Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/13/04 

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:05:34 GMT

"J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39d6e584.0411130738.31fb5b90@posting.google.com...
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:<Wy4ld.20098$Q7.13153@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:39d6e584.0411120703.1c0239ac@posting.google.com...
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<1sQkd.3693$P7.0@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:39d6e584.0411111132.2aa946a0@posting.google.com...
: > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<3rxkd.12595$Q7.11735@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > : > "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:39d6e584.0411101419.1160b06a@posting.google.com...
: > : > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<kRokd.10749$Q7.10656@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > : > : > "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > : >
news:39d6e584.0411091807.77c49ebd@posting.google.com...
: > : > : > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<n%4kd.4524$Q7.2827@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > : > : > : > "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > : >
: > news:39d6e584.0411081732.3000ca87@posting.google.com...
: > : > : > : > : > : YOU DIDN'T READ *MY* POST *AGAIN*! You have
: > apparantly
: > : > : > DEFINED
: > : > : > [snip]
: > : > : > : > You are dumber than a headless chicken.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : >
: >
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_intro.html
: > : > : > : Quote:"Stella coasts along at (say) nearly 99 percent of
: > light-speed.
: > : > : > : At 99 percent, the time dilation factor is a bit over 7,
so
: > : > let's
: > : > say
: > : > : > : the speed is just a shade under 99 percent and the time
: > dilation
: > : > : > : factor is 7. Let's say this part of the trip takes 7
years
: > (according
: > : > : > : to Terence, of course).
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : M>"YOUR comment was stupid. I used exact numbers over
and
: > over
: > again,
: > : > : > : and you kept ignoring me and insisting I use wrong
numbers,
: > what
: > kind
: > : > : > : of a debater ARE you?
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : M> So let's say that Stella is gone 10 terrance-years,
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : A> No. Let's not change the fucking subject. I'm not
likely
: > to
: > : > : > : understand the different "10s" floating around, either.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : M> What different 10s?
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : A> The same 10s that are different for Koks' 14s. I'm
: > discussing
: > : > : > : Koks' version of the twin paradox, not yours, and for
the
: > : > benefit
: > : > of
: > : > : > : the lurkers, not yours, since you are beyond help. When
you
: > can
: > get
: > : > : > : back on the subject I'll discuss it with you. What kind
of
: > debater
: > : > : > : are you? Androcles.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Well, the lurkers don't benefit from you inisting that
my
: > : > example
: > : > had
: > : > : > : differen 10s when it didn't, but they don't benefit from
me
: > insisting
: > : > : > : that you were wrong about it. I'm willing to discuss an
: > EXACT
: > version
: > : > : > : of Koks explanation. Are YOU willing to do that?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I said Koks can't count to 14.
: > : > :
: > : > : You also said *I* couldn't but neither allegation is an
answer
: > to my
: > : > : question about doing the example exactly. (And after the
fact,
: > I
: > now
: > : > : realize that I should have also asked if you were also
willing
: > to do
: > : > : it correctly, see Androcles' errors below.)
: > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Stella is gone for 14 Terrance-years, is that
acceptable?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Yes.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Stella travels at sqrt(48/49) times the speed of light
: > according
: > to
: > : > : > : Terrance, is that acceptable?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Maybe.
: > : > :
: > : > : You can't have your cake and eat it too Androcles, see
below.
: > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Assuming you agree to those exact numbers, we can then
both
: > : > agree
: > : > that
: > : > : > : the relativistic doppler shifts factors are exactly
: > [7-sqrt(48)]
: > and
: > : > : > : [7+sqrt(48)], right?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I'll check.
: > : > : > f' = f (1-cos(0)*0.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : > : > sqrt(1 - 0.9897433186107870248728264808605)
: > : > : >
: > : > : > = f (1- 0.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : > : > sqrt(1 - 0.9897433186107870248728264808605)
: > : > : >
: > : > : > = f( 0.010256681389212975127173519139502) /
: > : > : > sqrt(0.010256681389212975127173519139502)
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > = f( 0.010256681389212975127173519139502) /
: > : > : > 0.1012752753104773106307406162215
: > : > : > = 0.1012752753104773106307406162215
: > : > : >
: > : > : > 1/14 = 0.071428571428571428571428571428571
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Maybe it's my arithmetic.
