Re: Even cranks get published

Sorcerer wrote:
"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157008520.754088.275210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Koobee Wublee wrote:
| > Sorcerer wrote:
| > > <rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > > news:1156952763.771923.287980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > > | Look what the cat dragged in from Apeiron (an antirelativistic
| > > | journal):
| > > |
| > > | http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO1PDF/V05n1lut.pdf
| > >
| > > Yes...
| > > Look what the cat dragged in from Annalen der Physik, a crackpot
journal.
| > >
| > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > >
| > > Even cranks get published.
| >
| > In that 1905 paper, I am discovering worng mathematics everyday. Why
| > is it that no one else has noticed?
|
| Think.
|
| > For example, in section 3,
| > Einstein's derivation of Lorentz Transform is utterly nonsense and full
| > of errors.
|
| No, you must have misunderstood something. The derivation is elementary
| linear algebra and calculus.

HAHAHA!
Elementary linear algebra and calculus:

"2AB/(t'A-tA) = c" -- Einstein.

Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA = 0/0.

Well, you assume nonsense, you get nonsense. What else did you expect?

The first thing to learn is not to divide by zero.

It is you who is dividing by zero - why do you admonish others?

An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.

ROFLMAO!

The context of my remark which you do not provide was that the first
part of Einstein's 1905 paper contains very easy mathematics which is
thus fully transparent and can be fully checked.

JanPB, Fri, Mar 10 2006 7:10 am :
" kk's postings about physical content of Einstein's postulates made me
look again at his 1905 paper and I noticed what I think is another
experimental assumption.

Exactly right. This was me answering someone who claimed SR was all
about mere mathematical redefinition of things, i.e., a theory without
physical content. I pointed out that SR's definition of synchronisation
did rest in fact on at least two significant experimentally verifiable
facts. One of them you quoted below (for some incomprehensible reason)
in which I talk about Fizeau's polygonal light path experiments on
which the consistency of Einstein's sync rests (the sync wouldn't be
transitive without them).

Recall Einstein's definition of synchronisation of two clocks A and B:
send a light pulse from A to B, reflect the light at B back to A,
register the emmission and the arrival times: t_A, t_B, and t'_A. The
clocks A and B are synchronised if:


t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (*)


(Equivalently, one can send two light rays, from A to B and from B to A
and then the requirement is that:


t_B - t_A = t'_A - t'_B, (**)


where t'_B is the second ray's emission time at B.)


He then says: "We assume that this definition of synchronism is free
from contradictions" and notes that the following two conditions are
satisfied (thus guaranteeing the "freedom from contradictions"):


"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."


This portion of the 1905 paper is frequently glossed over (I've never
seen it discussed on this NG) but the second condition is in fact
non-trivial and it demands that certain experiment yield certain
result. Otherwise Einstein's synchronisation of clocks is vacuous.


Try to prove condition 2 yourself: sync clock at A with clock at B
(condition (*) or (**) satisfied), and also clock at A with clock at C
(ditto), and based on this try to prove that B is in sync with C
(again, this means that (*) or (**) must hold for B and C). While doing
this remember that A, B, C are in 3D space, i.e., not necessarily
colinear.


You'll see you cannot prove it unless you know that the following is
also true: the time it takes for a light ray to complete a triangular
roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete
the reverse triangular trip: A-C-B-A (imagine mirrors positioned at B
and C to make the light ray go around). This must be verified
experimentally, otherwise there is a chance the definition of Einstein
sync is vacuous. "

HAHAHAHA!!!
Androcles

?
I have this feeling you are completely lost.

--
Jan Bielawski

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jan Bielawski has heretical thoughts.
    ... Bielawski is uttering unclean heresies about the holy word of Einstein. ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Even cranks get published
    ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... Try to prove condition 2 yourself: sync clock at A with clock at B ... roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Jan Bielawski has heretical thoughts.
    ... | Bielawski is uttering unclean heresies about the holy word of Einstein. ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... |> and C to make the light ray go around). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simultaneity = TRICKERY ??
    ... | these wires extend to the right for 300,000 kms. ... The issue of simultaneity and clock synchronization was pretty much ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... one clock is used since a triangular *roundtrip* is what's being ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... |> Albert Phuckwit Einstein. ... just convince your fellow man you are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)