Re: eleaticus

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/08/04 

Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 03:08:43 -0500

"Dummy" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:0Wn9d.7278$ay5.1183@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> E: Listen up, Androcles, I am not one of the True Believer SR-cult cretin
> shits who treat you so shittily.

> A: Ok, listening up.

> E: Answer these question so we can preceed to your thesis on solid ground.
> If you think my implied suggestions is wrong go back into 1905 and see
what
> it says.

> E: A. AE intended x' to be a poitive constant, moving system value, the
> distance of the moving mirror from the moving origin.

> A: Defined by x' = x-vt. Some sample values
> x' x v t
> -2 -1 1 1
> 1 0 -1 1

Why are you doing this? You know, I suspect, that you are engaged in
buffoonery.

(I am writing in the near-belief that it is not Androcles who wrote this
post.)

There can be no negative value for x'.

You say below there can be no negative time, and athough your comment there
was in error, being about a coordinate, not about time, he used x'/(c-v) and
x'/(c+v) as elapsed time expressions to be added to starting time t. Hence,
x' must be positive. The middle time expression, x'/(c-v) also tells us the
light is moving toward the right because it says the mirror is running from
the light which can only be if it is on the side of the moving origin toward
which the moving origin is moving, and thus again x'>0.

The moving origin is moving to the right (v>0) "let a constant velocity be
imparted to the right".

Hence, v is poitive.

Also, he said that x' was to be a constant. Which is compataible with
everything he did.
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
(moving system) must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
His setup is indeed compatible with these (above) declarations.

> E: B. he set v positive (or zero)?

> A: It should be able to take any value. Actually it can only take zero.

? It is indeed the only value for which his results actually work, but that
doesn't give him the sake of the argument about his derivation process. He
said make it positive and that is the way it is in his setup.

Innyhoo, see above for AE's setup.

> E: C. it is t>=0 we should pay attention to?

> A: Time doesn't run backwards.

The coordinate t is not time, it is the time coordinate.

BTW, by now I feel more certain it is not Androcles that wrote the article.
Wouldn't he be much more likely than a SR-cult cretin to show actual
interest in getting it right?

> E: D. if x' is positive (a distance, length) and so are v and t then x
must
> be
> positive also?

> A:
> x' = x - v*t
> 2' = 3 - 1*1
> 1' = 2 - 1*1

No. x' is constant (and positive) see above.

No. There is exactly one condition for which AE's setup is valid, and that
condtion recognizes that the starting time for the light trip is t and that
the moving origin is at vt in the atationary system, but we can't say at
x=vt because he uses x in another way.
(AE actually did setiup the two coordinate systems to have adjacent origins
at time t=0.)

Let's call the x-value adjacent to the moving origin at time t, x(O').= vt.
Hence, the mirror is at x(O')+x'= vt+x', From x'=x-vt we recognize that x
must be changing at the same rate as vt and is the everchanging stationary
system coordinate of the moving mirror: x=x'+vt, x'=x-vt, just as AE
asserted.

>Never mind my abrupt nature. It's just the way I come across.
>Androcles.

Well, ok, it is Androcles.

Andy, the part of AE 1905 down to and somewhat past his tau expressions was
crappy indeed. He never does just tell us where the moving system origin was
at t=0. You have to figure it out yourself (unless you have me available).

Note that placing the moving origin at vt=x(O') made AE;s assertion that
x',y,z are constant come out right. There is no other way that fits.

His x is always adjacent to (positive) x', his moving origin is always at
vt.

regards,

(But I really did expect you to LOOK for what AE said about the values.)

eleaticus

Quantcast