: > : > :
: > : > : Maybe it's your formula: on,
: > : > : http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm ,
you
: > used
: > : > :
: > : > : f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] )
: > : > :
: > : > : but now you are apparantly using f' = f*( [1-v/c] /
: > sqrt[1+v/c] ),
: > : >
: > : > LOL!
: > : > Actually I'm using f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] /
sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] ),
: > :
: > : I was wrong about you using f' = f*( [1-v/c] / sqrt[1+v/c] ),
: > instead
: > : of
: > : f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] ). You were using f' = f*(
: > : [1-cos(phi).v/c] / sqrt[1-v/c] ), instead of f' = f*( [1-v/c] /
: > : sqrt[1+v/c] ), what you *claim* to have used. My numbers were
fine
: > : and still are, I *was* wrong about what error your made, I
though
: > you
: > : accidentally *moved* a sqrt symbol, it didn't occur to me that
you
: > : *actually* COMPLETELY FORGOT to square the speed. Don't claim
that
: > : you are computing correctly, just LOOK at what you wrote:
: > :
: > : > (1- 0.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : sqrt(1 - 0.9897433186107870248728264808605)
: > :
: > : the number 0.9897433186107870248728264808605 appears TWICE and
it
: > : can't BOTH be v/c AND v^2/c^2.
: > : Just admit you made an error, I admit
: > : that I am not an expert at figuring out WHICH wrong formula
someone
: > : ELSE uses and that I made an ERROR in claiming WHICH wrong
formula
: > YOU
: > : used. I've CORRECTED that error, and I still say that YOU
computed
: > my
: > : example badly, and that THAT was why it "appeared" wrong. I
think
: > the
: > : lurkers are disappointed with you Androcles.
: >
: > Ok. It was done in a hurry.
:
: Fine, so you finally get the whole [7-sqrt(48)] terrance-years, send
a
: light signal at Stella who is travelled at sqrt(48/49) times the
speed
: of light and she turns around at the same speed when she gets it and
: returns home having been gone for 14 terrance-years. Good, because
: that is TRUE for Newtonian physics as well. The DIFFERENCE is the
: redshift factors. [7-sqrt(48)] and 1/[7-sqrt(48)] = [7+sqrt(48)] are
: the relativisitic factors. We'll use them next, but SO FAR we are
: together, right?

Rant on, then.

:
: > :
: > : > which you'll find in Section 7 of AE's Paper, reference
: > : > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > : > AND I'm using
: > :
: > : Please please please use ANY correct formula, and don't leave
parts
: > : out. It's just basic respect in a debate you check YOUR OWN
work
: > : before accusing someone ELSE of bad math, it's just makes you
look
: > : dumb to do otherwise, and lurkers aren't going to respect you if
: > : instead of respecting me you are just careless with math.
: > :
: > : > "This is Doppler's principle for any velocities whatever.
: > : > When phi = 0 the equation assumes the perspicuous form
: > : > f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] )"
: > :
: > : Use that one OK? Put in (v/c)=sqrt(48/49) OK?
: >
: > Sure, close enough.
:
: Then we can finally move on.
:
: > Get f' =
: > : f*sqrt([1-sqrt(48/49)] / [1+sqrt(48/49)]), OK? Then multiply
the
: > top
: > : and the bottom of the fraction INSIDE the sqrt by
49*[1+sqrt(48/49)]
: > : and get f'= f*sqrt([49*(1-(48/49))] / [49*(1+sqrt(48/49))^2]),
OK?
: > : Then get f'=f/(7*(1+sqrt(48/49))), OK? Then get
f'=f/(7+sqrt(48)),
: > : OK? Then get f'=f*(7-sqrt(48)), OK? It's NOT that hard
Androcles,
: > : I'm SURE you can do it IF YOU TRY.
: > :
: > : > which you'll also find at
: > : > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > : > on the very next line.
: > :
: > : I also found it at
: > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm,
: > : and EVEN managed to use it CORRECTLY myself. But YOU did not.
Stop
: > : pretending and just admit that YOU made an error and that MY
numbers
: > : are right, ALL of them.
: >
: > Whatever, the return frequency is still 14 and you can't count
that
: > far.
