Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: darrenn: "Re: Operator ambiguity, Escultura"
- Previous message: N. Silver: "Re: Operator ambiguity, Escultura"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:44:43 GMT
"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QO5qd.65957$IQ.59934@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39d6e584.0411241119.53b50943@posting.google.com...
>>> He's an example that I'll "describe" with Newtonian physics OK?
>
>> Assume that Stella runs away from Terrance in a straight line at 4/5
>> the speed of X m/s, then turns around real fast and runs back at the
>> same speed 5 seconds. She's gone for 10 seconds, right?
>
> It computes but isn't flat said. IFF X m/s is wrt Terrance.
>
>> Well what if
>> every 1/10 of a second Terrance sends an american dollar to Stella at
>> the speed of X m/s, then she'd get all 100 USD right? And she'd get
>> the first $10 before turning around and the final $90 on her way
>> back,
>> right?
>
> Unless sent only at the end of each 1/10th second, in which case still
> close
> enuf. We'll give you the tie.
>
>> What if every 1/6 of a second she sent Terrance a canadian
>> dollar at the speed of X m/s (so that means she doesn't have to throw
>> it as hard on her way back, but on her way out she has to throw the
>> canadian dollar harder than Terrance throws the american dollar),
>
> X m/s wrt Terrance, 'obviously'.
>
>> so
>> Terrance gets all 60 CAD, but he gets the first 30 CAD during the
>> first 9 seconds and the final 30 during the last 1 second.
>
> ok
>
>> So if Terrance compares the RATE at which he THROWS dollars versus
>> RECIEVES dollars, then for 9 seconds he gets them at 1/3 the rate he
>> sends them, and for 1 second he gets them at 3/1 the rate he sends
>> them. And for Stella, she notes that for 5 seconds she GETS dollars
>> at 1/3 the rate she sends them (oh no! they are BOTH getting dollars
>> at a rate less than they are sending, either Newtonian physics must
>> be
>> wrong or our notion that a two people can't both be giving money to
>> each and both me losing money is wrong, oh no! See how silly that
>> is!) and for 5 seconds she GETS dollars them at 3/1 the rate she
>> sends
>> them.
>
> rofflmfao!
>
> What a terribly unfair setup!
>
> For the first tenth of a second he sends dollars at an infinitely
> greater
> rate than he gets them!
>
> So much for Newton and Einstein! (Apparently, according to your
> 'logic'.)
>
> rofflmfao!
>
> How on earth could a non-psychotic imagine that
> fiddling-with-receiving
> babble (however correct) has any contradictory point to make about the
> sending/etc facts?
>
>>
>> Ok now let's draw a picture of the situation.
>>
>> F
>> |\
>> E \
>> | \
>> C D
>> | /
>> B /
>> |/
>> A
>>
>> Where A is the point when Stella is about to run away from Terrance.
>> Where B is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 10th dollar.
>> Where C is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 50th dollar.
>> Where D is the point when Stella is sending Terrance her 30th dollar.
>> Where D is the point when Stella turns around.
>> Where D is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 10th dollar.
>> Where E is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 90th dollar.
>> Where E is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 30th dollar.
>> Where F is when Stella returns.
>> Where F is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 100th
>> dollar.
>> Where F is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 60th dollar.
>
>> Not that at C and D Stella and Terrance have both RECIEVED less
>> dollars than they are sent, this is the "fact" analogous to "time
>> dilation" notice how it is STUPID to think is MEANS anything, it just
>> means that some dollars have been sent and not yet recieved.
> rofflmfao!
>
> The name of the stupidity is probably UIT - Unnecessarily Ignorant
> Theorist.
>
> The only correct analogy at work here is that you are asserting your
> 'observables only' thesis, treating as unobservables the velocities
> and
> sending rates you specified. The receiving/'observing' rates have
> absolutely
> no meaning in regard to the givens you stated although they can be
> calculated therefrom.
>
> A theory/theorist that takes the relative primitives - those numbers
> you
> specifed - and treats them as irrelevant is deranged.
>
> rofflmfao!
>
> Hey, UIT, just what is it in set theory that says one must act in
> unnecesary
> ignorance?
>
> Just what is it about set theory in your thinking that says Einstein
> was
> wrong to posit clocks (and consequently observers) at every point in
> space?
>
> Just what is it about set theory in your thinking that demands
> ignorance?
>
> The idea that you must treat the only relevant knowables - the givens
> in
> your gedanken experiment - as irrelevant is worse than silly.
>
> You imagine lengths and time as unobservables but then imagine you can
> caluclate observables on their basis.
>
> eleaticus
I gave up with the idiot, he can't count to 10. Good luck with him.
Androcles.
- Next message: darrenn: "Re: Operator ambiguity, Escultura"
- Previous message: N. Silver: "Re: Operator ambiguity, Escultura"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
