Re: Are physics cranks employed?


"cnctut" <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156109660.795703.40980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "cnctut" <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1156096655.990934.10130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "cnctut" <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1156089480.802480.52800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | --some snipped and (numbers) added for clarity--
| > | > |
| > | > | >(1) x' = x-vt
| > | > | >(2) xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > | >(3) xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
| > | > | >(4) x'-xi = -xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
| > | > |
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | //
| > | > |
| > | > | Tut writes:
| > | > |
| > | > | Everyone makes simple math mistakes--how many Mars probes are in
| > pieces
| > | > | on its surface?
| > | > |
| > | > | Let's try this:
| > | > |
| > | > | Given your equations (2) & (3):
| > | > |
| > | > | Let P = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) then from equation (2) by substitution
| > | > |
| > | > | (2) xi = x'/P then x' = xiP
| > | > |
| > | > | Solving for xi - x' by substituting x' = xiP, then
| > | > |
| > | > | (5) xi -x' = xi - xiP then
| > | > |
| > | > | (6) xi - x' = xi ( 1 - P) but P = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and
substituting
| > | > | back into (6)
| > | > |
| > | > | (7) xi - x = xi ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is not what is shown
in
| > | > | equation (3)
| > | > |
| > | > | Hope this helps!
| > | > |
| > | > | Best Wishes,
| > | > |
| > | > | Tut
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Let's try this:
| > | >
| > | > You've missed the prime of x.
| > | > Substituting square brackets for parentheses because your
parentheses in
| > | >
| > | > (7) xi - x = xi ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^
| > | >
| > | > x' LEFT LEFT RIGHT
| > | >
| > | > are not paired, we have
| > | >
| > | > (7a) xi-x' = xi[1- sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
| > | > ^ ^ ^ ^^
| > | >
| > | > Check:
| > | > (3) xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
| > | >
| > | > xi-x' = xi- xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > -x' = -xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > x' = xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > x'*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = xi.
| > | >
| > | > so
| > | > xi = x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) <> x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | >
| > | > hence (3) is indeed apparently incorrect, BUT...
| > | >
| > | > you've stopped my fun with Rabid Dork, who was unable to show
| > | > that (3) was incorrect (Please don't tell) because Rabid Dork thinks
| > | > xi = x',
| > | > Reference:
| > | >
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fde91ced0fbfef81
| > | >
| > | > quote:
| > | > Exercise [2]: can you explain in the context of following equations:
| > | > x = c t
| > | > x' = c t' ,
| > | > what is the physical meaning of the variables
| > | > x: ?
| > | > t: ?
| > | > x': ?
| > | > t': ?
| > | > c: ?
| > | > /end quote
| > | > (no mention of tau or xi) which in reality it does,
| > | > because the c in sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is 0/0
| > | > (ref
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF )
| > | >
| > | > and (3) is just as correct the way it was because sqrt(1 - v^2/
[0/0]^2)
| > =
| > | > 1.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Everyone makes simple math mistakes--how many relativists are
shitheads?
| > | > There is Einstein, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Rabid Dork Van de
merde,
| > | > and I'm not quite sure whether Toot is a relativist, but missing
primes
| > | > and parentheses is naughty.
| > | >
| > | > "HE was and would continue to be a teacher, and as with most skilled
| > | > teachers,
| > | > he would occasionally tell lies as harsh exemplars of a deeper
| > truth." ---
| > | > Tom Clancy, "Executive Orders"
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Tut writes:
| > |
| > | I wish I could say the x vs x' was done on purpose--nope, just a
simple
| > | typing error corrected in a follow-up post. Yup, forgot a ' ) ' too.
| > |
| > | Thanks for the correction.
| > |
| > | Tut
| > Ok, no problem. Now be a good chap and correct a velocity that
reverses.
| > After all, anyone can make a mistake, including Einstein.
| > It's only a problem if the mistake is not corrected, right?
| > Here it is:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| >
| > Or was it a deliberate mistake so that Einstein could perpetrate a hoax?
| > In agreement with experience we further assume Einstein was a huckster.
| > Do WE not?
| > Androcles
|
| Androcles,
|
| I don't know anything about the velocity reversing your talking about,

No?
Hmm...

| or what you're trying to show with the moving graph--just that it
| appears to me that your f ' (x) is messed up.

Mine?

It is Einstein's f'(x), not mine. Actually it is f'(t), or better yet
the distance moved divided by the time taken.

But that's the nature of mathematics, to generalize.
The derivative, Distance'(t), is better known as dx/dt, but since
the velocity is constant we can use d/t.

In other words we travel the whole 30 miles in one whole hour
to get a constant velocity of 30 mph, which doesn't really happen
in everyday driving because the velocity is not constant.
So we use less than 30 miles in a whole hour, say 44 feet per second,
which is then dx/dt, or a little bit of 30 miles divided by a little bit
of an hour. 1/3600 to be precise, because 30 * 5280/3600 = 44
and 60 * 1 second is 1 munite, and 60 times 1 minute is 1 hour,
so 60 *60 = 3600 seconds in an hour. This was taught to me in
school when I was 14 years old, I'm surprised you have not heard
of it. Am I going too fast for you? Just take notes if I am.

| Has anyone suggested this
| from a mathematics perspective?

Yes, me.
By the first theorem of calculus we can integrate dx/dt to find the
distance moved in time t, which is zero from A to A.

Could you explain without my need to
| read the 1905/06 paper(s).

That is what
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
does, it has text that is copied verbatim from the 1905 paper at the top.

It says, "In agreement with experience we further assume
(ass-u-me makes an ass out of u and me, but I'm not an ass)

2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant, the velocity of light in empty space."

So we can either go 30 miles forward from A to B and
then go backward from B to A in two hours, making Distance(t) = 0
because we are back at A and Distance'(t) = 0/2 hours,
except it is also Distance'(t) = 0/2 seconds because we went
forward 44 feet and back 44 feet in 2 seconds to get back to A
and that is called a "constant" velocity by Einstein the huckster.

Now the reason Einstein does this is that he plans on making the
time at B something different to the time at A.
Any reasonable person would say c = AB/(tB-tA) or just
c = AB/t, but Einstein doesn't want to mention tB just yet,
he's saving that for later because he has to convince you that
his assumption is correct, whereas it is really a crock of ***.

He wants to push:

"Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition
festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu
gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu
gelangen. "

which translates into English as

"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
a turtle to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from
B to A.

At least I think "das Licht" translates to "a turtle"... Nothing can go
faster than a turtle.

Never mind, I'm sure the velocity of a turtle is constant even if I'm wrong.
Ho hum..

Thanks,
|
| Tut

You are welcome.
Androcles


.

Quantcast