:
: I get your where your Einstein-fetishism about SR="whatever A.E.
: asserts" comes from, but why you think Reality="whatever Androcles
: asserts" is convincing to anyone else, that I don't get.
:
: Assume that Terrance SEES 60*60*24*365*14 ticks on HIS OWN clock
while
: Stella is gone 14 terrance-years, then f=60*60*24*365
: ticks/transmitter-year is the frequency of a clock IDENTICAL to
: Terrance's clock, as measured by whomever SENDS the signal, OK?
:
: Terrance SEES 60*60*24*365*[7-sqrt(48)]*[7+sqrt(48)] +
: 60*60*24*375*[7+sqrt(48)]*[7-sqrt(48)] = 60*60*24*365*[2] ticks of
: Stella's clock.

For how long? She's gone 14 years, right?
How many ticks does Terence count?
I'll stop here and see what you say.
Androcles.

: Rationale: he saw a doppler shifted rate (factor [7-sqrt(48)]) for
: most of the time, specifical until his "come home" signal was
returned
: by her "I'm turning around signal" which took [7+sqrt(48)]
: terrance-years for him to SEE, for the short amount of remaining
time
: ((14-[7+sqrt(48)]) = [7-sqrt(48)] terrance-years) he saw a blue
: doppler shifted signal (factor [7+sqrt(48)]).
:
: Terrance SEES 60*60*24*365*14 ticks of HIS OWN clock.
:
: How many ticks of Terrance's clock does Stella SEE? Stella SEES the
: 60*60*24*365*[7-sqrt(48)] ticks that Terrance sent BEFORE sending
the
: "come home" signal, but she saw them REDshifted at a rate f' such
that
: 60*60*24*365*[7-sqrt(48)] ticks = f'*[X Stella-years], but we KNOW
: what the numerical value of f' is since the relative velocity v is
: such that v/c= sqrt(48/49), the numerical value of f' is
: 60*60*24*365*[7-sqrt(48)], so X must be 1. But we haven't finished
: computing how many ticks Stella SEES of Terrance's clock on the way
: back. She SEES the 60*60*24*365*[7+sqrt(48)] ticks of his clock
AFTER
: he sent the "come home" signal on her way back. Which we expect to
: take just as many stella-years (e.g. 1), is that CONSISTENT? Yes,
: here's why, she SEES an f' on the way back with a numerical value of
: 60*60*24*365*[7+sqrt(48)], which means over 1 stella-year she SEES
: 60*60*24*365*[7+sqrt(48)] ticks of Terrance's clock, so over the
whole
: trip she SEES 60*60*24*365*[7-sqrt(48)] + 60*60*24*365*[7+sqrt(48)]
=
: 60*60*24*365*14 ticks of Terrance's clock, the SAME NUMBERT Terrance
: SAW of HIS OWN clock. Yeah! No paradox.
:
: How many ticks of Stella's clock does Stella SEE? Stella SEES
: 60*60*24*365*1 on her way out, and 60*60*24*365*1 on her way back,
so
: 60*60*24*365*2 ticks total, the SAME NUMBER Terrance SAW of Stella's
: clock. Yeah! No paradox.
:
: Let's do the algebra so that you can see that this is ALWAYS the
case,
: without EVER having to fudge. Assume a doppler shift factor of g
: (red) and 1/g (blue), and Stella gone for X stella-years, and Y
: terrance-years, and a rest frequency of f for each twin's clock.
:
: Then Stella SEES [f*g*(X/2)+ f*(1/g)*(X/2)] = [f*(X/2)*(g+(1/g))]
: ticks of Terrance's clock, and f*X ticks of her own clock.
