Re: The Present.


Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151781735.466985.110590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| > > > Who cares?
| > > >
| > > > You do.
| > >
| > > You're right. What you are doing looks like this:
| > >
| > > P->Q
| > > ~Q
| > > --------
| > > ~R
| > >
| > > It really bugs me that you are doing that.
| > >
|
|
| It really doesn't matter whether you came to the conclusion, P, by
| derivation or by reading it off your own colon. Unless you are in some
| way able to establish that R implies P or R is equivalent to P, you
| have no argument.

You butted in on my reply to dralex:

....because you continue to make the same argument I told you to correct
on your website.

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.

The Galilean transformation is correct when it comes to the y and z
axes. Einstein and Minkowski recognized this. The y-z plane at x=t=0
maintains its shape. The other y-z planes are modified where t' is a
function of x, but the phenomena are entirely summed up through
application of the Lorentz Transformation of ONE velocity. If you are
performing the transformations in three directions at once, as you seem
to want to do, you apply a well known algorithm, sometimes referred to
as "rotate-boost-rotate" whereby you rotate your coordinate system
until the x-axis is parallel to the "three directions at once" then you
perform the transformation, then you rotate back.

Instead of considering an observer accelerating in one direction, what
you are "deriving" is simultaneous solutions to the effects of
acceleration in three different perpendicular directions.


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

and you haven't shown anything I said was wrong.

Snipping and changing the subject only demonstrates what a

Snipping your messages is appropriate and necessary, because quoting
you would flag search-engines as material inappropriate for children.
As far as changing the subject, I've barely done that at all. The only
thing I've told you for the past 6 months is that this xi, eta, zeta
argument of yours is trivially flawed.

.

Loading