Re: coordinates and equations.

On Dec 7, 6:58�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :





On Dec 7, 5:41 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :

On Dec 7, 10:05 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 7, 9:39 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 6, 8:53 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 6, 1:02 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 5, 6:07 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 5, 4:12 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 5, 4:01 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 4, 6:41 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 4, 3:58 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 3, 8:12 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 3, 6:11 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Dec 3, 2:25 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Please show - according to your theory - how much a clock will be retarded
if it is moved at constant speed (v) for a time (t) (neglect other effects
such as gravitation, temperature etc). It will be interesting to compare
your prediction (or post-diction, for this has been well verified) with
Einstein's prediction in paragraph 4 of (approximately) 0.5t v^2 / c^2
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Harald
n'=(t-vt/c)
Apply this to a light ray with an equation of motion x=-ct, you'll get
a speed very different from c.
Yes, a light ray directed in the negative direction has a velocity of -
c,
This is not what you'll get by applying n'=(t-vt/c)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thank you very much, YBM. As you can determine for yourself, light
directed in the negative direction has a velocity of -c.
-c(n') = -ct -vt
n' is the time it takes for light to travel a distance of x'. What
is it that you find wrong with the equation?
-c(n')=-ct-vt => n'=t+vt/c
Sorry Robert, but t-vt/c cannot be equal to t+vt/c for all events if
v>0.
The point about psychology is how amazing it is to see someone defend
such a contradictory idea for years without realizing this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not equal. t in the first expression is not equal to t in the
second.
funny evading strategy Robert, but very stupid even from your own
standard.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The equations are talking about one event in S', but two different
events in S.
Silly Robert: an single event in a frame is a single event in all
frames.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Three events are three events in two frames of reference.
So you admit that this:
The equations are talking about one event in S', but two different
events in S.
is an idiocy?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
One event plus two events is three events.
Another stupid trick, Robert? Writing unrelated truisms in order to
avoid the point?
Anyway, you cannot evade the issus : a single clock cannot show
t-vt/c and t+vt/c at the same time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, as I have told you before, YBM, t can represent more than one
time. That is one reason why you don't just have an equation saying
t= 2 sec. t can be other times besides 2 seconds. So what you have
in this case is t in one equation being one time and t in the other
equation being another time. So the best way to write the equations
would be n'=t1(1-v/c)=t2(1+v/c). See, the t's are two different times
in S.
Robert B. Winn
Your problem, Robert, is that you are completely incompetent even on
the most basic issues on algebra and logic. As you've illustrated
numerous times you are doing with equation what a monkey could do
with a typewriter, you're playing with them randomly, you never
ask yourself what a equation mean, what is the signification of
variables and parameters in them, worse you appear to give some
signification to the arbitrary choice of letters to represent
quantities (such as n' instead of t', t1 or t2 instead of t).
Of course t can represent several instant in time, for instance
in equations of motion (a concept you continue to fail to grasp)
such as x=ct or x=-ct, t is part of an interval of time. This is
even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory..
You'd better read (I won't say "again", it's likely you didn't
read 1% of it) what I tried to teach you during the last months,
you'll notice that I took care to explicit the meaning of variables,
parameters and equation at every step. Then you could understand
why you "theory" is contradictory and why such contradiction does
not occur with LTs.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I have shown you numerous times that t1 does not equal t2, and
you repeat over and over that t(1-v/c) cannot equal t(1+v/c). I
repeat that t in the first expression is not the same as t in the
second expression if n'=t1(1-v/c) and n'=t2(1+v/c), your response will
be, t1=t2 so t(1-v/c) cannot equal t2(1+v/c). I do not believe we
will ever get past this. What do you think?
You could repeat whatever you want, but fetichism about the names
of variable is just meaningless. Try to understand first what are
events, equations of motions, transformations, etc. Then you could,
perhaps, 1) understand why and how your "slow clock theory" is
absurd and 2) what LTs and GTs are about.
BTW, given how low are both your mental abilities and your level
of honesty I don't thing you'll ever get past this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, the only thing I can do is repeat what I said. Here are the
equations.
I knew that, using your brain is not an issue, is it?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't seem to have an explanation, YBM. Why is that?
Robert B. Winn
You mean about this,Robert ?
So when light reaches the clock in S' from the points where it
was emitted in S', -186,000 km and +186,000 km, 1 sec has elapsed on
the clock in S'. So tell me, YBM, how does time on a clock in S equal
the same when light from x=-186,000 reaches the clock in S as it does
when light from x=+186,000 km reaches the clock in S'. Take as long
as you want to take to explain this.
The very fact you use expressions of the form "time on a clock in S
equal the same ... when a clock in S' ..." shows that you've missed
completely the point of SR. As a matter of fact such expression is
meaningless: any expression using "when" refers to a single frame
of reference, the only effective way to compare what is observed
in differents frames is to compare the way *events* are labeled.
Did you ever try to read original Einstein paper? Especially the
introduction about synchronization?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am not so gullible as to believe in a length contraction, so I
can say "when". In S light travels a distance of x in a time of t.
In S', light travels a distance of x' in a time of n'.
You should read the introduction of A.E. 1905 paper. It could make
you understand why neither x,t,x' or n' has any meaning without
a synchronization scheme.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I synchronized clocks by saying that the light emissions took
place at t=t'=0. �

This is not what synchronization is about. Did you read this paper?

That is all it takes when you are using reality
instead of relativity of simultaneity and length contraction.

We already know that you do not know what length contraction is
in SR. There is no doubt that you do not know what relativity
of simultaneity is about.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is a fairy tale, YBM. I will explain it to you. Einstein says
that if lighting strikes the front and rear of a moving train
simultaneously, leaving marks on the train and on the railroad track,
then according to Einstein, the marks on the track will be closer
together than the length of the train, and in the frame of reference
of the train, the lightning bolt at the front of the train strikes
first. And Jack climbed up a beanstalk.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: coordinates and equations.
    ... It will be interesting to compare ... Another stupid trick, Robert? ... you cannot evade the issus: a single clock cannot show ... even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: coordinates and equations.
    ... Thank you very much, YBM. ... Another stupid trick, Robert? ... you cannot evade the issus: a single clock cannot show ... even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: coordinates and equations.
    ... Another stupid trick, Robert? ... you cannot evade the issus: a single clock cannot show ... even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory. ... you'll notice that I took care to explicit the meaning of variables, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: coordinates and equations.
    ... Thank you very much, YBM. ... Another stupid trick, Robert? ... you cannot evade the issus: a single clock cannot show ... even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: coordinates and equations.
    ... It will be interesting to compare ... Another stupid trick, Robert? ... you cannot evade the issus: a single clock cannot show ... even the point that make you "slow-clock theory" contradictory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)