Re: Where is the flaw?


"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152296920.575087.247670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1152194886.564249.31460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152164037.932314.91030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
| > | > | > This post is really a follow-up to another post a few months
ago:
| > | > | >
| > | >
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/31732ed283f482d5/c72b57a46f96a9b2?lnk=st&q=cafeinst+relativity&rnum=2&hl=en#c72b57a46f96a9b2
| > | > | >
| > | > | > See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high
school,
| > | > | > which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned
| > there,
| > | > | > it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special
| > relativity.
| > | > | > Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and
point to
| > | > | > the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Thank you,
| > | > | > Craig
| > | > |
| > | > | You've got some guy standing on a 260,000 km long space ship and
| > | > | watching a buoy go by, timing when he sees the front and back end
of
| > | > | the space ship pass the buoy at c*sqrt(3/4). The amount of time
his
| > | > | clock reads will vary considerably depending on whether he does
this
| > | > | from the front or back or middle of the ship.
| > | > |
| > | > | Note that the apparent speed of the receding buoy is less than
half
| > the
| > | > | speed of light, while the apparent speed of the approaching buoy
is
| > | > | superluminal.
| > | > |
| > | > | And I don't really see the point of taking pictures of the
| > stopwatches.
| > | > | It might be of some interest to take pictures of the spaceship
from
| > | > | the buoy as it approaches (it would appear elongated) and as it
| > | > | recedes, (it would appear foreshortened.) And the considerable
| > | > | distortion of the image as it passed close to the buoy.
| > | > |
| > | > | Now, of course the two readings on the stopwatches are going to be
| > | > | different. I would like to find out, once the two different
answers
| > | > | are given to the author, how he intends to discern which of the
two
| > | > | objects was moving and which was stationary. He claims he would
be
| > | > | able to, but I don't know whether he realizes he is bluffing.
| > | >
| > | > Yes, you are right, the time at the back is different to the time at
| > | > the front.
| > |
| > | True, the two clocks (if synchronized on the train) would be
different.
| > |
| > |
| > | t' = (t - v x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
| > |
| > | According to the theory of relativity, the clocks would differ
| > | precisely by a value of ((v x)/(c^2))/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the
| > | velocity of the train relative to the observer, x is the distance
| > | between the clocks on the train in the observers reference frame, and
c
| > | is the speed of light.
| > |
| > | > Here are the clocks at the back and front, speed 0.6.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/train.gif
| > | >
| > |
| > | The two clocks should, in general, go at the same rate for any given
| > | observer. Your animation shows the back clock starting out behind and
| > | catching up. SR says the back clock starts out ahead and stays ahead.
| >
| >
| > The difficulty Einstein was faced with was not knowing the time at
| > the mirror. Knowing the time at the source is easy enough, but how can
| > we tell what the time is at Saturn, with Cassini in orbit there, unless
| > Cassini has a mirror to reflect light back to us? Knowing the time that
| > a signal was sent and the time it is recieved, Einstein predicted the
time
| > at Saturn would be half the round trip time plus the start time. So my
| > clocks are positioned where the mirrors are.
| >
| > The ray from the front of the train strikes the mirror at the rear of
| > the train a mere 8 seconds after the experiment begins, after which the
ray
| > from the rear of the train strikes the mirror at the front of the train
a
| > full
| > 8 seconds after the experiment begins and 12 seconds after the ray
| > from the front of the train strikes the mirror at the rear of the train,
| > since both
| > rays complete their respective round trip in 16 seconds, four seconds
| > faster than they do in the stationary frame.
| > The 12 seconds delay between the 1st 8 seconds and the 2nd 8 seconds
| > is due to "the equations must be linear on account of the properties
| > of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.", Einstein said so
| > and he's a god.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Of course, you may be taking into account the doppler effect in your
| > | consideration of the apparent clock speeds.
| >
| > Of course, you are guessing as usual. My animation is a parallelogram,
not a
| > rhombus.
| >
|
| Unfortunately, I have to guess what your talking about most of the
| time. In this case, it appears I've given you too much credit.

