Re: Going near the speed of light
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 08/27/04
- Next message: sal: "Re: Utter tripe from Tom Roberts."
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:01:36 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> skrev i melding
news:dbg302-gbp.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote
> > The concept of time stopping was introduced by nTaul Andersen when he come
> > up with his famous
> > dtau/dt = 0 < 1
> > in a pathetic attempt to refute the paradox of the contra-revolving
> > satellites.
>
> Your search - Andersen contra-revolving satellites - did not match
> any documents.
Yes, his pointer works.
It is however very long, and may not work if your reader can't
handle pointers over several lines.
You can try to copy it into an editor and remove all the line shifts,
and then copy it into your web browser.
But I will do it easy for you. I will quote the article in extenso.
I can't expect you to wade through all this, but if you do,
you will see who is the farting idiot. :-)
(I did do a couple of obvious typos, specifically write dtau/t
instead of dtau/dt, but they are too obvious to confuse anybody)
Androcles wrote 2004-01-20
< start quote >
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
news:buj9e1$md$1@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Androcles" <jp006f9750@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
> news:JXEOb.1259$pF2.338@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:bue27e$ic5$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> > >
> > > YOU, Androcles wrote:
> > > | As they pass, each agrees with the time of the other,
> > > | t(a) = tau(b),
> > > | each agrees the rate of change of time is less for the other,
> > > | dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
> > > | for each orbit.
> >
> > Yes, I did write that Paul, as a supposition of the relativist's claim, and
> > then I showed:
> >
> > > And YOU, Androcles, claim that the above implies:
> > > | (t(a)< tau(b).AND. tau(b)< t(a) .AND. t(a) = tau(b)) = FALSE
> >
> > Exactly right.
> > > So YOU, Androcles claim that:
> > > dtau/dt < 1 when the clocks meet
> > > implies:
> > > tau(b) < t(a) when the clocks meet.
> >
> > Yes, Paul.
> > I do indeed claim that is the implication.
> > I do not claim, however, that dtau/dt < 1.
> > That claim belongs to the relativist and it is FALSE. See the "FALSE", Paul?
> >
> > > Or in other words:
> > > YOU, Androcles, claim that:
> > > The fact that each of the clocks will measure the rate of
> > > the other to be slow when they pass each other
> > > implies that:
> > > each of the clocks will tick out less proper time than
> > > the other between each passing.
> >
> > Yes, Paul. It does IMPLY that, and therefore the premise cannot be valid.
>
> OK.
> So:
> > > You have to either prove that the implication is correct,
> > > or admit that there is no such implication.
> >
> > There comes a point, Paul, when it becomes self-evident.
> > That point has been reached.
> > To accept that a<b and b<a is sensible belongs only to the insane and the
> > relativist, which has some obvious equivalence. relativist = insane.
> > Nor do I intend to give a definition of either 'relativist' or 'insane', I
> > expect that to be understood.
>
> Logic isn't your strong side, eh?
>
> Consider the following mathematical contra example:
> dtau/dt = 1 - cos(2*pi*t/T), where T is the period that make you fart
> so: dtau/dt = 0 < 1 when t = nT, n integer.
Really?
So the rate of change of time for one satellite with respect to the other is
zero.
Ok, that makes sense.
> tau = t -(T/(2*pi))*sin((2*pi*t/T)
> so: tau = t when t = nT, n integer
Correct, t = tau. No argument there from me. Well done.
You've used Newtoniam Mechanics and that doesn't apply to the real world,
right?
I thought you were supposed to use gamma or something... definitely
confusing.
> Thus, for any t when the clocks meet:
> (dtau/t < 1).AND.(tau = t) = .TRUE.
Sorry, I didn't follow that logic. You must be using Newtonian Mechanics.
I thought you were a supporter of Einstein, and dtau/dt <> 0, but I have no
idea what dtau/t might mean. :-))
>
> Your error is in fact very simple - and demonstrates your ignorance of SR.
Is it? I could have sworn that SR implied that dtau/dt <> 0, although I
confess I am now confused about dtau/t, or whether dtau/dt < 0 or dtau/dt >
0.
You are well on your way to your doctorate in confusion, Paul.
> SR does indeed claim that the other clock run slow, that is
> dtau/dt < 1 AT THE TIME WHEN THEY MEET,
> but it does NOT say that dtau/dt = constant.
Ah, I see. The 'acceleration' associated with the 'velocity' dtau/dt,
d^2tau/dt^2 applies instantaneously and has no effect, making no actual
change
to dtau/dt and leaving tau = t, is that how it works? Or are you saying
dtau/dt < 1 implies dtau/dt = 0? Or perhaps dtau/t = 0?
That doctorate is looking really, really good now.
> Quite the contrary, for the scenario in question dtau/dt will vary
> with time in such a way that the integral of dtau/t over one period is 1,
> just as in the example above (not with that particular function, though).
Do you mean that over the period of the orbit, there is some point where
dtau/dt < 0 to enable the slower clock to catch up with the faster again?
That's interesting. Any idea where on the ellipse it might be, quite the
contrary?
>
> Did that make you uncontrollably fart ?
Err, not this time. I consider awarding you a PhD in confusion a serious
matter.
ROLFMAO!
oops.... has now...
>
> > > You NEVER give a sensible answer to any question,
> > > but invariably let yourself look a fool by babbling
> > > incoherent nonsense or rolling on the floor.
> > > Which you yet again will demonstrate in your next posting.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > As I have above, I'm sure.
>
> Indeed.
> When you have made a fool of yourself in one posting,
> you invariably will try to remedy that by making an even bigger fool
> of yourself in the next.
>
> This posting of yours is a prime example.
> (Particularly the part I snipped in this posting, but addressed in another.)
>
>
> Paul
Of course, Paul.
Here, take this vellum.
Logic isn't your strong side, eh?
Your error is in fact very simple - and demonstrates your ignorance of
logic, but you have a remarkable ability to use Newtonian Mechanics when you
need to, whilst denying it applies to the real world.
Paul Andersen, Doctor of Philosophy (confusion).
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
oops... a relativistic fart.
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
oops... another relativistic fart.
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Professor Androcles
<end quote>
Paul
- Next message: sal: "Re: Utter tripe from Tom Roberts."
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
