.

>
> If tau is function and I plug in (x,y,z,t) what would I get out? A
> point in space-time?

You'll get (xi, eta, zeta, tau)

eta = y
zeta = z.

xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) but v = 0, so that is really
xi = x.
You'll also get
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) but v = 0 too, so
tau = t.

>>
>>>>Why do it like this? Because he was a huckster. Either that, or an
>>>>idiot.
>>>>He wasn't an idiot, he got what he wanted. Success. Fame.
>>>>That doesn't mean he wasn't a lying ***. His whole paper is a
>>>>deliberate intentional fraud.
>>>
>>>Thank you for that good explanation.
>>
>>
>> You are welcome. I hope you now realize how inappropriate your
>> remark :
>> "Before you critique something, you need to understand what it says."
>> was.
>
> I apologize.

Accepted.

>
> Others will disagree that you understand, but you certainly seem to
> have a better grasp of it than me. Additionally, I can now follow the
> math up until the differential equation! (At least I think that is
> what follows the tau line.

It would never have gotten past peer-review had it been faulty.
Even that is merely symbol manipulation. There is nothing wrong with it
as far as it goes, except the requirement that x' be made
infinitessimally
small. It is already zero, so it is actually illegitimate to write
dtau/dx'.
That is division-by-zero.
The reason it is zero is that the velocity of light is not actually
infinite,
but finite. The light travels no distance to x' and back to the origin
again.
As Shakespeare would call it, relativity is "Much Ado About Nothing."

>>>>>>I can read what it says. You do not even come close to having
>>>>>>understood his paper. Be honest. Have you even read it?
>>>>>>Com'n, smart arse. Own up. You can't understand his algebra, can
>>>>>>you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Just when I think I am going to get a calm, rational, mature
>>>>>response
>>>>>from you, you let me down.
>>>>
>>>>>Additionally, he is not using simple algebra, and now I can't
>>>>>follow
>>>>>all of it, but I can piece together parts of along with reading
>>>>>others thoughts and explanations. I am trying to understand you
>>>>>explanation, but you just shoot flame and don't answer simple
>>>>>questions in a straight forward fashion, so I can't use your
>>>>>interpretation very well. Once someone gets close to proving you
>>>>>wrong you just start flaming them. Not very useful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you admit you take all he's said on faith. Actually he IS using
>>>>simple algebra, deliberately made to look complex and deceive. When
>>>>you understand that the stage magician doesn't really saw the woman
>>>>in half, and there really isn't any time dilation, when you realize
>>>>that you've been duped, (oh dear, who among us is brave enough to
>>>>admit they've been made a fool of?),
>>>>when you realize he was a criminal huckster, when YOU are rational
>>>>about
>>>>human behaviour, then perhaps we can reason.
>>>
>>>I have more than once admitted to being a fool.
>>>
>>>Thank you for the explanation above. Hopefully you can fill in some
>>>of
>>>the gaps. I would like to fully understand things. If you are correct
>>>and there is a conspiracy out there, I don't want to spread that.
>>
>> It is not actually a conspiracy, Peter. It is foolishness.
>> Relativists will insist Einstein was right without knowing how wrong
>> he was. Being able to reproduce his equations elevates their position
>> in society and enhances their self-importance. Some are in quite high
>> paying employment because they can show they "understand" physics,
>> but in reality they do not. However, neither does the employer, so
>> they are safe.
>> Literally billions of dollars have been wasted on education and
>> particle
>> physics with enormous accelerators built on relativity, very little
>> has
>> ever come out of it in the last 60 years, the GPS has to be uploaded
>> continually from groundstations (that is not actually a loss, it has
>> to be because the constellation is always being perturbed by the moon
>> and
>> position is as important as time). The real fly in the ointment is
>> belief, and that makes for a very expensive missing prime.
>
>> Regards,
>> Androcles
>
> I hope that we someday have a definitive answer on this. :)
>
> Thanks again.

I already do. It is up to you, as a teacher, to spread the truth
among your students and future generations will learn from it
(I hope). I've lived through more that half of the craziest years
of the 20th century, with the bomb, the Cold War, the Cuban
Missile crisis, and as we go into the 21st we have a fine beginning
with crazy people flying planes into buildings in the name of
religion. Teach truth and do not trust hucksters or politicians.
Suspect everything and everyone if you want to survive, there
are more mistakes and blunders in the sciences than in growing
vegetables.
Androcles

> Peter

Loading