Re: Clear writing about relativity

On Jun 26, 3:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"blackhead" <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:bd3efb77-0773-4490-87e5-ef8010bf120f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 26 June, 19:32, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4cb4f187-1a2c-4fc1-8e3c-189b7762313c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Through an unsatisfactory exchange with colleagues
here recently I was reminded of the casualness of
expression of most of us who are not
mathematicians in using mathematical variables in
algebraic discussions of physical things.

Example: When I say, "Let x = vt, then ---", I
will be understood to mean one thing, until I go
on to say, "where x represents the mass of an
object of density v and volume t." Most physicists
in this newsgroup would be astonished and
displeased. A mathematician or logician wouldn't
care, but a physicist might insist on "M = dV" or
"M=\rho\ v.

Our conventions let us abbreviate our discouse and
remember our definitions. They cause no trouble in
simple cases.

But when we start talking about
several frames of reference and need symbols for
the coordinates in each, we have to improvise
symbols that fit our habits and yet distinguish
different versions of similar things. Nowdays we
use primed and double-primed variables, whereas in
earlier times when classical learning was assumed
among the intelligensia, we would use greek
letters or even hebrew or arabic letters.

Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity was translated
into english more than once with more than one
degree of accuracy. Some translations even
improved on the orginal by correcting small errors
or oversights. The paper is not difficult to read,
although what is said is quite unconventional to
the ordinary mind.

If we focus just on length contraction in Section
4, we find the derivation quite unfamilar to
students using modern textbooks.

Then that would be "Lorentz dilation", thus rendering your use
of the term "Lorentz Transformation" highly unsatisfactory;
indeed, it is deliberately and maliciously designed to deceive
the unsuspecting student. It should be made quite clear to the
newbies that Einstein's change in length INCREASES with
increasing speed, AS SHOWN algebraically.

But if we edit
Einstein's words, using memorable terms and modern
rigor to resolve normally insignificant ambiguities --
in the minds of naive readers -- we may help these
readers comprehend the astonishing simplicity of
Einstein's demonstration.

Yes, I agree. The naive student would have to be astonishingly
stupid not to comprehend the English translation of Einstein's
ridiculous
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Astonishingly simple (and simple-minded) is:
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, spewed out in that inequality
which purports to be an equation. The "=" sign is a LIE.

Most relativists hasten to say "Einstein did not say that", but he
did and it is there in black and white for those that can read
algebra, which a prerequisite for relativity.

For an example of better choice of terms, let us
describe a sphere

*** the sphere! You have no 'gamma' without
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
you useless old fart.

You LOST, Bonehead. Squirming around piss-poor terminology
can't save you. The exchange was highly satisfactory and so is
rubbing your nose in your worthless ***.

Wanna fence some more? Bring a battleaxe next time and derive gamma.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on
account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and
time." - -Einstein

In the second place the function tau() is not linear.

A theoretical physicist wouldn't care, but a mathematician or logician
will insist on a proof that the function tau() is linear.

A competent electronic engineer should know enough maths to understand
why homogeneity of space and time imples linearity of tau().

Androcles, victorious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A schoolboy should know enough maths to understand a graph.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tAB=tBA.gif

Is this plot of tau against t  linear?                 No.
Does x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v) ?                             No.
Does tau[x'/(c-v)] =  tau[x'/(c-v)]?                No.
Does 1/2 tau[x'/(c-v) + x'/(c-v)] =  tau[x'/(c-v)]?                No.

In McCullough numbers and paraphrasing the idiot Einstein,
 half of (16 second +4 seconds) = 16 seconds and the other half is 4
seconds.

1/2 tau(20) = tau (16), we'll just forget about the other tau(4) seconds.

If tau (16) = 8,    1/2 tau(20) = 8 and tau(4) = 8
Hence tau(4) = tau(16)
Hence tau() is not linear.

Is x linear?                                                   Yes.
Is t linear?                                                    Yes.
Is v = x/t linear?                                            Yes.
Is c = x/t linear?                                            Yes.
That's good, because is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.

Is the function tau() linear?                           No.
Is t/tau linear?                                             No.

Well, Larry thinks it should be.
Well, too bad, it fucking well isn't.
But Einstein said it must be. Why isn't it?
Because Einstein was not a competent electronic engineer,
he was a competent bullshitting ***!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is this plot of tau against t linear? No.
Does x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v) ? No.
Does tau[x'/(c-v)] = tau[x'/(c-v)]? No.
Does 1/2 tau[x'/(c-v) + x'/(c-v)] = tau[x'/(c-v)]?


well in it's frame tau t is linear but the medium it travels through
is not its curved.
.

Quantcast