Re: Query about simultaneous events..

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:51:59 GMT

"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0409080639.b1cbd3@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<7Jn%c.2503$717.25699504@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
| > news:a17e5e0e.0409070611.50279cbc@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<D77%c.2014$DX6.21184637@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:a17e5e0e.0409061510.11dc4d89@posting.google.com...
| > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<g82%c.1810$ko3.17391735@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > | > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:a17e5e0e.0409060636.198c687a@posting.google.com...
| > | > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message
| > news:<gPN_c.1407$NN3.13401159@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > | > | > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:a17e5e0e.0409051357.19f54814@posting.google.com...
| > | > | > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
| > message
| > news:<e5y_c.837$CI3.8162479@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > | > | > | > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | > news:a17e5e0e.0409041957.50a7e48e@posting.google.com...
| > | > | > | > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote
in
| > | > message
| > | > news:<egq_c.703$UB6.6453436@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > | > | > | > | > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
| > | > | > | > | > | >
news:747a5d11.0409041301.1fcb1dc9@posting.google.com...
| > | > | > | > | > | > | rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > news:<a17e5e0e.0409040333.1037025d@posting.google.com>...
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > I can't tell if the Lorentz equations are the
| > result
| > | > of a
| > | > mistake
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > from not using velocity of light or whether they
| > really
| > mean
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > something.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > I can. They are a hopeless blunder and cannot be
| > derived.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special
| > Relativity.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > For quotations following, reference:
| > | > | > | > | > | >
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | > | > | > | > | > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by
Albert
| > Einstein)
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a
| > | > definite
| > | > velocity c
| > | > | > | > | > | > which is independent of the state of motion of the
| > emitting
| > body",
| > | > | > | > | > | > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence
to
| > | > support
| > | > it.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 2) "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.",
| > | > | > | > | > | > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when
| > there is
| > any
| > | > | > | > | > | > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to
the
| > derivation
| > | > | > of
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | > | > | > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 3) The equation
| > | > | > | > | > | > 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))
| > | > | > | > ,
| > | > | > | > | > | > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is
| > tantamount to
| > saying
| > | > | > | > | > | > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' =
x-vt,
| > hence
| > 0'
| > | > | > =
| > | > | > 0-vt,
| > | > | > | > | > | > and the equation should be
| > | > | > | > | > | > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > | > | > | > | > | > at the very least.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ...
"
| > | > without
| > | > considering
| > | > | > | > | > | > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using
| > | > Einstein's
| > | > method)
| > | > | > | > | > | > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > | > | > | > | > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 6) The statements
| > | > | > | > | > | > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point
of
| > k,
| > | > | > | > | > | > when measured in the stationary system, with the
| > velocity
| > c-v..."
| > | > | > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > | > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c
| > cannot be
| > | > | > altered
| > | > | > by
| > | > | > | > | > | > composition with a velocity less than that of light.
For
| > | > this
| > | > case
| > | > | > | > we
| > | > | > | > obtain
| > | > | > | > | > | > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > | > | > | > | > | > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean,
the
| > | > second
| > | > being
| > | > | > | > | > | > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an
axiom
| > of a
| > | > | > vector
| > | > | > space.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is
| > self-consistent
| > | > | > by
| > | > | > feeding
| > | > | > | > | > | > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in
3)
| > and
| > | > | > finding a
| > | > | > total
| > | > | > | > | > | > failure.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Check:
| > | > | > | > | > | >
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)]
| > =
| > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | Well, I don't see anyone except me using -c for
velocity
| > of a
| > photon
| > | > | > | > | > | going in the -x direction. What do you use?