:
: And Terrance SEES f*Y ticks of his own clock, so since
: f*Y=f*(X/2)*(g+(1/g)) we get that the equation 2*Y*g=X*g*g+X must
: hold. But we want to solve for v/c, so we first need to solve for g
: (g^2=[1-v/c]/[1+v/c] is the REDshift factor (from the relativisitic
: doppler formula), so we know v/c = (1-g^2)/(g^2+1)). If X=0 then
Y=0
: and all ticks SEEN are zero, so assume that it is not the case that
: X=0 and complete the square to go from X*(g*g-2*(Y/X)*g + 1 +
(Y/X)^2
: - (Y/X)^2)=0 into (g-(Y/X))^2=-1+(Y/X)^2, so we have g = (Y/X) +
: sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2) or g = (Y/X) + sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2) (so in the
numerical
: example above Y/X is 7 and we have g=7+sqrt(48) or g=7-sqrt(48)),
why
: two results? Well notice that the equation f*Y=f*(X/2)*(g+(1/g))
only
: had the term (g+(1/g)) in it, if g=h or g=1/h the expression
(g+(1/g))
: is the same, and that is EXACTLY the case here, (Y/X) +
: sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2) = 1/ [(Y/X) + sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2)], so the differance
is
: the fact that one was a redshift, and the other the blueshift).
: Blueshifts are greater than one, and g was called the redshift, so
g=
: (Y/X) - sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2), and thence v/c = (1-[(Y/X) -
: sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2)]^2)/([(Y/X) - sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2)]^2+1).
:
: Whew, showing consistency in COvariant manner is WAY harder than
just
: using an INvariant 4-vector analysis, glad we ONLY have to do this
for
: skeptics like Androcles.
:
: v/c = (X^2-[Y - sqrt(-X^2+Y^2)]^2)/([Y - sqrt(-X^2+Y^2)]^2+X^2)
: v/c = (2*X^2-2*Y^2 + 2*Y*sqrt(Y^2-X^2))/(2*Y^2 -2*Y*sqrt(-X^2+Y^2))
: v/c = [(X^2-Y^2 + Y*sqrt(Y^2-X^2))(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]/[(Y^2
: -Y*sqrt(-X^2+Y^2))(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))]
:
: v/c = [(X^2-Y(Y - sqrt(Y^2-X^2)))(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))]/[Y*(Y*Y
: -(Y*Y-X*X))]
:
: v/c = [X*X*(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))-Y*(Y -
: sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))]/[Y*X*X]
:
: v/c = [X*X*(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))-Y*X*X]/[Y*X*X]
:
: v/c = sqrt(1-(X/Y)^2)
:
: So it's amazing, it's just like I can do algebra like a "real little
: boy" because when X=2 and Y=14 we get v/c = sqrt(1-(1/7)^2) =
: sqrt((49-1)/49) = sqrt(48/49) a familiar number from the numerical
: example.
:
: So now that we know v/c, we know that if Terrance waits Z
: terrance-years, then sends a light signal to Stella then she will
get
: it EXACTLY when she turns around IF AND ONLY IF [Y/2]*v=[Y/2-Z]*c,
: solving for Z, we get:
: Z= [Y/2]-[Y/2]*[v/c]
:
: So Z = [Y/2]-[Y/2]*sqrt(1-(X/Y)^2) = [Y/2]-sqrt((Y*Y-X*X)/4)
:
: (so when Y=14 and X=2, we get 7-sqrt(48)! Amazing, no fudging)
:
: OK, everything else actually assumed consistency, now that we have
an
: expression for Z we know that Terrance SEES [f*g*(Y-Z) f*(1/g)*Z]
: ticks from Stella's clock. So the test for consistency (paradox
: avoidance) come down to ONE equation after all this symbolic work
(but
: NOW we've done it for ANY amount of stella-time X and any amount of
: Terrance-time Y where Terrance can send a light signal to Stella to
: tell her to turn around).
:
: Solve:
: [f*g*(Y-Z) + f*(1/g)*Z]
:
: We will use the substitutions
: g=sqrt([Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]/[Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]) and Z = Y/2 -
: sqrt((Y*Y-X*X)/4). The latter we just derived, but let's show the
: former.
:
: g*g=((Y/X) - sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2))*((Y/X) - sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2))
: g*g=(Y/X)*(Y/X) - 2*(Y/X)*sqrt(-1+(Y/X)^2) + (-1+(Y/X)^2)
: g*g=[Y*Y - 2*Y*sqrt(Y*Y-X*X) + (Y*Y-X*X)]/(X*X)
: g*g=[Y*Y - 2*Y*sqrt(Y*Y-X*X) + (Y*Y-X*X)]/(X*X)
: g*g=([Y - sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]^2)/(X*X)
:
: But
: [Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]/[Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]=
: ([Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]^2)/([Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)])=
: ([Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]^2)/(Y*Y-(Y*Y-X*X))=
: [Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]^2)/(X*X)
:
: so the conclusion that g=sqrt(([Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]/[Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)])
is
: fine, (it could have been independantly computed since we know v/c
: now, but the point is that we have this form that is simpler for the
: next computation).
