Re: The Present.


Sorcerer wrote:
"Alex" <dralexgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151572565.855095.162940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Alex" <dralexgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1151498035.048666.171660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Relativity has a lot to say about the present moment. See:
| > |
| > | http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_relativity
| >
| > The derivation of the cuckoo transformations is given in
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >
| > which is explained at
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >
| > Notice the claim:
| > "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the lying
| > garbage at
| > http://tinyurl.com/qc5o6 is NOT Einstein's SR.
|
|
| The equations are linear,

tau(0) = 0
tau(4) = 8
tau(10) = 8
tau(16) = 8
tau(20) = 16
No way is that linear.


| I assume you mean that linear equations are
| inappropriate.

You can assume all you want, I'm talking mathematics, not assumptions.
The equations are not linear, no matter how much you assert they are.




| In this derivation the assumption is that space is
| homogenous and isotropic, ie: it is assumed that space has a form that
| can be described by the linear equations (Special Relativity).


Isotropic:
tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau_y = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau_z = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)

You need three time axes to be isotropic. Spacetime is not isotropic.



| There
| are no lies, the assumption is stated, obviously the equations would
| need modifying if space were curved.

I've just modified them - obviously you need three wristwatches.

The lying garbage is either
tau_y = t
tau_z = t
eta = y
zeta= z

or

tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)


It's kinda hard to say which since the idiots Einstein and Minkowski
use the Galilean transforms for the y- and z-axes. If people want to
play mathematical games they should at least be consistent or they'll
be caught in a contradiction, aren't you? :-)
Androcles


Let me see if you understand what you are doing. You are arbitrarily
defining a set of equations which do not resemble the Lorentz
Transformation. Then you are pointing out that this set of equations
you have arbitrarily defined leads to inconsistent and impossible
values. From this, you conclude that the Lorentz Transformations are
"cuckoo."

There's no reason to argue with you. The flaw is so transparent that a
child could see through it. I implore you to come up with a more
interesting attack.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Present.
    ... Sorcerer wrote: ... No way is that linear. ... | In this derivation the assumption is that space is ... They are not the Lorentz Transformations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Present.
    ... Sorcerer wrote: ... |> "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the lying ... | In this derivation the assumption is that space is ... They are not the Lorentz Transformations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Present.
    ... Sorcerer wrote: ... |> "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the ... | can be described by the linear equations (Special Relativity). ... They are not the Lorentz Transformations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Present.
    ... Sorcerer wrote: ... |> "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the ... | can be described by the linear equations (Special Relativity). ... They are not the Lorentz Transformations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Present.
    ... |> "Given that the equations are linear", which they are not, the lying ... | In this derivation the assumption is that space is ... | can be described by the linear equations (Special Relativity). ... you conclude that the Lorentz Transformations are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)