Re: Basics series proposed
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/30/04
- Next message: Wavy G: "Re: Unified Field Theory, Singularity, and the so-called 11th Dimension"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:36:17 GMT
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0410291750.4af5b1d9@posting.google.com...
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:<Domgd.979$T34.377@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:3c4afb26.0410281744.3209fdb8@posting.google.com...
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<Hs7gd.59614$i02.42772@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > I appreciate Paul's response. He's not your average
: > relativist,
: > : > : > : > he can debate with reason, logic and intelligence.
: > : > : > : > as much time as I have on a subject so important.
: > :
: > : Maybe, but where is he now? While saying he is too busy to
address
: > the
: > : arguements, he seems to have plenty of time for other threads. I
: > fear
: > : he has sought to save you getting his scalp, by taking it
elsewhere.
: >
: > Ever watch wrestling on TV? I don't normally, but having a
7-year-old
: > grandson makes it unavoidable sometimes. We know the whole thing
: > is a show, of course, fully choreographed, and always has been,
but I
: > couldn't help noticing how it has become a verbal battle as much
as a
: > physical one since my youth. The wrestler stands in the ring with
a
: > microphone in his hand, busily insulting his opponent who stands
there
: > passively listening until it his turn. It isn't an argument, it is
two
: > monologues with each actor speaking rehearsed lines for the
benefit
: > of the audience.
: > In this newsgroup, the verbal wrestling is real. I really am out
to
: > "kill"
: > my opponent, and if Paul doesn't get back in the ring, I consider
that
: > done. Put yourself in his position. He's got some serious
questions
: > to answer and needs time to think them through. In doing that, he
has
: > to intelligently reconsider just what Einstein said. He'll search
: > around,
: > looking for a way out, and he isn't going to find one. I don't
want
: > him
: > physically dead, I want him to think. Give him time, it doesn't
: > trouble
: > me if he takes a year. I'll still be battling other opponents, and
if
: > he
: > tries to intervene he'll get his arse kicked; now he knows it.
: > Relativity
: > isn't going to be overturned overnight, it took 400 years for the
: > Catholic
: > Church to admit they were wrong and Galileo was right. I don't
: > expect the Holy Church of Relativity to be any different.
:
: Noted
: >
: >
: > :
: > : > : > : You know AE's gendanken about time dilation, where he
has a
: > passenger
: > : > : > : on a train, and an observer on the platform? NEITHER of
them
: > collect
: > : > : > : any information about the flight of the photon involved!
At
: > what
: > point
: > : > : > : does the beam strike THEIR eye, which is the ONLY way
said
: > information
: > : > : > : is transfered? So simply shown to be imaginary rubbish,
but
: > get
: > : > a
: > : > DHR
: > : > : > : to explain the data transfer?
: > : > : > : not in a naked king's lifetime!
: > :
: > : Comment?
: > What's to say? You are correct, the photon lands at a different
place
: > from where it took off. It is quite easy to arrange that to be the
: > same
: > place in one frame and two places in the other, and to reverse the
: > situation.
: > I did that with Gardner's argument and a GIF to demonstrate it.
: > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
:
: > Sure. I'm merely pointing out the partisan nature of people.
: > They'll claim they know the kind of music they like, but in
reality
: > they like the music they know.
: > For the vast majority, all popular music is a steady beat and a
: > simple repetitive melody they can whistle or sing to. Without
that,
: > they don't like it.
: >
: > :
: > : > I KNOW that relativity is nonsense because I have studied
: > : > it in depth. They think they know it is valid because they
: > : > want to be part of the crowd cheering on the home team.
: > : > So make a game of it and may the best team win.
: > : > Pick your own speciality and play the game by the rules.
: > : > I'd suggest, for you, that you fully digested the Twin Paradox
: > : > and Koks' answer:
: > : >
: >
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_doppler.htmlThen
: > follow my response to that:
: > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
: .::
: > :
: > : I worked for a drilling contractor for awhile. As time would be:
: > : passing differently for the bit way below the earth's surface
: > thanat:
: > : the surface (according to GR), how long before a torque is
produced:
: > : due to the difference in rotation speeds?????: Let's see them
put
: > : questions like that in a final exam!::
: > :
: > : Comment?
: > There are a miriad examples where relativity is just plain
nonsense,
: > people think up new ones constantly. Add one more to the list if
you
: > like.
: >
:
: Gardner said:"Of course, the
: > situation
: > : is perfectly symmetrical. If you send a beamup and down inside
your
: > : ship, he will see its path as a V-shape. Hewill deduce that your
: > clock
: > : is slower."Martin Gardner - The Relativity Explosion, ISBN
: > : 0-394-72104-7The name for this is "mutual time dilation".I
wasn't
: > : easy, but I coaxed Andersen into"That is, we can reverse the
: > : directions of the frames which is the same as interchanging the
: > : frames, which - as I have told you a LOT of times, OBVIOUSLY
will
: > lead
: > : to the transform: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x = (xi -
: > : v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) xi
=
: > (x
: > : + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. AndersenI have not heard "mutual
: > time
: > : dilation" ever since, so we can kickGardner in the can. He's off
: > their
: > : team now.It does no good me using those equations.I have to get
a
: > : relativist to say it. It's a game.How did I do it? By claiming
t =
: > : (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2), directing attention to
: > the1+v^2/c^2
: > : in the denominator. They were hooting and roaring at that,but
that
: > got
: > : the + in the numerator right past Andersen and intothe goal. No
more
: > : "mutual time dilation". It's a game.Have fun!Androcles.:
: > :
: > : Races between: photons, the REAL way to prove whether both are
: > : travelling at the same
: > : velocity, has NEVER been done.