:
: So given g=sqrt([Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]/[Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]) and Z = Y/2 -
: sqrt((Y*Y-X*X)/4), solve:
: [f*g*(Y-Z) + f*(1/g)*Z]
:
: OK
: [f*g*(Y-Z) + f*(1/g)*Z]=
: f*[g*(Y-[Y/2-sqrt((Y*Y-X*X)/4)]) + (1/g)*[Y/2-sqrt((Y*Y-X*X)/4)]]=
: f*[(g/2)*(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]) + (1/g)*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]*(1/2)]=
: (f/2)*[g*(Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]) + (1/g)*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]]=
: (f/2)*[sqrt((Y - sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))*(Y + sqrt(Y*Y-X*X))) +
: (1/g)*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]]=
: (f/2)*[sqrt(Y*Y - (Y*Y-X*X)) + (1/g)*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]]=
: (f/2)*[X + (1/g)*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]]=
: (f/2)*[X + sqrt([Y+sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)]*[Y-sqrt(Y*Y-X*X)])]=
: (f/2)*[X + sqrt(Y*Y-(Y*Y-X*X))]=
: (f/2)*[X + X]= f*X
:
: So Terrance SEES f*X ticks from Stella's clock, the SAME number of
: ticks from Stella's clock that Stella SEES. No paradox. And this
was
: done for any X,Y where 0 < X < Y, well the case where X=0 reduces to
: X=Y=0 which is ALSO no paradox and then in all cases the number of
: ticks SEEN is 0 as well, so no paradox in that case either. No
: fudging, no paradox.
:
: > : > :
: > : > : I don't know how you think you can do both, to be honest I
was
: > so
: > lazy
: > : > : that I just used your formula on
: > : > : http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
: > without
: > even
: > : > : checking to see if it was correct, I didn't get any
: > inconsistencies
: > : > : from the invariant way I normally calculate, so I didn't
give it
: > any
: > : > : thought until now.
: > : >
: > : > Well, as dumb as you are, it's about time you actually
thought.
: > : > This is VERY simple algebra. I think I can use either just as
I
: > : > think I can use
: > : > sqrt(4)+ sqrt(4) = 4
: > : > or
: > : > 2+2 = 4.
: > :
: > : YOU assumed v^2/c^2=v/c, which is not true in general, YOU made
an
: > : error, YOU thought MY numbers were WRONG when my numbers were
: > actually
: > : CORRECT. I agree that it *is* VERY simple algebra, that's why
I'm
: > : asking YOU to use MY numbers AGAIN, because it is SO simple that
if
: > : you do it again, EVEN YOU will notice that YOU made an error
last
: > : time.
: >
: > You do rant a lot, don't you?
:
: I only respond to what YOU say, if you don't repeat how *I* am wrong
: OVER and OVER again when it was YOU that was wrong, then I don't
write
: as much.
:
: > : > But you hav to decide what the relativisitic
: > : > : doppler shift is someday Andrcles, making up different
formulas
: > : > : different days isn't going to make you popular with the
lurkers.
: > : >
: > : > Well, I imagine any sensible thinking intelligent lurker will
be
: > : > having
: > : > a good chuckle at your inability to manipulate
: > : > f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] / sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] )
: > : > into
: > : > f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] )
: > :
: > : I *can* manilpulate f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] /
sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] )
: > into
: > : f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] ), what I could NOT manipulate
into
: > : f.sqrt([1-v/c] / [1+v/c] ) was ....
: > :
: > : f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] / sqrt[1-v/c] ), which IS what YOU
: > computed
: > : and then tried to blame ME for YOUR mistake, GROW UP. It was a
: > simple
: > : error on your part (and I mis-indentified your error the first
time,
: > : and I am DEEPLY sorry about that, please forgive me), and if you
: > admit
: > : your error and move on with the conversation THEN you will be
: > : forgiven, not only by me, but probably by any lurkers who are
still
: > : following.
: >
: > So you blundered in algebra, I blundered in arithmetic. I fail to
see
: > why
: > it takes you whole paragraphs to admit it. Grow up.
:
: WHAT algebra "blunder" are you accusing me of. I took a "wild
guess"
: at what "incorrect FORMULA" caused YOU to put incorrect NUMBERS into
a
: printout. If you'd WRITTEN your formulas then I wouldn't have HAD
to
: "guess what you were thinking." I'm good at SR, but I've NEVER
: claimed to be an expert in reading Androcles' mind, and I've never
: thought of reading Androcles' mind and algebra as being related.
:
: > : > Your
: > : > : formula is not the multiplicative inverse of the the one you
use
: > : > : later, so I'm fairly confident that today (maybe yesterday)
: > Androcles
: > : > : made an error.
: > : >
: > : > Really? ROFLMAO!
: > : > Too funny. So you are really confident, huh?
: > : > Let me tell you something. I'm confident you don't have a
clue.
: > :
: > : I'm confident that sqrt( [1-v/c] / [1+v/c] ) and sqrt( [1+v/c] /
: > : [1-v/c] ) are multiplicative inverses of each other, and since
the
: > : numbers YOU computed were BOTH higher, they were NOT
multiplicative
: > : inverses of each other, even though you claim that the formula
YOU
: > : used was EQUIVALENT to sqrt( [1-v/c] / [1+v/c] ). It was NOT,
the
: > : formula you TRIED to use (f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] /
: > sqrt[1-v^2/c^2]
: > : )) IS equivalent to f'=f*sqrt( [1+v/c] / [1-v/c] ), but the
formula
: > : that you ACTUALLY used, (f' = f*( [1-cos(phi).v/c] /
sqrt[1-v/c] ))
: > IS
: > : NOT and never will be IN GENERAL, equivalent.
: >
: > : Just check your work for consistency (like that they are
inverses of
: > : each other, BEFORE accusing someone ELSE of using bad numbers).
: >
: > Rant rant rant.
: > I'm still confident you haven't a clue.
:
: It was a response to you, it was a response to you, it was a
response
: to you. Just move on to an actual critic of my post which you
: probably *still* haven't read. Now that you agree that my numbers
are
: right, I've showed you (if you read it) the NON-fudging way to
compute
: the twin-paradox setup. So you know how to compute how many ticks
: Terrance SEES on his own clock, and on Stella's clock. And how many
: Stella SEES on Terrance's clock and on her own clock. And they each
: AGREE about how many ticks each clock made, that's THE WHOLE POINT
of
: the exercise.
:
: > : > That's fine, you're allow to make errors sometime
: > : > : Androcles, just come clean and admit it and move on and
that's
: > all
: > : > : fine. Persist, and the lurkers will judge you accordingly.
: > : >
: > : > I'm sure they will. ROFL!
: > :
: > : This is supposed to be a debate Androcles, I'm just feeling bad
for
: > : allowing you to dig yourself such a deep hole, if this were in
: > person
: > : I would have "excused myself" to go to the bathroom after
passing
: > you
: > : a private note explaining your error so that you wouldn't make
: > : yourself look so dumb. For your own image just TRY to PRETEND
that
: > I
: > : am an honest person who can do his math, and who WANTS to debate
SR
: > : with you FAIRLY, and ACT accordingly.
:
: > I'm still confident you haven't a clue.
:
: Let's get this straight, you admit that my numbers were correct when
: you were wrong, but you still think I haven't a clue? Why can't we
: just MOVE ON with the example now that you agree that my speed, time
: and doppler shift are correct to discussion the CONCLUSION about how
I
: COMPUTE (rather than assume) how many ticks of Stella's clock
Terrance
: SEES?
:
: I think at this point if you agree to the time of 14 terrance-years,
: and a speed of sqrt(48/49) speed of light that all I need is a
: concrete frequency of how many ticks Terrance SEES on his own clock
: during the 14 terrance-years Stella is gone. I wanted to say
: 60*60*24*365*14 ticks, is that OK? It makes the +/- 1 tick cause by
: YOU forcing ME to use Koks numbers to have only a small error, and
: it's not REALLY that hard to toss around Androcles, loosen up a bit,
: bigger numbers won't bite you.
