Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:58:10 -0600

RP wrote:

> Let's start with a fresh page.
> According to your argument, MCIFs are sufficient to resolve the issue,
> when taken in conjunction with str.

What are MCIFs?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

Pretty much just another way of stating what you stated, i.e. that the
accelerating frame is resolved into a sequence of instantaneous
velocities and corresponding inertial frames.

> Gtr is unnecessary. Very well then. Let's alter the argument just a bit:
>
> First, let's let the B (distant) clock remain at rest in lab frame
> throughout the sequence. Though this is irrelevant to the argument that
> follows, it may perchance avoid your perception a loophole that isn't
> there.
>
> During acceleration from rest, clock A intercepts n waves corresponding
> one-to-one with the ticks of the B clock. These are waves that were
> already suspended between the clocks before the initial acceleration of
> A. We'll also assume a virtually instantaneous acceleration into the
> final inertial frame of A. Now let's introduce another clock C, that is
> already moving in the inertial frame that A accelerates into, and whose
> passage by A is the actual trigger for the A clock acceleration. In the
> instant that A and C are collocated, wrt C, the B clock is further ahead
> in its ticking than it is in the at rest frame of B. IOW, B and C don't
> agree in this instant on the reading on the A clock. OTOH, both must
> intercept exactly the same number of A ticks from this point on, that is
> since they will be comoving after this event. This requires that A
> intercept an arbitrarily large number of ticks during its brief
> acceleration interval in order balance the books. IOW, A must tick
> forward in time wrt B (during this interval) sufficiently to produce a
> match to the reading existent in the C frame.
>
> Now, what was that you were saying about "me" not understanding?
> Try looking these over, maybe they'll change your opinion about my
> mathematical capabilities and understanding of the issues. The math,
> corresponding to the argument above, consists of simple inequalities. If
> you're as intelligent as you espouse to be, then surely you can
> reformulate the argument into symbolic form. Moreover, the numbers are
> absent from the above argument simply because they are arbitrary, its a
> question of less than/more than, just simple logic.
>
> If, as you seem to be of the opinion, you think that I am inept at the
> math, then try going over the following papers. Perhaps you'll find
> that opinions are like assholes. It is you sir, who errs in this
> argument. Both of the following papers are more empirical proof of that
> fact.
>
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.pdf
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Fizeau.pdf
>

Quantcast