: >
: > Yes it has. Nature does it. You have to learn to read it
correctly.
: > Here's light source approaching and receding from us, firing off
: > photons as it goes. The later, faster photons pass the earlier
slower
: > photons along he way and this is the result.
: > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
:
: Trouble (I agree you are correct), is that it is open to spurious
: arguement, if Doppler is wrongly attributed to the "magic" instead
of
: the velocity of the photons. There is the difficulty with a
continuous
: stream of photons, to differentiate them. I wish to send two short
: coded pulses (identities) from (say) Saturn, leaving for earth
: simultaneously. One is from a stationary source ref us, and the
other
: from a moving one. If the velocity difference of the sources could
be
: 30km/sec, roughly .5 sec arrival time difference here. Such a huge
gap
: with absolutely no ambiguity as to the cause, would sink "c" for
good,
: and with it GR and SR.
Expensive.
Shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS, see the reflection for HST.
Shoot at moonrise aand again at moonset, as seen from the ISS.
That's cheap, and adequate. Clocks can measure microseconds easily,
and 200 of 'em is plenty good enough. We could have it done inside 6
months with determination. A Saturn shot will take years. Still, I'll
agree twin Cassini spacecraft using radio ..... wait..... you are on
to something!
It can be done NOW!
http://www.ssd.rl.ac.uk/news/cassini/
"Cassini is now in orbit around Saturn and sending back data. "
All we need is for Cassini to tell is where and when it is, orbit
Saturn and do it once again.
: >> :
: > : I am inclined to mount the arguements against the mistaken
: > perceptions
: > : which went into the thought processes which lead to AE's
Relativity.
: > I
: > : mean, how can one talk of "observers", when no information
reaches
: > : them? Whatever misconceptions they may have are based on
imagination
: > : ONLY, and in AE's case, very faulty logic.
: > : Then we have the stumbling blocks, such as claims that changes
of
: > : direction do not constitute changes of velocity-- but only for
: > LIGHT!
: > : You are a mathematician- so do this: come up with a math system
: > which
: > : uses "less thans" instead of (-), and in which the impossibility
of
: > : "less than zero" net results when dealing with natural entities
: > : cannot occur. There are none in nature, only 0, >0 . Mistakes
occur
: > : in the present system, because locations (negative coordinates)
and
: > : arbitrarily applied signage (say +,- for direction or charge,
are
: > : misinterpreted.
: > : eg Dv claims he can drive a negative (less than zero) mile. He
is
: > very
: > : quiet about the fuel he gained.
: > : eg BF says an electron is a "less than zero" natural entity.
When
: > : asked how he got on with the "less than zero" shock he got from
the
: > : negative power point, you could see how it had given his brain a
: > "less
: > : than zero" jolt!
: >
: > We've been down this path before and I'm not going to get into it
: > again.
: > The car coming the opposite way has a negative velocity by
definition.
: > Zero means "stationary" and the velocity of the car coming the
other
: > way is less than zero.
: > End of story.
:
: .......and yet he says HE is stationary, and so the zero has become
: the negative......never mind
It IS never mind. There are no absolutes. Motion is relative.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > : Just for fun, start a thread using the speed of sound to show
length
: > : contraction.
: > : Call it "SR for the blind."
: > : The conclusions drawn from u (air) with echoes, and c
(aether/magic)
: > : with mirrors, are just as relevent as light "proving" shortening
in
: > : Relativity.
: > : Do YOU think that a blind man is correct in his measurement of
the
: > : moving train?
:
: Comment?
It is quite true that the same equations Einstein used would apply to
sound also. The only sticking point is the belief system people have
concerning
Einstein's "derivation" c = (c+v)/(1+v/c), which they take as a
postulate,
the starting point of all there calculations. They say often on this
newsgroup,
The second postulate is "lightspeed is invariant in all frames of
reference".
That is NOT the second postulate. That is a conclusion drawn from the
derivation.
The second postulate (really assumption) is "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
If you use their version of the second postulate, Einstein's equation
1/2[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 his statement:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =
t."
would then be:
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/c+x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
and
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity (c-v)/(1-v/c) = c, so that
x'/c = t."
from which it is impossible to derive the Lorentz Transforms OR
(c-v)/(1-v/c) = c.
Einstein deliberately omitted a prime that is essential, he was a
huckster.
His equation should be
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/c+x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
Even if I can't prove he was a criminal, his only defense
is that he blundered. So which is it? Idiot or Huckster?
I don't think for one moment he was an idiot.
I do think his followers are, though.
Androcles.
: > :
: > : Cheers
: > : Jim G
: > : c'=c+v
- Next message: Wavy G: "Re: Unified Field Theory, Singularity, and the so-called 11th Dimension"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