| > | > | > | > | > | Robert B. winn
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > Duh...
| > | > | > | > | > The above went over the top of your head, didn't it?
| > | > | > | > | > Never mind, go back to your sand box or play on the
slide.
| > | > | > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | I have no idea what the above means. What do you use for
the
| > | > velocity
| > | > of
| > | > | > | > a photon?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | Robert B. Winn
| > | > | > | > A photon is just like anything else. No magic. We use c, but
| > | > RELATIVE to
| > | > the
| > | > | > | > source, as a bullet is relative to the gun. Crazy Einstein
| > thinks it
| > is
| > | > | > | > relative to the observer.
| > | > | > | > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| > | > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Well, I thought scientists agreed that the motion of a source
of
| > light
| > | > | > | relative to the observer did not affect the time it takes a
photon
| > to
| > | > | > | reach the observer.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > All scientists agree! Wherever did you get that idea?
| > | > | > Scientists haven't agreed since Copernicus disagreed with
Ptolemy.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | For instance, if a car is driving toward you and
| > | > | > | turns on its headlights, light from the moving car will not
reach
| > you
| > | > | > | any faster than light from a parked car that has its lights
turned
| > on
| > | > | > | the same distance away.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Well, it won't in air. But if there is no medium, the light will
| > reach
| > | > | > you sooner than the light from the parked car. The way to test
this
| > | > | > is to use the ISS as the moving car and shoot a laser at the
moon.
| > | > | > You can see what happens as the "car" moves back and forth
| > | > | > going around in an ellipse. Did you even bother to read the page
| > | > | > I cited above?
| > | > | > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| > | > | > You can't learn if you won't do your homework, y'know. You are
| > | > | > a big boy now, getting free tuition. I expect you to pass a test
| > | > | > or go find another tutor.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | That is what this modern physics book that I
| > | > | > | have says. I don't have amy problem with that.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I would. Modern physics text books are out of date before
| > | > | > they are written, and seldom logical.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | Mathematically all it
| > | > | > | means is that the point where the photon is emitted in a frame
of
| > | > | > | reference does not change. If light is emitted at the origin
of
| > K',
| > | > | > | then that does not change if the source of light moves
relative to
| > K'
| > | > | > | after the light is emitted.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Ah... I see. Well, you should be reading a modern math text
book.
| > | > | > They contain sensible math, not Einstein's garbage that leads to
| > paradox.
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | Robert B. winn
| > | > |
| > | > | Well, I read about the double stars and all, but it seems to me
that
| > | > | my equations explain it just as well.
| >
| > | > | Robert B. winn
| > | >
| > | > Oh? Please elucidate, do. The rest of us have to rely on computer
| > programs
| > | > to generate a light curve, but if you have an equation... well.
| > | > That should be quite exciting.
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | Well, no reason to try to explain something to a person who is being
| > | sarcastic. If you want to believe -c can be replaced by c+v go ahead
| > | and believe it.
| > | Robert B. Winn
| >
| > Hmm... c+v = -c.
| > v = -2c
| > c = -v/2
| > Is that your equation that explains double stars?
| > And you have no reason to explain it...
| > I see.
| > It would seem we are done then.
| > Have a nice day.
| > Androcles
|
| x=wt w=+c or
| x'=wt' w=-c
| x'=x-vt
| as seen from K.
|
| x=x'-v't'
| v'=-v
| as seen from K'
| These are my equations.

They look fine to me, but I don't see how they explain double stars
as you claimed. That is why I asked you to elaborate when you got the hump.

Androcles.

| I'll see you later, then. Have a nice day.
| Robert B. Winn

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley experiment
    ... > Androcles wrote: ... >> by composition with a velocity less than that of light. ... >> You appear to be labouring under the delusion that I support LET. ... > relativity produces the result without regard to these details." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einsteins Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... |> Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... |> THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... |> of an infinitely great velocity"]. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einsteins Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
    ... > | Androcles wrote: ... > Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... > THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... > of an infinitely great velocity"]. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PLEASE DONT FEED THE TROLLS
    ... | "Androcles" wrote in message ... |> | of relativity, ignoring all counters presented to you. ... |> "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by ... | can simply lift its head up. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)