Re: Where is the flaw?


"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152375251.964814.281040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "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.
| >
|
| Actually, Einstein has a specific method for synchronizing the clocks
| on the train in which the clock at the back of a moving train should be
| ahead of the one behind. This is done by sending signals out from the
| exact center of the train toward the front and back at the same time.
| Your animation shows the clock at the back of the train being set
| according to a signal from the front of the train, which puts the back
| clock 8 seconds behind the one at the front, in the train's reference
| frame.

"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

tB-tA= t'A-tB

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions,
and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are
universally valid:--
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. " --
Albert Phuckwit Einstein.

ABC is an equilateral triangle.

ACTUALLY, you are lying, there are no midpoints mentioned in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Of course one expects bull*** from cretins like you.

=====================



| >
| > | > | 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?
| >

========================
No answer to that, have you?
========================

| >
| > |
| > | > 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 s..thead, he's contributed
| > to the relativity FAQs and endorsed by Professor s..thead John Baez of
| > USC, and if Humpty says I don't need proof, who the hell are you to
argue,
| > punk?
|
| Classic. You take out-of-context statements which you regard as
| foolish and make fun of, and then wholeheartedly adopt and utilize it
| for yourself. I would nominate this passage for Van de Moortel's hall
| of fame.


Go ahead, shithead. Dork Van de merde is now on record as saying
in message news:A6Brg.524499$wo6.12916828@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Never mind the math, check the physics."

He's a stupid a cretin as you are, and you a proven liar.


| > 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.
|
| Only the person at the back of the train would see this. The person at
| the front of the train would see the back clock 16 seconds behind his
| clock. Think about it.

I don't have to think about it. I can read.
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA= t'A-tB -- Albert Shithead Einstein.

You are liar. Pisses you off, doesn't it?
Bugs you, as you put it.

========================
REPEAT:
|
| > 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.
|
| Your method is stupid. It is a stupid method. I occasionally make
| stupid mistakes, too, but I can learn from them once they are pointed
| out.

Then it's time you started learning not to tell lies. I may be profane,
but I quote my sources and have no need to lie.
Wash your mouth out with soap, little cretin, because you are a f*cking
liar
with your Einstein uses midpoints.


| > 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 f..kin' 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.
| >
| >
|
| Why, thank you for the vote of confidence, Androcles. I think you
| might do well to stop focusing on the stupidest things Einstein ever
| said, and start considering the few areas where you think he was right.

He was right about Maxwell's equations being wrong. Maxwell was an
aetherialist.

"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet".

Note the use of the words "relative motion".

Then he tried to fix them and goofed, plugging his own pet theory about
time.
That was right after he'd read H.G. Wells's best seller "The Time Machine"
and was looking at patents for Swiss cuckoo clocks.



| As long as you approach the problem using vague statements which are
| essentially wrong or easily misinterpreted, (i.e. "the velocity of
| light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
| velocity.") you won't make any progress.

Something wrong with me quoting the huckster, is there?
Are you saying your hero was wrong? You are, aren't you?
Since when did vague statements which are essentially wrong or easily
misinterpreted belong in a scientific paper, shithead?

| Follow a more mechanistic
| approach, where you follow the steps he actually did, rather than the
| way he described it ten years later (once he'd apparently forgotten
| what he'd done.)

I haven't forgotten what I wrote in 1999, apparent liar. Google has the
record.
Message-ID: <epWH2.1150$ww5.1665@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4674b29449f08fb0?hl=en
Wed, Mar 17 1999 9:00 am

2AB/(t'A- tA) = c is a malicious deception, it is 0AB/(t'A-tA) = c = 0/0.

The light goes from A to A in time (t'A-tA), which is UNDEFINED.
That's where the rots starts, it is downhill all the way from that.

|
| In fact, I can see there is a lot of poison that you've taken right
| here in this thread. You are accepting that proof is irrelevant and
| using that as an argument against me. You have accepted that the
| velocity of light plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
| velocity in your thought experiment. These are uncooked meat with
| trichonosis. You must cook them carefully and well.


I always know when a relativist is about to lie through his teeth, he starts
the sentence with "Actually" or "In fact". There is never a need for it,
it is subconscious signal to the author to reassure himself.
When are you going to realise clocks remain synchronized WITHOUT
sending light between them?




You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

Hey moron! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/how_to3.JPG


High school algebra:

x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein
xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein

tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles

If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic
shithead.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c
Right or wrong, shitforbrains?

Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.

Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.


"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,

[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0/0
Hence c = 0/0 in Einstein's math.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).



| An object approaching at the speed of light would have no delay between
| the arrival of the light preceding the object's arrival and the arrival
| of the object. It's velocity would appear to be infinite and it's
| momentum would be infinite. This does not mean that you can treat the
| speed of light as infinite in all cases.

An object approaching at the speed of sound would have no delay between
the arrival of the sound preceding the object's arrival and the arrival
of the object. It's velocity would appear to be infinite and it's
momentum would be infinite. This does not mean that you can treat the
speed of sound as infinite in all cases.
Actually we call that a sonic boom, ignoramus. There are no lumic booms
except in a medium, then we call them Cherenkov radiation. It looks like
this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060329.html


| There are times when it is inappropriate to use deductive reasoning
| when inductive reasoning does the job faster and better. Imagine a
| pilot who needs PROOF that flying the plane incorrectly would cause the
| plane to crash.

