Re: Clear writing about relativity


"Mike" <eleatis@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:56e85372-5def-4e1d-af54-f9c6cf22592e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 27, 11:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"blackhead" <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a229cf5c-6a99-46c5-a597-339c260cb4dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27 June, 14:31, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"blackhead" <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6f288024-100f-4e75-bcd9-6f8deee2ee06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 26 June, 23:03, "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 -

Write down what the Tau you're referring to, so I can have a look at
it.
===============================================

This tau(), boy:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

which is this tau, boy, when the length x' is reduced to nothing:

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img23.gif
"or"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img24.gif

Just which of Einstein's many tau's were you planning on taking a look
at?
Read all about it here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

These expressions don't say anything about whether Tau is linear or
not.

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

A schoolboy should know enough maths to understand a graph.

THIS 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 ***!

Do let us know when you've learnt to read, boy.

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

They are additional properties of Tau. Tau being linear wrt t and
x means Tau(x,t) = Ax + Bt where A and B are constants and the
additional properties help narrow down what the constants A and B are.

============================================
tau(bananas, dog's breakfasts, railway time tables, x, y, z, t) is a time.
Oddly enough, the bananas, dog's breakfasts and railway time tables
vanish along with x, y and z when

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img23.gif

See, that inequality has no mention of bananas, dog's breakfasts,
railway time tables, x, y or z, and x' is infinitesimally small.
Why not?
Could it be they are irrelevant, put there by the idiot Einstein
to confuse poor Larry?
Oh wait... Einstein only put the x,y and z in it. Naughty Androcles
added the other irrelevancies.

Let us try this again, perhaps it will sink in:

A schoolboy should know enough maths to understand a graph.

THIS 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.

One more time:

A schoolboy should know enough maths to understand a graph.

THIS 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.


Hi Androcles. I haven't been around for a long time because there are
cranks like Dirt of the Motel around. However, you are wrong on this
one.
================================================
Use a kill-file.





The linearity is a property of the TRANFORMATION equations. If you
look at the tranformation equations for each point they are linear.
Tau as a function of t, or vice versa, need not, and should not be
linear because we are talking about a trajectory now, not a
transformation from one point to another. Your graph shows the
evolution of time t as a function of tau, or vice versa.

Think of it this way: Each point in K transforms linearly to a point
in k at each infinitesimally small instant of time. There is the
continuouus linear transformation taking place.

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

y = x^3
Each point on the X-axis transforms to a point on the Y-axis.
You'd call that linear.



AS I have said before, do not try to find any problems in the math of
SR.
===============================================
As I've said before, you are babbling.


.