:
: > : > :
: > : > : > Let me check for the blue shift.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > f' = f (1-cos(180)*0.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : > : > sqrt(1 - 0.9897433186107870248728264808605)
: > : > : >
: > : > : > f' = f (1.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : > : > sqrt(1 - 0.9897433186107870248728264808605)
: > : > : >
: > : > : > = f (1.9897433186107870248728264808605) /
: > : > : > 0.10127527531047731063074061622396
: > : > : > = 19.64688141909056307053055625729
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Too high.... maybe you dont have the speed quite right.
: > : > :
: > : > : Maybe it's your formula again: on,
: > : > : http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm ,
you
: > used
: > : > :
: > : > : f' = f.sqrt( [1+v/c] / [1-v/c] )
: > : > :
: > : > : but now you are apparantly using f' = f * ( [1+v/c] /
: > sqrt[1-v/c] ),
: > : > :
: > : > : I again don't know how you think you can do both, and again
I
: > have
: > to
: > : > : tell you that making up different formulas different days
isn't
: > going
: > : > : to make you popular with the lurkers.
: > : > :
: > : > : > As to 7 - sqrt(48) and 7 + sqrt(48), I get
: > : > : > 0.071796769724490825890214633976511
: > : > : > and
: > : > : > 13.928203230275509174109785366023
: > : > : >
: > : > : > That looks close enough.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I think your speed is fucked up, Mr "Exact Numbers".
: > : > : > At least Koks got that part right, and you are hopeless.
: > : > : > No matter.
: > : > :
: > : > : Amazing how when you use the correct formulas to verify Mr.
: > Koks, he
: > : > : passes, and when you use the wrong ones to verify me, I
fail,
: > ....
: > : > : it's *almost* like using the correct formulas matters, ...
: > almost
: > ...
: > : > : Wait! Maybe it's a general phenomina! Maybe using the
right
: > formula
: > : > : ALWAYS matters and that sometimes the wrong formulas just
happen
: > to
: > be
: > : > : approximately correct, and that's the only reason some
people
: > think
: > : > : otherwise.
: > : > :
: > : > : > : Those were approximated by Koks as 1/14 and 14
: > resepectively,
: > but if
: > : > : > : you had 14 and 1/14 exactly, that wouldn't mesh with the
: > speed
: > of
: > : > : > : [sqrt(48/49) c] and the the total time gone of 14 years.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > That's right. it doesn't. Its the kind of ***-up people
make
: > with
: > : > : > relativity.
: > : > :
: > : > : I think Koks was trying to make the math easy, I find that
kind
: > of
: > : > : pedantic anctics annoying, but not ALL people doing
relativity
: > do
: > : > : that, I believe you may be guilty of making
over-generalizations
: > : > : Androcles. Has it occured to you that at some time some
: > intelligent
: > : > : and honest person might have studied relativity and that
this
: > person
: > : > : might be interested in discussing it with you fairly?
: > : >
: > : > Well, yes, it did occur to me, many years ago. I actually
thought
: > : > there would be people capable of reasoning who would easily
detect
: > : > Einstein's blunders if I pointed them out, but then I found a
: > bunch
: > : > of morons how don't think at all, disciples of the Lord
Einstein
: > and
: > : > incompetent priests of the Holy Church of Relativity.
: > :
: > : I personally don't care AT ALL what Einstein wrote
: >
: > Ah...
: > No point in continuing, then, is there?
: > Glad you've admitted it.
: > Remaining rant snipped unread.
: > Androcles.
:
: Androcles I feel sorry for you that reading is apparantly so hard
for
: you, but you aren't a fair debater at all. You make fun of people
: that read Einstein even Einstein is a man and can be wrong. And
: people who base SR on SET THEORY instead of Einstein are MUCH less
: likely to be wrong but you APPARANTLY have NO INTEREST in the more
: TRUSTED and MODERN theory?
:
: Why could this be? I'm sure there are many motivations, but I keep
: being suspicious that it is your sense of unfair debating things by
: (purposely) misrepresenting it, and you find that easier to do with
: Einstein than could hard set theory. The modern theory of SR is
based
: not on a website that Einstein didn't write, but on a structure
proven
: to exist in the set theoretical universe. So if the modern theory
is
: internally inconsistent, then SO is set theory.

Quantcast