Lies are not inductive or deductive proof, and flight simulators are used to
provide pilots with simulated PROOF that flying the plane incorrectly
would cause the plane to simulated crash.
When a pilot flies a simulator, he treats it exactly like the real thing (or
he loses his license, there is an instructor watching him). All civil
airline pilots have a six-monthly checkup, both physical and simulated
flying.
I know, I've scared the *** out of some of them, including Royal Navy
and Royal Air Force pilots flying a simulated Sea Harrier just prior to the
outbreak of the Falklands war, and the then chief test pilot of USAir in
1983.
I was the first person ever to land a Harrier with the engine flamed out,
at Exeter. The RN pilot wanted to go to lunch, I was performing radio
checks to meet specification, the radio faded out over Exeter as required,
he flamed me out, I tried to relight, no go, and I didn't want the job
of having to replace the ejector seat pin so I landed it, coming in fast
and flaring just as I would a Boeing 747. I did run off the end of the
runway, Sea Harriers have poor brakes, they are designed to be landed
vertically on carriers.
Mathematics is ALL about proof, and you have none. In FACT you are
just another liar, making it up as you go along, and that's a FACT.


| Imagine an engineer who requires a deductive proof
| from first principles that every component in his design will work as
| specified. While I'm sure such engineers exist, there are many more
| who simply rely on tried-and-tested methods which work (as far as they
| are concerned) because they work, and would say to the engineer of the
| former type "Don't reinvent the wheel."

Wheels are reinvented for every new model of car. By engineers, which
you'll never be. I have invented the light accelator and I have invented the
constant tyre pressure safety wheel. I'm not going to tell you about it
until I get patent approval.


|
| > |
| > | > 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!
| > f..k off.
|
| If the two spheres expand at the same rate, the surface is that
| generated by taking a pair of hyperbolas and spinning them around their
| axes (Unfortunately, I don't know the name for such a surface). If
| the two spheres appear simultaneously, the surface is a plane. If the
| two spheres expand at different rates, the surface is an ellipsoid.
|
| I think this problem may be a little beyond your educational level.
| Sorry about that.

I have no idea where you get the idea that we are discussing hyperbolas
but maybe this will help you:
http://www.punahou.edu/acad/sanders/geometrypages/hyperb1.gif
The intersection of the circles is still a straight line (not shown, it is
the missing
vertical blue line in the centre) and is a circle for the intersection of
spheres.
This non-problem is way beyond your reasoning, and I'm not the slightest bit
sorry.




| > |
| > |
| > | > 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. s..theads
only
| > have
| > to risk reputation.
| >
|
| I will, if I'm ever in a conversation with a pilot who feels needs
| PROOF that flying the plane incorrectly would cause the plane to crash.

They get the proof for free, especially when an engine falls off a DC10
and I was part of the team that simulated it after the real event.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/flight191_crash.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E4DB1239F93AA15753C1A962948260

The pilot came out of the simulator with his face as white as a ghost.


| I would try to convince him that he should follow his training, and
| proof, in this case, is completely irrelevant.
|
| > |
| > | > 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.
|
| In any case.

Is that your answer?
For years morons have upheld cosmic muons as "proof" of time
dilation, yet it is as false as it can be once it is realised that the
same clock and same distance are used for both muons and photons.
Wake up! You are in my classroom now, boy, and you are failing your
physics exam.


| Lorentz said something about time in 1904. And you said,
| with some conviction, he hadn't. You were wrong. That case is closed.

Then I'll ignore what follows, feel free to snip what you wrote.

|
|
| But then you also brought it up in an argument whereby you said
| Einstein's was the only derivation of Lorentz transformation. As for
| that question, you can get a copy for yourself, and decide whether
| Lorentz derived the equation, or took the physics/engineering approach
| of curve-fitting the data to an equation.
|
| As such, I believe you were partially correct, despite having no
| concept of what you were saying... though Lorentz was the first to find
| the equations, he did not derive them in this article (opinions may
| differ); he simply found an equation that fit the data. I would say (I
| am guessing, as usual) that he probably did a significant amount of
| derivation behind the scenes, but probably took steps which he chose
| not to publish because they involved what he felt were revolutionary
| and disturbing revelations about the nature of time. So he chose to
| understate his discovery and present it as a data curve-fitting
| problem. Such curve-fitting is quite popular in physics, and some
| physicists take a very pragmatic view of this process, even going to
| the extreme of saying such things as "proof is completely irrelevant."
|
| Your argument that Einstein's is the ONLY derivation of the LTs,
| however, is still wrong. Whether Lorentz published a derivation before
| Einstein is interesting historically, but it is irrelevant to the
| question of the existence of alternative derivations.

There are no cuckoo transformations, Lorentz thought aether pressure
on molecules would explain MMX. It doesn't, and Lorentz's aether
pressure violates Newton/Galileo's second law. One hand does not clap.
The Earth hurtling through the aether would slow and spiral into the sun,
and hence Lorentz's notions were rejected. Like you, he was a shithead.
MMX is simply explained by c+v, as is rotating MMX, aka Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Sagnac has curved light:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
The laws of physics apply in ALL frames of reference, not just inertial
frames. Einstein didn't know what the laws of physics were so he
made up his own.

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" -- Einstein.
Translation:
"Everything should be as silly as possible, preferably sillier".
Androcles.



.