Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/09/05 

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:24:05 GMT

"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
> On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
> XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
> <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
>>> Let's see. Where were we?
>>> You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere near
>>> where we
>>> left off.
>>>
>>> However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick with
>>> the 1905
>>> paper.
>>
>> That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
>> Einstein's notation.
>>
>>
>>> Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again for
>>> this thread?
>> Gladly.
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>
>>>
>>> Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest an
>>> amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to it.
>>
>> Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
>>
>> "
>> Draper:
>> : 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.
>>
>> Androcles:
>> 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.
>>
>> You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
>> You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged error.
>>
>> I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> Well, let's try it anyway.
> We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
> receiver at
> one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along with
> a
> clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time goes
> by.
>
> We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference if:
> A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
> B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
> pulse
> from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and t3
> is
> the time of receipt at the receiver.
>
> OK so far?

No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.

Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was idiotic
at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
McCullough is another like him.

We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
of reference if:
A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the place
of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.

Ok so far?

Androcles.