Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:43:57 GMT

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108607382.877500.263440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Androcles wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108571011.321417.324810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > In sci.physics, Androcles
> > <Androcles@MyPlace.org>
> > wrote
> > on Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:53:39 GMT
> > <7YvQd.110093$K7.35739@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> > >
> > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1108480538.284135.143160@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Androcles wrote:
> > >
> > >> Differentiate this for me, Poe :
> > >>
> > >> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/ something_not_there )]
> > >> = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> > >>
> > >
> > > Oh, I see what you're trying to reproduce. Yes, I
> > > can help you out.
> > >
> > > The original equation is this:
> > >
> > > (1/2)*[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)] =
> > > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> > >
> > > "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" --- Poe the blind man.
>
> Androcles knows damned well that "that equation"
> was not the equation above, since that comment
> did not appear with that equation and he had to
> do the manual editing across multiple posts
> to create the juxtaposition.
>
> > > *** off, Poe, you're troll. You couldn't help yourself to see,
how
> the
> > > *** are you going to help anyone else?
>
> Poe:
> As always, I am merely trying to answer the question
> you asked. In this case you got stuck trying to figure
> out how Einstein went from the above equation to
> the differential equation and you ASKED ME explicitly
> to help you get unstuck. I was happy to oblige.
>
> > in section 3 suggests the equation
> >
> > 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x/(c+v) ]
> > = tau(x',0,0,t + x'/(c-v) )
> >
> > The c+v term apparently is because of the reflection of the
> lightbeam.
>
> That takes the same time to return by DEFINITION.

Poe:
In the moving frame. Not in the stationary frame.

Androcles:
Ok, the speed of light in the stationary frame is c, and with two
stationary points a fixed distance apart, x, we find that
t = x/c does NOT equal t = -x/-c

Poe:
It's why the tau's are related by tau1 = 1/2(tau0 + tau2).
But there's no such "definition" about the time to travel
between source and mirror as measured by the stationary observer.

Androcles:
Oh, I think there is...
"In agreement with experience [gotta love that bull*** phrase, So I'll
repeat it]...

"In agreement with experience, WE [the royal "we" of Queen Victoria]
further ASSUME [my capitals]
 2AB/(t'A - tA) = c, to be a universal constant, the velocity of light
in empty space. -- Albert "Dingbat" Einstein.

So you see, Poe, in agreement with experience, you are wrong.

> Not by observation, not by logic deduction, but by definition.

Poe:
In the moving frame. Not in the stationary frame.

Androcles: In agreement with experience, you are wrong.

> It takes the same time to return because Einstein says so.

Poe: He says so in the frame in which source and destination
are at rest. He doesn't say so in the frame in which they
are moving.

Andocles:
 You mean to say that it DOESN'T take light the same time
to travel back again, so that "we then must" (tau2+ tau0)/2 = tau1 AND
(t0 + t2)/2 = t1 "in agreement with experience", and Einstein does NOT
say that in the frame in which they are moving?

> I'm
> not sufficiently insane enough to believe him. Drive me crazier.

Poe:
What your particular psychosis seems to be is an unwillingness
or inability to keep straight the moving and stationary
frames, to switch them willy-nilly.

Androcles:
Yes, of course. Excuse me while I roar with laughter... be back when my
sides have stopped aching.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Ok, I took a break and made coffee.

In agreement with experience, I'm mixing up frames willy-nilly
and you are not, "It's why the tau's are related by tau1 = 1/2(tau0 +
tau2)"
"In the moving frame" But there's no such "definition" about the time
to travel between source and mirror as measured by the stationary
observer
and x/c doesn't equal -x/-c, "Not in the stationary frame", which is MY
particular psychosis, unwillingness and inability to keep straight the
moving
and stationary frames.
Have you taken your medication lately, Poe?

> "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by
> finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these
> events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
> respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B
to
> determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of
B.
> But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in
respect
> of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
only
> an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time''

> for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish
> by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to
B
> equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "

Poe:
We've been round this loop before. The part you keep deliberately
snipping is this:

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places"

Androcles:
Ah yes, imaginary experiments. I do keep overlooking that. Dang.
I keep imagining you are real. See, I'm psychotic, I imagine Einstein
wrote a paper in 1905 as well.
Oh well, so long as I don't harm anyone and have a good laugh at
your imaginary experiements, it really doesn't matter.

Poe:
The entire discussion above is talking about when A and B are
stationary relative to the clocks. When A is the moving source
and B is the moving mirror, the frame where they are stationary
relative to the clocks is the k frame. It is the k clocks that
are moving along with A and B.

Androcles:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Have you taken your medication?
I might mix up willy and nilly if you don't.

Poe:
The ground observer's clocks do not count as "stationary"
relative to this A and B, and no amount of pretending Einstein
said "regardless of relative motion" will erase the fact that
he actually said "stationary clocks".

Androcles:
Please take your medication, Poe.
 My particular psychosis seems to be an unwillingness or inability to
keep straight the moving and stationary frames, to switch them
willy-nilly.
If you take your pills, I might get over it. You know that nice man in
the white coat said you should. I know... I know... nasty pills, but
you can have some candy afterwards. I've been saving this piece for you.

> "Cannot be defined at all, unless"... x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v)
>
> Unless (x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v) ) / 2 = x'/(c-v)

Poe:
No. The clocks that are sitting still relative to A
and B measure the tau's. Those aren't the tau's.

Androcles:
In agreement with experience, Poe, you need to get your neuron in the
right frame of mind, it isn't working too well on the left. I knew you
wouldn't buy into it, it is far too obvious a con. That's why I said:

> Rut roh.... can't get away with that.

Bad boy on snipping that. You definitely need your medication.

Oh well, I tried.

be a good boy, take your medication, and err.... *** off, stupid troll.

Androcles.

Quantcast