Re: Bile awski the Janitor.

Androcles wrote:
> "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127898537.690241.180560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Androcles wrote:
> > "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1127543551.536820.33520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | Androcles wrote:
> > | > "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | > news:1127461664.302957.268110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | [...]
> > | > I meant the stationary clock the engine
> > | > | is passing when that clock shows 16 microseconds.
> > | >
> > | > Yes, you dumb ***.
> > | > It is at (80,0,0,16) which is not part of the equation.
> > |
> > | Aha, I think I see what your problem is.
> >
> > I don't have a problem, I know what's wrong with SR.
> > You are not smart enough too see that.
> >
> >
> > | You keep insisting on using an
> > | extra (*third*) set of moving clocks.
> >
> > Aha, I think I see what your problem is. You refuse to
> > use the real moving clocks and insist on using some
> > fake tau clocks.
>
> | The setup is that there are two observers (called "stationary" and
> | "moving", or K and k) and each uses clocks synchronised by the
> Einstein
> | convention.
>
> Bull***, they've only got one clock each. Learn to count.

Huh??? Unless you misspoke, this instantly invalidates everything you
say because it violates the entire basic premise and experimental
setup of Einstein's paper.

> | We seek tau(x,y,z,t) which is a function
>
> Then what the *** are you using tau(x',y',z',t') for, dumb***?

Because this function is easier to work with (less printer's ink used)
than tau(x,y,z,t). And once tau(x',y,z,t) is derived, it's very easy to
switch back to what you really want, namely tau(x,y,z,t). It's net
savings. For example, the tau equation expressed directly in terms of
(x,y,z,t) would have read:

1/2*(tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(vx/(c-v)+vx/(c+v),0,0,t+x/(c-v)+x/(c+v)) =
tau(x+vx/(c-v)),0,0,t+x/(c-v))

....a somewhat messier (although equivalent) form compared to
Einstein's.

This equation would yield a slightly different constraint for
infinitesimal x than "the x' version":

@tau/@x * c^2 + @tau/@t * v = 0

which would eventually lead to tau(x,y,z,t)=beta(v)phi(v)(t-xv/c^2) -
exactly as before, except x' would have never been introduced or
mentioned.

--
Jan Bielawski

.

Quantcast