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

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:50:34 GMT

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30n975F31gb8fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:30mrlhF2uvplmU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>> "It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates:
>> that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light
>> travels at the same speed in all inertial frames."
>> Baez is wrong right there.
>> The word "inertial" is not used at all in Einstein's paper, ref:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>
>> What is "often said" is often stupidity.
>> The two postulates of SR are:
>> 1) The Principle of Relativity, otherwise known as Galilean
>> Relativity,
>> of which Einstein gives the example of a magnet moving past a
>> conductor
>> or a conductor moving past a magnet.
>> This he calls a reciprocal electrodynamic action.
>> The PoR holds good.
>> 2) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
>> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
>> emitting body. "
>>
>> As to "inertial" frames, Einstein also states (end of section 4)
>> "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
>> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
>> situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "
>> There is no way motion at the equator can be called an "inertial"
>> frame.
>> Baez doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> The clock at the equator running slower that a clock at the pole
>> is found from
>> "If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also
>> valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If
>> one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with
>> constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t
>> seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled
>> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2) tv^2/c^2 second slow. "
>> That is admitted assumption and also nonsense.
>> When we use a quadrilateral with two parallel sides, both parallel to
>> the X-axis,
>> we find that Einstein's earlier ASSUMPTION "IF we place x' =
>> x-vt...."
>> fails, we now have x' = x+vt.
>>
>> I wouldn't trust one single word of what Baez says, Baez does not and
>> never has
>> understood Einstein's relativity.
>> I strongly doubt the "often said" others do, either.
>> Androcles.
>
> LOL! The reason that I don't trust the Baez link is that I just
> proved it wrong. There are already more waves (ticks) suspended
> between A and B than between C and B at the onset, the advance in the
> B clock reading over the acceleration interval of A certainly doesn't
> help matters. Those extra ticks have to go somewhere, we can't just
> sweep them under the rug and pretend that they never existed. Just
> after acceleration the number of suspended waves must be exactly the
> same in the frames of both A and C, since after all, they are
> comoving, i.e. in the same frame and in the same x position. OTOH,
> neither C nor B will agree with B that B intercepted these extra waves
> during its acceleration interval, because from their frames B doesn't
> in fact do so. And that is why this frequency shift isn't empirically
> observed, i.e. it cannot logically exist. Being that this extra shift
> is a direct prediction of str, and given that it is a very testable
> prediction, and given that it fails that test, well that's about all
> there to it. It's just fucking insanity personified. How many of
> these mathmagicians do you suppose would see no problem with a
> statement such as
> "q -> (p /\ not-p)"?
>
> Richard Perry
Most of them, of course :-)
I took Don Koks' version of the twin paradox (Doppler shift variation)
apart at
  http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
Where that guy got his doctorate is something of a mystery, he can't
count to 14!
I can only surmise they are handing out degrees to 6-year-olds, my
grandson
has just turned 7 now and he can do better than Koks. He's even
progressing to multiplication!
You can get a Nobel prize for imagining time dilation, too.
  http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
Androcles.

Quantcast