Re: Basics series proposed

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:35:29 GMT

"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74768d2d.0410210447.10946e15@posting.google.com...
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:<SQBdd.89041$ay5.7962@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: >
: > BTW, the spatial coordinates when the light leaves the origin
: > of k are (0,0,0) and when it returns, they are (0,0,0) in his
equation
: > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
: > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
: > so v = 0, sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 1.
: >
: > Now you can say
: > "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."
: > I have this strange feeling you will not.
: >
: > If you feel demoralized, I can only advise you this way.
: > "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" - Harry
Truman
: >
:
: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
:
: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at
a
: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the
: error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.

I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.

Note:
The hidden penalty for agreeing with me is to be hounded by
the puppy Dinky van de Torquemada the spermless. :-)
Since you are somewhat emotional, being prone to depression
(showing it by confessing a sensation of demoralization), you
may wish to reconsider your challenge.
You'll then have to choose whether to be dishonourable
and retire or agree and retire, but I'd prefer you were brave enough
to continue. I had hoped to see sal convinced, but he resorted
to the tactic of the relativist and ignored or simply denied the vital
points I made. For excuse he pleads pressure of work, which
is lame. The entire correspondence could be easily picked up
at a later date. As I write now, he has not responded for a
couple of days (because he's stuck).

:
: We can proceed any of three ways:
: 1. We start with the assumptions and implications of your theory.

Not possible. I don't have a theory. Everything I offer is the
result of some previously accepted concept. I do claim to have a
discovery, though, and I think I deserve recognition of that.

: 2. We start with the assumptions and implications of special
: relativity.

Hmm... well, there are a lot of those, so that is bound to be
part of the discussion.

: 3. We start with what you think is specifically factually wrong with
: SR, internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with other accepted
: theoretical models.
:
: Your choice.

(3.) predominantly, from a mathematical standpoint. This will
inevitiably lead through (2) to astrophysics (1), my discovery.

Assumption:
The meaning of simple mathematical terms is understood between us and
used generally. Examples: the X-axis is orthogonal the Y-axis. 'v'
represents
velocity. 'c' represents the speed of light and the positive velocity
of light.
The alternative is to give a predefined list of definitions, but in
this case we
would have to predefine
V = c+v
and
V = (c+v)/ ( 1 + v/c)
which are contradictory; they will will be part of the discussion, and
therefore cannot be predefined.

Here goes.

Fact 1:
Einstein derived the so-called Lorentz equations in his paper
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", (translated from
the German here, but the equations transcend language difficulties).
**
( Indicate agreement after each double asterisk following a fact, or
explain the sticking point.)

Non-obligatory advice:
 See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Fact 2:
The equations he uses are
x' = x-vt {1}
**

and
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) {2}
**

Fact 3:
The basis of {2} is
t0 = t
t1 = t0+x'/(c-v)
t2 = t1 + x'/|(c+v)
**

Fact 4:
The spatial coordinates that correspond to the times are (0,0,0),
(0,0,0)
and (x',0,0); This yields events (0,0,0,t0), (0,0,0,t2) and
(x',0,0,t1) and
these events are the argument to the function tau().
**

Fact 5:
The arguments to the function tau() belong to the "stationary" K-frame
which is the domain of the function. The codomain (or image as it is
often
referred to in the USA) is the "moving" k-frame.
**

Fact 6: ( a quotation)
"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0
 along the X-axis to x', and at the time tau1 be reflected thence to
 the origin of the co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau2;"
**

Fact 7:
The light has returned to the origin of K. If k is indeed moving
relative to K, the tip of the ray has gone past the origin of k, now
displaced from the origin K by a distance v(t2-t0).
**

That seems to be a good place to pause.
If you still indicate agreement at this point, I'll continue.
If not, we'll discuss your disagreement.
Androcles.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment. ... : relativity. ... "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", ... The spatial coordinates that correspond to the times are, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment. ... : relativity. ... "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", ... The spatial coordinates that correspond to the times are, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic Thinking.
    ... Moving desk clocks run slow. ... domino is calling a reversal of direction a "constant velocity". ... |> | To Androcles, ... |> Yes, we agree on relativity being ridiculous as well a futile, whether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hundreds of SR tests - and all wrong.
    ... |> "Androcles" wrote in message ... |>> Relativity is nonsense, it is based on the sick definition that the ... In it, A and B are *NOT* moving relative to each other, as is clearly ... Your previous posting said "regardless of any relative motion between ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast