Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter

From: Randy Poe (poespam-trap_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/22/04 

Date: 22 Dec 2004 11:15:08 -0800

Androcles wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1103739627.764364.226570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Androcles wrote:
> >> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> >> news:41C9A96A.FFD7C696@hate.spam.net...
> >> > (V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
> >> >
> >> > This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction
of
> >> > motion.
> >> Fucking stooopid imbecile.
> >> "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically,
of
> > an
> >> infinitely great velocity."
> >> Reference :
> >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> >>
> >> (V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/infinity^2] = V1 +V2.
> >
> > Do you find anything in the paper to convince you that
> > this is what Einstein meant when he said (in the
> > context you snipped) "we shall, however, find in
> > what follows that the velocity of light..."?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > He is giving an introduction to the derivations which
> > follow. Something in what follows will presumably
> > explain what this statement means. Since nothing like
> > your idiocy appears in what follows, what do you
> > think in what Einstein ACTUALLY WROTE was this
> > statement discussing?
>
> Oops. I should have said "Yes, you idiot."
> It is right here.
> 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))
>
> I do not expect an idiot like you to understand it, though.

Stop selectively pulling equations out and learn to
read.

This equation is preceded by this explanation (emphasis
mine):

"If we place x'=x-vt, is is clear that a point at rest
in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z,
INDEPENDENT OF TIME. We first define tau as a function
of x', y, z, and t."...

The first argument in tau is position with respect to
the K frame. For an object at rest in the K frame at
the origin of the K frame is 0, now and forever.

> Still, I'll run it up the flagpole so that you can sputter.

Oh, please do.

> The arguments to the function tau() are coordinates in the K-frame,
> mixed with time in the K-frame.

Well no. Specifically, they are x', y, z, and t. x' is
in the K-frame, t is in the stationary frame.

> The ray moves from (0,0,0), which is the origin of the k-frame as
> measured in the K-frame,

Correct.

> to x' which is also as measured in the K-frame, being
> defined as x' = x-vt, where it reflects to the origin of the system
of
> coordinates.

Where it reflects to the same object, still located
at x' = 0.

> In the meantime, the origin of system k has moved to (0-vt,0,0)
> as measured in the stationary K-frame. Einstein has detemined that
this
> is NOT (0-vt,0,0) but (0,0,0).

No, Einstein has defined the first argument of tau
to be x', which is 0 for the object of interest, regardless
of how long t is.

> Therefore it follows that the ray reached x' and returned in a time
> interval so short that the origin of the k-frame did not depart
> from (0,0,0) and was infinitely fast.

Lovely. No comment I can add can possibly add to the
purity of this analysis.

             - Randy

Quantcast