Wrong again. I'm discussing the mathematics of SR, something you are
not familiar with. However, you can read it at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(if you can read math, that is).
If you have any questions just ask instead of guessing, dork. I know it
inside out. The gif shows the derivation of the cuckoo transformations
for idiots like you. You know, the transformations Einstein blamed Lorentz
for in case they backfired on him, the ones you can't find a paper for.


| > | I would agree that it is
| > | important to take these effects into account if you want to find out
| > | what the observer actually sees, or vice-versa, when the observer
| > | wishes to take what he sees and map it back into what actually
| > | happened.
| >
| > An observer at the back of the train sees a signal from the front
| > of the train 8 seconds after it was sent.
| > An observer at the front of the train sees a signal from the back of
| > of the train 8 seconds after it was sent.
| > An observer at the trackside sees a signal from the station 10 seconds
| > after it was sent. All very self-consistent, surely?
| >
| >
| >
| > In such a case, the oncoming clock would appear to be going
| > | fast, and the receding clock would appear to be going slow.
| >
| > We are not concerned with what the rider of the train sees
| > of the clock at the station, little boy.
|
| Kind of difficult to tell what we're concerned with in an animation
| without a description that flashes by in six seconds , old man.

You don't know how to disassemble an animated gif? Wow! I thought
you were smart enough for that.
Never mind, there is a fuller explanation at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Who created your movie for you? Or did you steal it?
I took it apart, boy. You vertical ray of light has a different speed to
the horizontal ray. Didn't you know the speed of light is isotropic?


|
| > It takes 8 seconds for
| > light to get from the engine to the caboose, and 8 seconds
| > from the caboose to the engine. The distance between
| > caboose and engine doesn't change, you see.
| > The clock at the caboose is 8 seconds behind the clock at the engine,
| > and the clock at the engine is 8 seconds behind the clock at the caboose
| > 12 seconds later, that's simultaneity,
|
| No, that's not simultaneity.

Yes it is if I say so.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." - Humpty Roberts.
Now Humpty Roberts is a top-notch relativist shithead, he's contributed
to the relativity FAQs and endorsed by Professor Shithead John Baez of
USC, and if Humpty says I don't need proof, who the hell are you to argue,
punk?
The light from the front of the train hits the mirror at the back of the
train
simultaneously with the light from the back of the train hitting the mirror
at the front of the train, but at different times.

|
| > unless they both read
| > 0 or 16, in which case it takes no time at all for light to travel
between
| > them, for "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part,
physically,
| > of an infinitely great velocity." -- Laurel and Hardy... oops.. Einstein
| >
|
| Your favorite pastime of taking statements out of context, I see.

You see nothing, punk. You are blinder than a fleidermaus. I've tried
to help you, but you have your head up your arse.
The clocks at the front and back of the train agree once the light
is received. That's simultaneity. They do not agree when the light
is reflecting at the mirror, but they both read 8 seconds, SHITHEAD!


|
| > |
| > | So, is there a place to observe the passing train where you see the
| > | clock at the back of the train overtake the clock at the front, as you
| > | show in your animation? Yes.
| >
| > Answer your own strawman, why don't you?
| >
| > The answer is NO.
| > The clock at the back of the train shows
| > the same time as the clock at the front of the train after 16 seconds,
| > so I merged them after the experiment was over.
|
| Okay, I've managed to find a way to slow down the animation and see
| what is actually going on.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/train.gif
|
| When it went by fast, along with your statement that you agreed with
| me, it created the illusion that you had some clue what you were
| talking about. Your clocks are not synchronized in the train's frame,
| and your method of "merging" them is stupid.

