Re: Androcles the thoughtful person
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/10/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Previous message: Daniel Weston: "Re: The Physical Reality of SpaceTime"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Next in thread: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Reply: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:05:31 GMT
"sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.10.18.48.47.607664@nospam.org...
| On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:04:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
| >
| > "sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2004.08.10.16.14.28.883447@nospam.org...
|
| > | On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:57:30 +0000, Androcles wrote:
| > | >
| > | > It plays no part in the equation, any more than y or z do. However,
it
| > | > is not the same t that appears in t = x'/(c-v) because Einstein was
| > | > sloppy in his writing,
| > |
| > | When I told you I thought Einstein's writing was sloppy, you pointed
out
| > | that this paper is a _translation_.
| >
| > Did I?
|
| SAL said:
| >> Since E. doesn't specify the starting conditions with great
| >> transparency (e.g., is x' >0 or x' <0 ?), you can probably find some
| >> arrangement of the emitter/detector and the mirror for which his
| >> ambiguous prose will not make sense, but that just proves that his
| >> English wasn't very precise.
|
| And Androcles said:
| > He wasn't writing in English, you are reading a translation.
|
| I took that to be an apology for his prose, but perhaps I was mistaken :-)
|
| Jumping ahead:
|
| > SAL said:
| > | Note that the famous "postulates" are written out in English and are
| > | therefore not actually Einstein's words, at all.
|
| and some time ago, I also pointed out in email that the _translated_
| postulate, which was actually written by Einstein's translator, would plug
| up the c+v hole quite neatly if we changed the wording to:
|
| > 2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates,
| > relatively to any fixed point in that system, with the determined
| > velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
| > body.
|
| Meaning is unchanged, but an ambiguity which has resulted in a lot of
| pointless argument is removed. I can't recall what you said in reply to
| that.
|
|
| > | > Now, you can go on flogging a dead horse till kingdom come for all I
| > | > care.
| > |
| > | The horse doesn't care, either, I'm sure.
| >
| > Or if the sqrt(x) has only one solution.
|
| Say what?
I was merely drawing a parallel to the sqrt() fiasco of Dinky van de
Torquemada and
PeeKies (10:30:00 + 10:30:02) / 2 = 1, which is or is not a coordinate, I
foregetr now, in some vain attempt to discredit me for disagreeing with
Einstein, which all began originally because I said gamma was +/-
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Apparently the negative root cannot be used because
Einstein wouldn't like it.
| Horses don't care about that kind of thing even when they're still alive.
Sorry, but horses do not like to be flogged when alive, so whatever point
you were making flew right over my feeble half brain. It takes a fullwit to
appreciate a half analogy.
Androcles.
| I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
|
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Previous message: Daniel Weston: "Re: The Physical Reality of SpaceTime"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Next in thread: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Reply: sal: "Re: Androcles the thoughtful person"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
