Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/18/04 

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:25:40 GMT

"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0407172130.388b2f25@posting.google.com...
| dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
news:<slrncfgqpg.58.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
| > Androsleaze:
| >
| > >Good. I'm glad we understand that, so since there is no a-priori
reason to
| > >suppose anything should be Lorentz-symmetry, but there IS a prior
reason
| > >to observe Galilean symmetry, since we do, your point isn't made.
| >
| > The term ``a priori'' refers to reasoning which is independent of
| > of sensory experience (example: A priori, there was no reason to assume
| > you were an ineducable moron. The reasons for concluding you are an
| > ineducable moron come from reading arguments such as the one above,
| > in the articles you post.) If you actually used words and terms
consistent
| > with the definitions of those words and terms, you'd realize just how
| > stupid your arguments are.
| >
| > >I dont assume Galilean symmetry, I observe it.
| >
| > I don't assume lorentz symmetry. I observe it. You might try
| > observing something that depends upon speeds faster than you
| > can acheive on foot, on horseback, in your car or in an airplane.
|
| Bilge, do you agree that there is "existence" without light?
| Can things move in the dark?
| If so, a stick should shrink at high speed in the dark!
| How about an explanation of the degeree of shrinkage of at stick
| travelling at 290,000kps.........in the dark?????????????
|
| Jim G

Oh dear. I hadn't realized the moron from alt.moron had pathetically
attempted to paraphrase me, since I have him on my not-worth-bothering-with
list.

Galilean Transforms.
mapping from K to k
x' = x-vt,
t' = t.

Mapping k -> K
x = x'+vt,
t = t'.

Also we can change direction by letting u = -v.

mapping K to k
x' = x-ut,
t' = t.

Mapping k-> K
x = x'+ut,
t = t'.
Thus I observe the Galilean Transforms to be symmetric.

Now what is the idiot claiming, he can OBSERVE the Lorentz Transforms are
SYMMETRIC?
 Let's see.

mapping from K to k
x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

mapping from k to K,

x = [x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] +vt.
t = [ t' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] + vx/c^2

This is what Bile calls symmetric?

Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

Relativity has to approximate Galilean relativity for v much less than c.
x' = x-vt is simply described below.

0--------------x'x
1-----------x'---x
2--------x'------x
3----x'----------x
     < -vt <

To move the other way,

0------------x
1------------x---x'
2------------x------x'
3------------x----------x'
> +vt >

We see that x' = x+vt.

"*IF* we place x'=x+vt, it is blatantly obvious that a point at rest in the
system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time also."

It seems that Einstein has only done half the work.

Through previous very long-winded posts,

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
 which is the same as interchanging the frames,
 which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
 OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
  t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
  x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
 or:
  tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
  xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

we find the Paul B. Andersen transforms are

t' = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = (x+vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which are the OTHER Lorentz transforms and which also approximate the
Galilean transform x' = x+vt.

They are of course blatantly obvious, quite, exactly, prove me wrong.

Paul isn't particularly proud of them for some reason.

I think it has something to do with the faster you go, the later you arrive.

I like to give credit where it is due, so I'll give debit where it is due
also.

Bile should present his "symmetric" observations to other trolls everywhere.

Here is just a little more straightforward algebra that Bile is incapable of
understanding.

Now, Jim, I hope you won't find me presumptuous in giving advice to an
intelligent man, but I really do suggest you place Bile on a kill-file,
along with all other trolls.
It eliminates 60% of the noise and raises the level of discussion above the
childish redirection to alt.fucknozzles that is Bile's trademark. I really
would never have seen his post had you not responded to it, and the only
people that are interested in what he has to jeer are his fellow ignoramus
trolls.
There are many other correspondents that actually have something interesting
to say, whether right or wrong, some of them relativists that are simply
misguided. Not all of them descend to the level of the bottom of a ship, and
it can be fun pushing them to the limit of their understanding. For example,
Hansen has been civil in his promotion of GR-is-required-for-GPS-to-work
(which Bile has been following) but when pushed he is unable to answer the
question: "Does light travel faster at higher altitudes, yes or no?"
Surely that has to be much more fun that responding to Bile's drivel?
Remember, he isn't interested in physics, he is only interested in jeering.
Androcles