Why, because I overlayed them, shithead? You really should learn
to be polite to those teaching you PHYSICS, imbecile.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, the derivation of the cuckoo
transformations. Nor do you have to take my word for it. You can read
it for yourself in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(if you can read math, that is, which I doubt).
Nor do you have to like me, I'm not Mr. Nice Guy, I'm Dr. Nasty,
but you do need to learn math from the bottom up and know where
the cuckoo transformations come from. C'mon, Spookfood. It is time
someone stopped feeding you and you learned to eat for yourself.
That fuckin' sugar is poison. It is transforming you to fat and lazy.
Exercise that mind of yours. Question, not accept. I know you can do it.


|
| > Both moving clocks tick off 16 seconds when the stationary clock
| > ticks off 20 seconds, as required. The equations
| > are LINEAR (if you only look at the end points).
| > The clock at the back of the train ticks off 8 seconds in 4 seconds,
then
| > is slows down to tick off 8 seconds in 12 seconds.
| > The clock at the front of the train ticks off 8 seconds in 12 seconds,
then
| > it speeds up to tick off 8 seconds in 4 seconds.
| >
| >
| > | As I picture it, for any given clock
| > | reading there is a cone (the intersection of two expanding spheres)
| > | shaped region in space where any observer within it would see the that
| > | time on both clocks simultaneously. (I just overcomplicated things
| > | again, didn't I?)
| >
| > Of course you are right. The intersection of two expanding spheres
| > is a cone. I call it a circle, but let's agree that circles are called
| > cones, shall we? Everything should be as silly as possible, preferably
| > sillier.
| > Did you take your medication before or after you decided to call
| > circles "cones"?
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > The "author" is Einstein. He bluffed (actually, he LIED). He won't
| > | > tell you though, he's dead.
| > |
| > | Actually, the author I was referring to was Ardeshir Mehta, the author
| > | of the Original Poster's challenge, located at:
| > | http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SimpleChallengeOfRelativity.pdf
| > |
| > | > I'm surprised to see we agree, Spookfood.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | I'm surprised that you have any concept that is self-consistent enough
| > | to agree with!
| >
| > That's because you think a circle is a cone.
| >
| >
| > You appear to be rationally applying the concept of
| > | propagation delay to a system of Galilean relativity, which is a very
| > | difficult problem.
| > |
| >
| > Difficult problems are fun.
| >
|
| Okay, I have one for you.
|
| Exercise: Show that the set of all intersection points of two spheres
| expanding at constant rates forms a cone.
|
| Enjoy!
*** off.
|
|
| > Perhaps you don't know what an equation is, Spookfeed.
| > In order to get to your precious "theory" and its cuckoo
transformations,
| > half-arsed Einstein wrote:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| > to which your reply is "What?"
| > The other half... Oh, never mind. You'd never understand it anyway.
| >
| >
| > Of course, relativity is summarised in the immoortel words of Humpty
| > Roberts, part author of the Relativity FAQs and
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant".
|
| I would call that Engineering where proof is completely irrelevant.

Tell that to an airline pilot, it is his life on the line. Shitheads only
have
to risk reputation.

|
| > Have you discovered the paper where H. A. Lorentz created Einstein's
cuckoo
| > transformations yet, or shall we wait until doomsday?
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less
| Than That of Light
| H.A. Lorentz
| Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of Amsterdam, June 1904
|
| I'm still looking over it, because the equations he gives are not the
| same as the standard form.
|
| They are as follows:
|
| (3) c^2/(c^2-v^2) = beta^2
|
| (4) x'=beta*l*x, y'=l*y, z'=l*z
|
| (5) t'=l*t/beta - beta*l*v/c^2 * x
|
| Later he determines that l is a constant equal to 1.

(3) is Doppler inverted.

So Lorentz hasn't heard of cosmic muons.
In a race between a cosmic photon and a cosmic muon,
using the same distance and the same clock, muons
originate in the upper atmosphere and decay after 2.2 usec,
whereas cosmic photons (which do not decay) take 333 usec.
The cosmic muon is supposed to be a proof of time dilation,
since it is ASSUMED that the speed of the muon cannot exceed
the speed of the photon. The problem is the muon sees
the Earth coming toward the muon, the muon has no speed
in its own frame of reference. Thus the Earth doesn't decay
in 2.2 usec, it lasts for 4,000,000,000 years. Thank Lorentz
the Earth is still here. It decays next week if my calculations
are correct, but if not I'll readjust my gamma table.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
Androcles.









.

Loading