Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.


<glird@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d0882ccd-7eab-476c-9dec-1ef00e997bd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 31, 2:06 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< If you want to sum a Taylor-McLaurin series, this is how:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Euler.xls
You can change the value in the red box and examine any other box.
Its not a proof but a very convincing demonstration. >
After my computer finished scanning it for viruses and then
said <open this only if you trust the source> (and after reading
your later assurance that you'd be arrested if your file
corrupts my computer), I did look at the file you cited, just
now, and sure enough, this is what I found at the very bottom
of it: Difference bliggityblab.
===========================================
A:
Ok...
That difference is the subtraction of the internal function Excel
provides (as computed by Microsoft's software engineers and
mathematicians) and the 20 terms that I summed.
===========================================

Lebau:
(I copied the line from the file and pasted it here, but all
that appeared was "Difference .", with the numerical values
of those differences omitted.

===========================================
Androcles:
What you should have (if you learn how to copy and paste to usenet) is:
Difference 6.28361E-10 -7.6E-11 5.29E-10
===========================================
Lebau:
So I typed in bliggityblab to represent
those numbers which denote the difference between the values reached
by a Taylor Expansion and the exact values that actually exist wrt
the various variables as functions of whatever.)
===========================================
Androcles:
There is no "exact value", there is always another term in the series
to add. I stopped at 20 terms.
===========================================
Lebau:
Having long ago looked up Taylor Expansion on the Internet, I
alresdy knew that it gives only an approximation to the exact
numerical value of, say, t is a function of v, once v is given.
So I repeatedly asked each of the several people who insisted
that E's "if x' be chosen infinitesimally small" was simply the
introduction of a Taylor Expansion - which IS calculus - to SHOW
me HOW a Taylor Expansion could arrive at his very next equation,
NONE of them did it. instead, each and all of them insisted that
I wouldn't understand it any better than i understand algebra.
=============================================

Androcles:
You seem to think exact values are possible.
Look, every child knows 1/3 = 0.3333333333333....
and the '3' goes on forever, but 1/3 is an exact value.
Algebraically, a/b is exact.
Rationally, 1/3 is exact.
Numerically, 0.33333333333... is inexact.

The exact value of the circumference of a circle divided by its
diameter is exactly \pi, but \pi cannot be expressed as a ratio of two
integers anymore than sqrt(2) can be.
That becomes clear when an extended fraction is used.
If you are interested in extended fractions I can publish a
spread*** on the subject, but in the simplest example:
sqrt(2) = 1+ 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1....))))))))))

If we truncate the 10th term in the extension,
sqrt(2) ~= 1+ 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/2))))))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+ 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(5/2))))))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+2/5))))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(12/5))))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+5/12)))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(29/12)))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+12/29))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(70/29))))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(169/70)))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(408/(169))))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2+1/(985/408)))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(2+1/(2378/985))
sqrt(2) ~= 1+1/(5741/2378)
sqrt(2) ~= 1+2378/5741
sqrt(2) ~= 1+ 0.41421355164605469430412820066191
sqrt(2) ~= 1.41421355164605469430412820066191



The calculator says
1.4142135623730950488016887242097
which is not exact but the terms
1+ 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1...))))))))))
are every bit as exact as 0.33333333... is.

=============================================
Lebau:
They were wrong about that and wrong about E doing calculus
at all, let alone a Taylor Expansion which can only approximate
a correct answer.
Knowing that, I also asked some of them to do the next few
equations in E's paper - which LOOK like calculus but aren't - to
solve them for v = .6c; and again none of them did it.
That sort of corroborated what I already knew and wrote up
in A Flower for Einstein; i.e. that NO CALCULUS buff EVER
understood Einstein's (defective0 mathematics from there to the
end of his so-called "derivation" of the LTE; nor, therefore,
what those experimentally verified equations PHYSICALLY mean;
nor, therefore, how and why they don't fit the THEORY of
relativity. As John Kennough said (more eloquently than me),
therefore physicists gave up reality in favor of equations,
and no longer understand anything at all .... including, what matter
is, what a force is, what energy and light and mass and a quantum of
action, and a quantum of energy (which Einstein called "a photon")are;
nor how gravity works nor what electricity is - they say "electricity
is a flow of electrons" and "an electron is a unit of negative
electricity" - nor what an electric charge physically is nor
how magnetism works and.. nor... etc etc etcetera.
It's turtle soup all the way up and down, and Wheeler's Up the
Down Staircase is a perfect - though inaccurate - picture of it.

glird
=============================================
You are only focussing on Einstein's and Lorentz's pathetic attempts
at math, the PHYSICS of the situation is still Newtonian.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

The exact answer is "Because he was a bullshitting ***."





.

Quantcast