Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric.
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/16/04
- Next message: sal: "A small rocket-science brain teaser"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:08:30 GMT
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:i7Xbd.9810$Rf1.2027@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Snipped what you had no answer for, Roberts?
Typical relativist tactics, that. Here it is again.
Roberts writes:
"This is why most (if not all) physicists today believe in Special
Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an alternative description
without violating one of the postulates or disregarding a very large
body of experimental evidence. If you truly believe that Special
Relativity simply must be false (for whatever reason), go back and
review the four Postulates, and find a hole in them."
This is why most (if not all) physicists today are failed mathematicians-
it is IMPOSSIBLE for special relativity to be anything other than false.
There is nothing wrong with the group postulates, but SR violates the
second.
" 2. Any transformation has an inverse, which is also a transformation."
So what is the inverse transformation to
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ?
A little algebra and
x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = x-vt
x = x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vt.
That is not an equation you'll ever see in SR.
However, the PoR must hold.
Consider v = 0.866c, and this lasts for a period of time of 1 year; c, of
course, is one light-year per year.
By definition, in the frame of S', we must move a distance from (0',0')
to (0.866', 1.0') if we have a velocity v = 0.866.
We know ask what this distance is in S, and to do that we use
x = x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) +vt.
= 0.866 * 0.5 + 0.866*.. err... t? .... [1]
ah, we have a problem. We do not yet have t.
Well,
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so
t' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = t-vx/c^2,
t = t' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vx/c^2.
= 0.866 * 0.5 + 0.866 * ?....[2], again we have a problem.
It was x we were trying to find.
It looks as if we'll need to use simultaneous equations.
x = 0.433 + 0.866 * t
t = 0.433 + 0.866 * x
We subtract one equation from the other...
x-t = 0.866t - 0.866x, and then add t to each side.
x = 0.866t- 0.866x+t, then add 0.866x to each side,
x + 0.866x = 0.866t+t, or
1.866 x = 1.866 t. Dividing both sides by 1.866,
x = t.
Now we can substitute into [2]
t = 0.866 * 0.5 + 0.866 * t
t = 0.433 + 0.866 * t
t - 0.866 * t = 0.433
t(1-0.866) = 0.433
t = 0.433 /(1-0.866)
= 0.433/0.134
= 3.23
And of course since x = t, x = 3.23 also.
So... our intrepid traveller travels a distance of 0.866 light years
in one year, by his own clock, at speed v = 0.866c.
We, however, determine that he travelled 3.23 light years and
it took him 3.23 years to do so.
Therefore he was moving at the speed of light.
Hmm.. well, as Roberts (and Einstein) says,
V = (c+v) / (1+v/c), this is a transformation, so let us solve for v to find
the inverse according to:
" 2. Any transformation has an inverse, which is also a transformation."
V * (1+v/c) = c+v
v = V * (1+v/c) - c
= V+Vv/c - c
v - Vv/c = V - c
v(1-V/c) = V-c
v = (V-c) / (1-V/c)
= (0.866 - 1) / (1- 0.866/c)
= -0.134 / 0.134
= -1.0c.
How very odd.
The relativist will now declare that I must have made a mistake somewhere.
Let him find it.
I would submit that the first relativist has made a mistake somewhere.
I have found it.
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)
where V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) as required by the redefined PoR.
Androcles.
- Next message: sal: "A small rocket-science brain teaser"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Roberts' persusaive rhetoric."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
