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

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: 25 Nov 2004 15:44:50 -0800

RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<30ml46F32kv7tU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Let's start with a fresh page.
> According to your argument, MCIF's are sufficient to resolve the issue,
> when taken in conjunction with str.
> Gtr is unnecessary. Very well then. Let's alter the argument just a bit:

It is unecissary from situations without gravity, if you want to do
gravity, then do it. If you don't don't. I need to know which, but
when you start with a thesis "STR is wrong because I'm accelerating"
then I just get confused, now offense was intended, I note a lot of
heat in your post, and I don't know why.

> First, let's let the B (distant) clock remain at rest in lab frame
> throughout the sequence. Though this is irrelevant to the argument that
> follows, it may perchance avoid your perception a loophole that isn't there.

So you have one clock B and one clock C, both moving inertially, where
each sees the other as blue-shifted. There is another clock that does
NOT see B as blue shifted, and when C passes it, it starts comoving
with C. Fine, I get the setup.
 
> During acceleration from rest, clock A intercepts n waves corresponding
> one-to-one with the ticks of the B clock. These are waves that were
> already suspended between the clocks before the initial acceleration of
> A. We'll also assume a virtually instantaneous acceleration into the
> final inertial frame of A. Now let's introduce another clock C, that is
> already moving in the inertial frame that A accelerates into, and whose
> passage by A is the actual trigger for the A clock acceleration.

OK, that's all as I described so far, the word accelerate was
unecissary, you could just have clock C synchronize with A when they
are coincident, no movement other than inertial is required. This is
easy so far.

> In the instant that A and C are collocated, wrt C, the B clock is further
> ahead in its ticking than it is in the at rest frame of B.

Sounds like nonsense, is this a typo? B is far away there is no "in
the instant when A and C are coincident", when A and C are coincident
is an EVENT, lets call it D. There is no tick of B that is "in the
same instant". We could discuss the event E, where light left B such
that the light arrived at D, that would be really really long ago. Or
we could discuss the event F where the light from event D reaches
clock B, but that is in the distant distant future. Don't know which
you mean, and they are as different as night and day, but maybe it'll
be more clear if I read on.

> IOW, B and C don't agree in this instant on the reading on the A clock.

Do you mean that A and C SEE the readout of clock C at event D at
event D itself, but that for all events between E and F the clock B is
SEEING another (earlier) reading?

> OTOH, both must
> intercept exactly the same number of A ticks from this point on, that is
> since they will be comoving after this event.

A and C are now moving towards B, then yeah they will count the same
number of ticks on A (and C) as happening between D and G (the event
where A,B, and C are coincident) that B will count between F and G,
sure.

> This requires that A
> intercept an arbitrarily large number of ticks during its brief
> acceleration interval in order balance the books.

Balance what books? Where did this COME from?

> IOW, A must tick
> forward in time wrt B (during this interval) sufficiently to produce a
> match to the reading existent in the C frame.

Screw this frame garbage. Draw lines from every tick from the source
of the tick to the observer of the tick. Count. No paradox. No GTR
needed.

> Now, what was that you were saying about "me" not understanding?
> Try looking these over, maybe they'll change your opinion about my
> mathematical capabilities and understanding of the issues.

Uh, you discussed three lines, that are all time-like and such that
one intersects the other two, which are parallel. That wasn't much
math, and then you said "this requires an arbitrarily large" for no
reason whatsoever as if anyone knows what you are talking about.

  B
 \| |
  G |
  |\ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  F \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \ |
  | \|
  | D
  | |\
  B A C

That's all you said. I mean honest you didn't actually say anything
else. The letter N, therefore GTR? I'm not trying to make fun of
you, this is my honest best reading of your post.

> The math,
> corresponding to the argument above, consists of simple inequalities. If
> you're as intelligent as you espouse to be, then surely you can
> reformulate the argument into symbolic form.

I formulated it into the letter N, which says that one upon a time
clocks A and B were synchronized, then C came along and took A and on
a journey to B and when A arrived, it was behind B.

> Moreover, the numbers are
> absent from the above argument simply because they are arbitrary, its a
> question of less than/more than, just simple logic.

I didn't even SEE a question. Yes, clock A and C are behind clock B,
that is obvious, clock B didn't START to see clock A tick slowly until
event F, but clock A saw clock B tick slower starting at event D. So
A sees more ticks from B than B sees from A. It's like a game of
galactic chicken, whoever moves first is youngest.
 
> If, as you seem to be of the opinion, you think that I am inept at the
> math, then try going over the following papers.

> Perhaps you'll find that opinions are like assholes.

I've been insulted before, I love to be shown how I'm wrong, it's how
I learn. I don't like to be simply TOLD I'm wrong, all can learn from
that is that someone disagrees. You disagree. Fine. I don't know
why, so I can't even tell if we are both right or if one of us is
wrong. And if one of us is wrong, I don't know which one. I'm biased
to think I'm right and you are wrong because my results are clear and
unambiguous to me and match all the data I've seen, but that's not a
way to make a decision because I'm sure you are an honest man and feel
the same way about your opinion. But since I don't EVEN know the
basis for your opinion and I've explained mine to you clearly (with
events D,E,F, and G), I think I'm done for now, and it's up to you to
continue the conversation

> It is you sir, who errs in this argument.

I'm not EVEN having an arguement, you didn't SAY anything.

> Both of the following papers are more empirical proof of that
> fact.

WHAT fact? You didn't even state your question and if the N diagram
is correct then the predictions of SR are clear. If you want to
discuss gravity, then discuss it.
 
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.pdf

A paper that doesn't mention this "N case" or SR that I noticed. Why
was I supposed to look at it? To prove that you can do math? I don't
care if you reinvented calculus when you were seven, all that matters
is what you can do today. And today, the just draw lines parallel to
DF with endpoints along DG and count to see how many ticks B see. And
you draw lines parallel to ED that start on EG to see how many ticks A
and C see. This doesn't require any math at all that I know of.

> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Fizeau.pdf

A paper that appears to talks about transformations but has low
velocity data about light through water. Like your above post I think
I simply 100% failed to "get the point", no offense, I just have no
idea what you were TRYING to show, OR what you think you DID show.
And it didn't help me figure out your "N" situation either, they are
all still myseteries to me.

Loading