Re: Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and time


"Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1125606805.640158.285910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1125591779.834881.122340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In what followed after this line of your comment, you repeated
> > > > your thing with multiple observers and clocks - again.
> > > > So I will not comment on that because AT THIS POINT WE
> > > > CONSIDER ONLY ONE OBSERVER WITH ONE CLOCK
> > >
> > > Why are you so vehemently opposed to considering two observers?
> >
> > Because you don't understand the situation with one observer
> > yet.
> >
> > > At
> > > least it should be a legitimate approach to the problem. The point is
> > > in fact that by restricting yourself to one observer, your are already
> > > *implying* that the velocity is irreleveant here.
> >
> > That is my point.
> >
> > > However, this
> > > assumption would only hold if you could describe the propagation of
> > > light by the Galilei transformation
> >
> > No. In capitals:
> > WITH ONE OBSERVER, THERE CANNOT BE A
> > TRANSFORMATION.
> > I will stop reading your reply here.
> > We work with one observer.
>
> I am sorry to see you frustrated, but the reason is that you are
> apparently still not understanding my argument:

Oh, but I am not frustrated, nor am I interested in your arguments,
before you are able to properly formulate arguments to begin with,
and before you answer some very simple questions concerning single
observers describing simple objects in their laboratory.

We can contine if you reply to message
GWDRe.183387$pF5.10205273@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
again, keeping in mind what I just said, and keeping in mind the
following (- it appears in the same message -):
| I will work with small steps again, like before.
| Do not object to something that is not written and that
| I might have said before. We start from scratch.
| If at some step you don't agree, stop there and skip
| everything that follows. Just say OK or not OKAY, and in the
| latter case, a short reason - NOT involving multiple observers
| in relative motion and clocks. Only ONE OBSERVER.
If you are not able and/or refuse to do this, I cannot help you
properly formulate arguments and we cannot continue
communicating the way we have been doing up to now.
This is entirly up to you.

Dirk Vdm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Calculating v[t], x[t], and t[t] for an constant accelerated object.
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... >> observer. ... I used a to emphasize the similarity to acceleration, ... > I think you would have found it without Mathematica;-) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Derivation of Lorentz from basic assumptions
    ... In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel ... >> observer, and A is the moving one. ... >> After some grindwork I get the equation pair ... >> position depending on the gender, species, and construction ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... >> follow that an observer at what we perceive to be the ... > earth has a curved surface has NOTHING to do with properties of ... and the real geometry in which the shortest distance between ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... >> follow that an observer at what we perceive to be the ... > earth has a curved surface has NOTHING to do with properties of ... and the real geometry in which the shortest distance between ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... >> follow that an observer at what we perceive to be the ... > earth has a curved surface has NOTHING to do with properties of ... and the real geometry in which the shortest distance between ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast