mm-1329 === Subject: Re: Definition of A Field SR was never emprically tested. The true emprical tests for SR are as follows: 1. Do a OWLS experiment with two spatizally separated and synchronized clocks. 2. Do the experiment described in the following link (page 3): http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf Ken Seto === Subject: Re: Definition of A Field SR has been empirically tested millions of time. See this group's FAQ for pointers to the experiments. You are just pissed because no one has done you OWLS experiment. The failure to do that experiment or something like it is not falsification. SR when combined with Quantum Mechanics becomes Quantum Field Theory. Quantum Electrodynamics which is one such field theory is the best tested physical theory ever formulated. Bob Kolker === Subject: Re: Definition of A Field message and a *sigh*....then you are not talking about your absolute motion or the observed object's absolute motion. You are talking about the vectors of your absolute motion and the vector of the observed objects absolute motion. velocity. ROTFLOL...Idiot runt...lacking the brain cells to comprehend. WRT what??? That's a bogus assumption. Only the vectors of their absolute motions have directions. Idiot runt you'll never understand. directions....so But that doesn't mean that A and B are in the same state of absolute motion. For example clocks at different height exhibit no relative motion between them but they are in different state of absolte motion and thus they run at different rates. Av Hey idiot....so what?? When A look at C he will have a different vector wrt C than wrt B. Ken Seto === Subject: Re: Definition of A Field Clear. But how is that relevant to the point here? I can observe how something moves *with respect to me* even in empty space! Bye, Bjoern === Subject: Re: Definition of A Field That is true. I was addressing the problem of knowing if you are moving in empty space with no other bodies around to refer to. This is the equivalent of being in empty space in a small shut up room. You cannot detect motion unless you look out side, unless you are accelerating. Then you will feel a force. Bob Kolker === Subject: Its too late Morituri-Max You have invented operation troll shoulder only to cop out on it. You've made my day. === Subject: Re: I did not have sex with that woman. None of this has anything to do with sci.physics. === Subject: Re: I did not have sex with that woman. Stop crossposting this crap. === Subject: Re: I did not have sex with that woman. He has far more creds than you do Charlie Nudo! All, Be forewarned that Charlie Nudo, aka trippin28track here, 66fourdoor on eBay, is a troll. He has also been kicked off of eBay under different names for selling forged items and shill bidding. Don't be nudoed..steer clear! GG === Subject: Relf on Google Groups-2, beta I just found a thread on Google Groups 2 that was started by Relf, Our world is facing an entropy crises. It includes not only the original thread, but also all of his in your face break-off threads, integrally, in sequential order, with all the threads' titles thrown in for good measure. HAH! -Mark Martin === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Perhaps you have seen something like this. Let F(p) = integral exp(-px) f(x) dx (: Laplace Transform) And F'(p) = integral (-x) exp(-px) f(x) dx / center of gravity / midpoint And F''(p) = integral x^2 exp(-px) f(x) dx / moment of inertia / variance And then you have F(p) = F(0) + p.F'(0) + p^2/2.F''(0) + ... Interpretation: subsequent terms of the series expansion of the Laplace Transform involve an area, a midpoint, a moment of intertia .. In short: the most important (physical/global) characteristics of a function come first, when considered in the Laplace domain. Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? reply-type=response Arthur Mattuck, an MIT professor, ''interprets'' the Laplace transform as a continuous analog of a power series expansion of a function. You can watch a video of him lecturing on this point at Click on Lecture 19. T. Monroe === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? B. Girod, R. Rabenstein, A. Stenger. Signals and Systems. Chichester: Wiley 2001 first introduce and visualize LT, then FT as a special case of it. Decide yourself whether or not this somewhat demanding approach is the pedagogically best one. Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (1749-1825) first of all embodies determinism. The famous integral transform carries his name, but seems to have been used first by Denis Poisson (1781-1840) in 1815. Heaviside (1850-1925) was not aware of it when he nearly reinvented a slightly modified calculus with the operator pt = d/dt instead of st. Laplace did not trust in the work by Jean Baptiste Fourier (1768-1830) and rejected his famous paper which was nonetheless published with several years delay. Determinism is the wrong belief that anything can be predicted in advance by calculation. Correspondingly, one-sided LT assumes that anything starts at t=0. Pertaining signals are misleadingly called causal signals. The name deterministic signals would be more correct. One-sidedness of LT and the option to consider initial values make LT attractive for the first glance. In order to find a fan of LT you might Google for Kastrup. As far as I can judge, FT is much more in use than LT, mainly because of difficulties with inversion. In reality, all physical quantities are one-sided because future merely exists in imagination. LT is, however, not suited for performing a frequency analysis of such quantities only existing within past, not within future. Real-valued cosine transform is, in principle, adequate for that task. In other words: LT belongs to deterministic prediction of processes to come. CT belongs to causal analysis of the past. Causality is hidden in influences from what already happened. The laws of physics are symmetrical with respect to time. the caveat ïin principleÍ refers to time t in the kernel of LT. In case of CT in IR+, time has to be replaced by elapsed time. LT generally assumes an event-related time scale. CT makes sense with an observer-bound time-scale permanently sliding relatively to the event-related one. Having dealt with LT, Ernst Terhardt of MMK Munich copied the trick of making each finite function to converge, as does any real process. However, he finds fault with the widespread practice to start integration a little bit left from zero. In this case, definition of LT is not to blame for the fallacy. Instead, notion of real numbers should be revised. What about the minus sign of the imaginary part of s or omega in LT or FT, respectively, this is an arbitrarily chosen option, enforced by transformation into the inevitably redundant complex representation. (The only way out of that dilemma would be use of the observer-bound time-scale that has a natural zero to rely on.) Physicists still prefer the opposite sign of imaginary part. This discrepancy in sign does not matter because inverse transform returns the correct input. In order to bridge the gap between imaginable reality and visualization of complex representations like LT or FT, one might get aware of their half-reality in the sense the other half of reality is just economized. They are exhibiting just one out of two phasors, one of which rotates clockwise, the other one anticlockwise. Omission of the half picture paradoxically results in redundant doubling of data. Being a complex transform, at least the bilateral LT should possibly lead to ambiguous and even non-causal results, as does FT. Eckard Blumschein P.S.: I will post this reply of mine only in sci.physics and sci.math first. Perhaps, sci.physics.research and sci.math.research will reject it. You might ask yourself why I expect them to do so. === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Why are you playing the misjudged genious, while people aren't that bad? Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? This is actually good news. The first reason for me to submit to sci.physics.research was a rather rude tone here. Meanwhile, I do not fear what I am calling the Greenfield collection. However, I don't expect much helpful criticism from it either. Perhaps, they didn't grasp the essence of my question Is Physics really a matter of belief?. So they did not invade my next thread Painful but inevitable resignation. John Baez seems to be more intelligent. He and his crew rapidly blocked any posting of mine if it anyhow related to my suggestion of IR+. Admittedly, it already took me 18 months of fierce discussion mainly in de.sci.physik and my appendix until Hendrik van Hees declared me correct and apologized in public. My primary field of interest is auditory function. Here I came up with http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M277.html Maybe, I am wrong. However, if I am basically correct with my suggestion of an observer-bound time-scale, then it could be of more general interest. Presently, I am trying to justify this scale. I already found confirming evidence in various fields. You added 'upwind differencing' Those, like you and me, who do not hide problems are certainly aware that proper physical description is often hampered by awkward axiomatic-style mathematics. Just a very few writers of textbooks in signal processing bothered about such trifles. Since the majority anyway tends to plagiariz older incorrectness, it is just now that the level of discussion on Cantor and the like has grown to intolerable height. When I mentioned http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/deBruijn/ in de.sci.mathematik, an opponent of Brouwer gave the advice not to confuse you with Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn http://www.win.tue.nl/~wsdwnb/ who was declared a ganz hervorragender Mathematiker dieses Namens (de Bruijn). When I appreciated the constructive style of someone, he asked me not to consider him a constructivist for that reason. As an outsider, I wonder if Hilbert's proponents are quoting him as follows: Brouwer ist nicht, wie Weyl meint, die Revolution, sondern nur die Wiederholung eines Putschversuches mit alten Mitteln, der seinerzeit, viel schneidiger unternommen, doch g.8anzlich mi¤lang und jetzt zumal, wo die Staatsmacht durch Frege, Dedekind und Cantor so wohlger.9fstet und befestigt ist, von vornherein zur Erfolglosigkeit verurteilt ist. This is my humble translation: Brouwer is not, as Weyl pretends, the revolution but just a the attempt to repeat a putsch by old means. This putsch was undertaken in much more dashing manner at that time but nevertheless it ended unsuccessful. This time it is doomed to fail from the very beginning especially because the power of state has been so much well-armed and fortified by Frege, Dedekind, and Cantor. Is this really mathematics? Eckard === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? OK, but I've been thinking about a different strategy, based upon the well-known principle: if you can't beat them, join them. I mean, some mathematicians have found that there exist numbers that are computable, while others are not. Now they could have said: Look! My numbers are much better than yours, because they can be computed. But that's not what they did. Instead, they just distinguished those two sorts of numbers. Leaving the rest of mathematics untouched. We can do the same. Distinguish the mathematics that is useful for our purpose, from the mathematics that will not be useful for our purpose. We could give a name to the former and call idealizations which can be implemented as a technology: material. And the others: immaterial. Be careful with your phrasing, though :-) Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Incidentally, I found two perhaps more authentic English translations of the same German phrase by Hilbert in and in E. Scholz, Herman Weyl's Raum-Zeit-Materie. Birkh.8auser Eckard Blumschein === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Yep. And N.G. de Bruijn is NOT a relative of mine, not at all. De Bruijn (or de Bruin) is a very common name here in the Netherlands. There exist more than 20 individuals with this name at the Delft UT alone. It should be mentioned, though, that N.G. de Bruijn has been one of my professors at the Eindhoven University of Technology. I've met him, occasionally. Consequently, those famous de Bruijn sequences are not mine, alas )-: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/deBruijnSequence.html Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Alas? Maybe, you will even be able to contribute more valuable ideas to science. I got the impression, time has been ripe for serious corrections to obviously questionable basics. For my feeling, the attitude revealed in my quotation is not a sign of souvereign strength but on the opposite it reminds me of the hopless weakness of two totalitarian political systems I was born in. Unfortunately, what I managed to post in sci.physics.research is not identical with what I sent to sci.physics.research and sci.math.research after I posted it here in sci.math on 25.11. 12:01. Already in the evening of 24.11. I intended to post an earlier version to sci.physics. Because I was tired and in a hurry, I did not get aware of the existing links to sci.math, sci.mat.research, and sci.physics.research. The somewhat shameful result is to be seen here, 25.11. 10:37 and in sci.physics.research, also 10:37. I already mentioned David Kastrup. He pointed to a further aspect of LT. It is defined within IR with non-zero values only in IR+. This explains, he says, why intergration from 0- to +oo is popular. There is certainly more to ponder about. Eckard === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? That paper contains a very interesting fact about the relation between the Laplace Transform and convolution operators: If H(s) is the Laplace Transform of h then H(d/dx) is the operation of convolution with h. But it doesn't say anything as far as I can see about the question that I claim not to have a good answer to: What does the value of H(s) (for real s) really tell us about h? Possibly I misinterpreted what the OP was asking, or maybe not. But there _is_ a question, the answer to which is very clear for the Fourier Transform, for which I don't know any good answer for the Laplace Transform: Say F is the Fourier Transform of f. Now f can be synthesized from complex exponentials in some sense (in a sense that's much clearer for Fourier series), and the value of F(t) tells us exactly how much of a certain particular complex exponential goes into f. That's really what the Fourier Transform really means, and I don't know of any analogous statement for the Laplace Transform. ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Correct. But that's another poster. Basically, if you set up a series expansion of the Laplace Transform F(p), the main (global/physical) chracteristics of the function f(x) come first, i.e. as follows: Quite contrary to the series expansion of f(x) itself, where f(0) is only informative for the value x=0, f'(0) is informative in a small linear domain around x=0, f''(0) informs us about a somewhat larger quadratic domain, etc. Thus the Laplace transform of a function is the function *inside-out*, so to speak: global properties appear at first with a series expansion of F(p), while local properties appear at first with a series expansion of f(x). Han de Bruijn === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Here's an economic interpretation of the LT. Let T be a positive random variable with density function f(). Then E[exp(-sT)] is the LT of f(). Suppose you will receive a dollar at time T. The expected present value with (real)continuous interest rate s is the expection as shown. This interpretation is useful in operations research. Dan Heyman === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Comparing all answers so far, I wondered why nobody referred to books like B. Girod, R. Rabenstein, A. Stenger. Signals and Systems. Chichester: Wiley 2001. They decided to introduce LT first, then FT. Also they convincingly visualize LT. Nonetheless I appreciate the simplicity of the answer by Eric Erpelding: This way LT ensures convergence corresponding to the natural decay of all real life. LT seems to have been used first by Denis Poisson (1781-1840) in 1815. However, not even Heaviside was aware of it and reinvented nearly the same method decades later. As does FT, LT performs convolution. LT is seemingly attractive as a unilateral transform because real-world signals are typically one-sided. However, LT is restricted to a deterministic analysis. So it only fits to so future, not to past. So-called causal signals are actually deterministically predicted ones. What about the physical meaning of the === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? Originator: bergv@math.uiuc.edu (Maarten Bergvelt) For all time derivative and time integral operations and all analytic functions of t, there is a transformed equivalent function LT of s that is self-consistent and algebraic. Derivatives are represented by s and integrals by 1/s, the unit step function 1/s and impulse by 1.For example if the transform is 1/(s + a) then 1/s(1/s+a) is the integral. The original functions become disguised, but after the desired algebraic operations, the whole thing can be unrolled by the inverse LT. The Laplace transform makes it possible to show block diagrams containing s factories able to cascade operations by simple multiplication. Accompanying this work should be a sturdy table of transforms and their inverses. Formal study of LT can be hairy, but for engineering work you can usually get by with the rudiments. The Laplace transform actually maps the function onto the s plane = sigma + j omega. If you limit yourself to sigma = 0, you stay on the frequency axis and get the Fourier transform. Is that any help? Mr. Dual Space If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing to say, write an essay === Subject: Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform? For all time derivative and time integral operations and all analytic functions of t, there is a transformed equivalent function LT of s that is self-consistent and algebraic. Derivatives are represented by s and integrals by 1/s, the unit step function 1/s and impulse by 1.For example if the transform is 1/(s + a) then 1/s(1/s+a) is the integral. The original functions become disguised, but after the desired algebraic operations, the whole thing can be unrolled by the inverse LT. The Laplace transform makes it possible to show block diagrams containing s factories able to cascade operations by simple multiplication. Accompanying this work should be a sturdy table of transforms and their inverses. Formal study of LT can be hairy, but for engineering work you can usually get by with the rudiments. The Laplace transform actually maps the function onto the s plane = sigma + j omega. If you limit yourself to sigma = 0, you stay on the frequency axis and get the Fourier transform. Is that any help? Mr. Dual Space If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing to say, write an essay === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Those are Androcles years. The definition of an Androcles year is 60*60*24*365 ticks of Androcles ticker. That's NOT what SR predicts. You'd know that if you could draw straight lines and count. Terrance SEES ( 7+sqrt(48) years at (7-sqrt(48)) per year) + (7-sqrt(48) years at 7+sqrt(48) per year) = 2, she is two years older than when she left. I've showed you that math before, but just draw these lines. F | E | C D | / B / |/ A Now draw a line from B to D and from D to E A is t=0 x=0 B is t=7-sqrt(48), x=0 C is t=7, x=0 D is t=7, x=sqrt(48) E is t=t+sqrt(48), x=0 F is t=7, x=0 If Terrance sends a light signal from B, it gets to Stella at D. Stella turns around at D. If Stella sends a light signal from D, it gets to Terrance at E. Stella sees a rate of almost 1/14 between A and D. Stella sees a rate of almost 14/1 between D and F. Terrance sees a rate of almost 1/14 between A and E. Terrance sees a rate of almost 14/1 between E and F. But Androcles claimed that Terrance sees 1/14 for 7 years and 14/1 for 7 years, and clearly that is as false as if Androcles claimed that the two financial twins or the two basketball twins threw a contradictory number of balls. The graph is the same, the math is the same. Can you handle the math Androcles? This is great Androcles, if you count like this and READ the basketball example of the financial example, then you can disprove Newtonian physics too, and therefore your own theory. You are in an untenable position Androcles. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals He does not care. The only thing he is after, is to make you work. Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Right, I get what the graph represents. I am still not sure how to decipher those #'s. I am going to say that to represent Aug (or late) 1999. 2450000 represents about the same time in 1995. 2450700 represents The same in 1997. So 450 whatevers must be one Julian year. Is that close? That makes perfect sense. I would probably set tA = 0, that would make life easier. I would say that if it covered from A to B in one second (which it wouldn't I don't think if B is moving, it should take 1.5s) then since it bounces off B and would cover the same distance back, it would take 2s total. So t'A would be 2s. I believe 4s. Can you please explain what I just proved or disproved? What is so wrong with this statement. That light has a speed in a vacuum. And that the speed from A to B and back again divided by that time will be the speed of light. Or are you countering his statement about it being a universal constant? It must be because A' is moving away from A. Is that right? So, if you subtract a negative, you end up adding. I will admit that doesn't make much sense to me. I thought you moved A' away from A? I don't know if it is your example or what Einstein said now, but are A' & x' moving or are they stationary. If A' & A are aligned at the start and the end, when did A' turn around? Yes, I see now the whole quantity {(B'-A')/(c-v) + (A'-B')/(c+v)} is to added to t. It is amazing that I can almost make some sense of what Einstein was trying to do now. So, I get that (B'-A')/(c-v) & (A'-B')/(c+v) have to give you a time, but what purpose does he claim they serve? But the light doesn't leave A' does, it would return there? They way I read was that the light would leave The origin of the moving system and travel to some point B in the moving system and return to the origin of the moving system. I didn't seem to me like the system interacted only to say that they started next to each other a long time ago. What am I mis-reading? When he sets up the equivalence above, what is he trying to show are equal? Is that an extension of 2AB/(t'A-tA)? No, that can't be right. If tau is function and I plug in (x,y,z,t) what would I get out? A point in space-time? I apologize. Others will disagree that you understand, but you certainly seem to have a better grasp of it than me. Additionally, I can now follow the math up until the differential equation! (At least I think that is what follows the tau line. I hope that we someday have a definitive answer on this. :) Peter === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Good. You'll see another, independent one at http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm, figure 2. Sekerin uses a circular orbit. I used an elliptical orbit that obeys Kepler's laws. I was unaware of Sekerin's work until this year. Excellent. Well done. Good try, but not quite right. There are two numbers at the top of the page http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif as well as JD at the top left. Subtract them. Oh, and 2450700 - 2450000 = 700. Half of 700 is 350, not 450. Two years, about 700 days. I'd go for 365 * 2 = 730 if I were you. :-) Astronomy is the OLDEST science. VERY old. Modern science begins with Copernicus. That is the first time a man defies faith and says the Earth is not the centre of everything. Galileo backed him up and the ball was rolling, but we still today use Julian dates. No problem with me on that one. I'm just pointing out that Einstein used t and we can start the experiment at any time. Oh boy... Err... distance = time * speed. Put some numbers in. ----------------0------0.5 t= 0. ---0<-----------------1.5 t = ? Does it? What is it then? Let's talk about speed and velocity. You are driving East at 60 mph. I am driving West at 60 mph. We collide. We die. You are driving East at 60 mph. I am driving East at 60 mph. We collide. You yell Quit tailgating me, asshole and put your finger up, step on the gas and pull away from me at 1 mph faster than I'm going. That is the Principle of Relativity in action. Is it? Prove it. Don't just say it is because someone told you that. PROVE it. position A. No, I moved an object away from B. Now: Object---------------------------B A Later: Object----A-----------------------------B A' Einstein move it a zero distance. Einstein CLAIMS they are moving, because he's a huckster. In reality, his equation says they are not. It didn't. I just went from your desk to London and back at an infinite velocity. My velocity was c. While I did that, you moved at velocity v across your living room. I'm right beside you, how far did you get? I've told you, Einstein wants to confuse, intentionally. He was a huckster. He was hell-bent on confusion and misdirection. He scribbled his ideas on the back of an envelope, as we all do, and He did exactly what he was trying to do. Fool the world. Sheer criminal genius. A master at his craft. Those times have to be different, don't they? Let's suppose they are 1/3 of a second and 2/3 of a second. We add them together, and get 1 second. Now we say half of a second = one third of a second. (1/3 + 2/3) / 2 = 1/3. That's called time dilation. We can't get away with it using numbers. We have to use algebra, or ANYONE will see it is ridiculous. And we have to use a very small symbol, ' , so it won't show when it goes missing. Where's the best place to hide a pebble? On the beach, of course. Where's the best place to hide a symbol? In a huge equation, of course. Spot the essential prime contest. ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) It leaves here: ------------| ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) and returns here: --------------------------| ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) It should return here --------------------------| ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) because 0' = 0-vt. Correct. and travel to some point B in the moving system Correct. Correct. They started together whenever ago, and they are still together when the light returns. He was a huckster. He was deliberately making a fool of us all. He doesn't make a fool of me. There are millions of fools out there, though. You'll get (xi, eta, zeta, tau) eta = y zeta = z. xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) but v = 0, so that is really xi = x. You'll also get tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) but v = 0 too, so tau = t. Accepted. It would never have gotten past peer-review had it been faulty. Even that is merely symbol manipulation. There is nothing wrong with it as far as it goes, except the requirement that x' be made infinitessimally small. It is already zero, so it is actually illegitimate to write dtau/dx'. That is division-by-zero. The reason it is zero is that the velocity of light is not actually infinite, but finite. The light travels no distance to x' and back to the origin again. As Shakespeare would call it, relativity is Much Ado About Nothing. I already do. It is up to you, as a teacher, to spread the truth among your students and future generations will learn from it (I hope). I've lived through more that half of the craziest years of the 20th century, with the bomb, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile crisis, and as we go into the 21st we have a fine beginning with crazy people flying planes into buildings in the name of religion. Teach truth and do not trust hucksters or politicians. Suspect everything and everyone if you want to survive, there are more mistakes and blunders in the sciences than in growing vegetables. Androcles === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Okay, so what you were trying to say in the 1st post is that u is the speed of the satellite. You do so well staying even tempered, why do you feel the need to throw in those little comments? Now, here you have changed distance from 30,000km to 300,000 km this is why I get confused. Your point doesn't change (#s are just off by a factor of 10) but you make it hard to follow. But, don't you see the reason that it can work is because we know about time dilation? There is a contradiction. Einstein saw this, and found a way of explaining it. I think perhaps this is last time I can say this, because we just disagree, but... We have experimental data that shows time dilation is true. We have to attempt to explain it. You choice is that it is all a lie and couldn't possibly be true, because Newton was right about everything. Is that correct. My choice is to believe the findings and understand that there has to be another way to explain it. Or maybe it completed 10 orbits in that time and just aged a little bit slowed and recorded a different elapsed time. Perhaps it was measured a bit smaller on its voyage. I am not entirely sure how to resolve the paradox here. As you mentioned before this is the kind of thing people need to learn over time. I have learned more about his in the past 2 weeks than I ever intended, but I need to let it soak in and do some more reading. That is a pickle. The issue with many of your scenarios is that they don't even make sense in terms of set-up. What I mean (b/c that sounded confusing) is that while there may be a problem. I don't think you could ever draw the conclusion the radius got halved because the velocity is (as you mentioned) tangential. Maybe that is true, that makes sense, but why do they need to be updated, if there is no time dilation? I can't find any information about what the correction device on the GPS system is. I just know they are there, so they must do something to correct the clock based upon the satellites speed. Although having said that, I located this. It seems that they essentially redefine the second in the GPS clocks because they can this site, it also discusses that the shift they do still find it in agreement with SR & GR. For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second. I will stop pasting now, because it is the same info. But, here are some more links. This one might interest you, it is called _The GPS Hoax_. I couldn't follow it, but you may be able to: So, that is what they say they have in there, no time machine. Holy crap! My bad. My new goal in the near future is to get a copy of the study they did and see if they talk about it. Agree to disagree. I have however, taken more than his word on faith. Perhaps they are all liars. I don't know. Hopefully, if they are, someone, possibly you, will expose them. I would again reference the sites above for my stance on GPS proving SR & GR. In your opinion, is there any clock accurate enough to sense the effects of SR & GR? (I know you don't believe in them, but theoretically at least?) I guess what I would say, and you have made me re-think all of this, is that we would measure the time to be different. Oddly, as we talk about this. The time actually runs faster once you factor in GR. There is a paradox, that I can't explain, I am not good enough to do it. s = d/t I don't know how to explain it. This conversation will definitely weigh into my teaching, and I definitely now have a little bit of skepticism regarding the issue. I haven't been blown away yet, because I still look at the results from experiments and see merit, but I will now mention that there are some people that do not believe what Einstein has to say and that this is just a theory. I thought in your answer to Gardner the light was shot at some angle. Did I mis understand the premise of your experiment. Yes, but one beam of light can't travel in y-direction at c and along the hypotenuse at c. You didn't tell me until this e-mail. This is not in agreement with experiment. Wouldn't intensity have to 0 at some point then and the star would disappear? relativity more. I hope that I can find a way to resolve you distance paradox. Peter === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals u and v are both the speed of the satellite. u is the distance the satellite travels divided by satellite time. v is the distance the satellite travels divided by ground time. It goes back to about here, I think. Nothing in the above explanation was based on faith. Perhaps you were implying that me believing my professors is faith, but these people are *EXPERTS* in physics, who else will I believe? As you can probably tell by now, I don't think much of the expertise of your professors (or anyone else's professors) when they are too dumb to realize time dilation is impossible. They preach the Holy Word of Relativity spoken by the prophet Einstein, hallowed be his name, without recourse to logical analysis. It makes me cynical and sarcastic. Also I do sometimes confuse you with J.E., a complete and utter moron. This is because his ranting came across my desk at the same time as your questions and I tarred you with the same brush. I apologise. Sorry. I won't make that same error again. 10 orbits * 30,000km = 300,000 km. That is the distance the satellite has to go, and at 0.866c it will complete all 10 orbits in 1.155 seconds, or 0.116 orbits per second. I'm just rounding to make life simple and obvious. We can make the radius of the orbit 50,000km if you prefer. No, I do not see a reason it can work. Einstein was a huckster. Then you'll be failing your brighter students because of your own prejudice, just as you'd fail Galileo if you lived 400 years ago. Ptolemy found a way for the Earth to be at the centre of the universe and that lasted for 1400 years. We've already had 100 years of Einstein, and people like you will perpetuate his bull for another 1300 years. I'm not being cynical here, just honest, and I'm going to ask you to be honest too. It was difficult for you to multiply 30,000km by 10 and get 300,000km, even though I had clearly stated 10 orbits, wasn't it? So you leapt to the conclusion that I was in error, instead of reading what I had written. So really, you are not competent to judge whether Einstein was right or wrong, are you? I have explained it. Faith. Blind faith. Experimenter bias. Stupidity. Trust that a clock is perfect, nitpicking a few nanoseconds by people that cannot mutiply 10 by 30,000 and get 300,000. Why do you feel the need to throw in those little comments? I neve once said Newton was right about everything. Newton didn't know everything. You know even less than Newton. No, it isn't correct. Go ahead then, explain to me how speed is not distance/time. Just remember I can multiply 10 by 30,000 and you cannot. It's quite easy, Einstein was a huckster. His faithful followers are fools. That I can appreciate. However, I've done the groundwork for you. It took me quite a while to delve out Einstein's little spoof to see how it was done, but now I know I have a far better understanding of the criminal mind of the man and his writings. See Heinz! It goes round in a circle, doesn't it? What else do you call it? Radial? I think you are confused by my choice of technical words, nothing more. Use a fixed font to see this. . . . . / . . | | . . / . . . . ååååå | | | | | | v radial Because they do not stay in place either. They are constantly being pulled out of position by the gravitational tug of the sun and moon. The ground stations determine exactly where they are and send them a packet of data telling them their exact position and exact time. As they orbit, they compute where they are and increment time, and broadcast a constant stream of data packages to every reciever. It wouldn't do you much good if you didn't know where the satellite was, now would it? But they drift and are not where the they think they are, so the groundstations have to tell them. Think of it as GPS in reverse. Each satellite finds where it is by using non-drifting ground stations as its own GPS system. Einstein's hoax is in the equation ü[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)). It has been found. I have found it. GPS doesn't have a thing to do with it, and works perfectly well because position and time are corrected by groundstations. All the BS about the clocks not keeping correct time is simply overridden by new data uploaded regularly from the ground. You are wasting your time trying to defend an uncontrolled experiment. The glory-grabbing Haefele and Keating wanted to show how clever they were, that's all. Nobody repeated the experiment, all that happened was a bunch of relativity crackpots nodded their heads in agreement. Only when an experiment disproves relativity will anyone bother to examine it and criticize it. Nowadays it is the GPS system that everyone raves about and calls proof, but that system is owned and operated by the US Navy, a military organization. They are not about to give an enemy perfect missile guidance straight through the Oval Office window when the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in a meeting with the President, so they keep some secrets to themselves and spread misinformation in the form of SR/GR to keep everyone guessing. Osama bin Laden used low tech instead, human beings capable of flying stolen planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre. Human arseholes can still outwit high tech intelligence. A system you do not understand, operated by the military. Blind faith. Yes. A clock is an oscillator and a counter. The counter counts the oscillations, and is usually perfect. We can suppose a grandfather clock with a swinging pendulum might have a missing gear tooth to make the counter imperfect, but faults aside, the counter is perfect. A wrist watch these days has a quartz crystal, an electronic counter and display. The counter is perfect. Any imperfections are in the oscillator. The average wristwatch will keep time to +/- 3 minutes a year, or about one part in 175,000. If you a lucky, you might get one (purely on chance) that manages 1 part in a million, but you'll need to keep it at a constant temperature. Since we can discount the perfect counter, let's focus on the oscillator. What is an oscillation? Repetition, of course. The Earth repeatedly orbits the Sun. What is a year? A unit of time. How big a unit? One orbit of the Earth about the Sun. What is a month? A unit of time. How big a unit? One orbit of the moon about the Earth. What is a (sidereal)day? A unit of time. (Don't ask me about sidereal, look it up.) How big a unit? One orbit of the Earth about itself. What is an hour? -- ahh.... that is an ARTIFICIAL (man made) unit of time. 1/24th of a day. Same goes for minutes and seconds. We do not have ONE single oscillator to measure time with, we have whole bunches of wristwatches that almost keep time. Who's watch is right, yours or mine? Okay, so by DEFINITION, the year rules time-keeping (at least for human beings). One orbit of the sun. A little green man from Mars might disagree and say it is one orbit of his planet. Whatever, he'll agree that it is one oscillation of something that determines time. Let's apply this to a GPS satellite. Does the satellite agree with us that it completed one orbit? If it does, then time for that satellite is one orbit. It is also time for us. Does the satellite's onboard oscillator agree with us? Well, no. But then, my wristwatch doesn't agree with yours, either. So what can you do to correct your wristwatch? You've two choices. Change the counter, which is the choice of billions. Simply set it to the right time, that everybody agrees is right. Your other choice is to recalibrate the oscillator. What standard will you use? No matter what, there has to be a standard, and that standard is ultimately the year. You will use a secondary standard. Leap years have on extra day every 4 years. That is resetting the counter. How about the satellite clock? Does it agree that it made an orbit as we claim? That defines its time. It its oscillator doesn't agree that it made one orbit, then recalibrate the oscillator, it is wrong! Faster than what? We count one orbit, the satellite counts more that one orbit? Timekeeping is counting oscillations. Clocks are counters and oscillators. If the clock on the satellite counted more than one orbit with its own oscillator, the clock on the satellite is wrong. Period. Look.. you've been conned. There is no need to feel bad about it, I was too, as a younger man. What you DO need to realize is that it must be stopped, NOW. We must post-humously prosecute Einstein for his criminality, because he is still standing in the way of progress, in the pursuit of knowledge. Human beings are creatures of curiousity, we wonder about the Universe around us, and how out all works. Some run away and hide behind mystery, God made it that way. Others are scientists. Let the God made it brigade go and watch others throw balls to each other and get excited when their team wins the match, let the soap opera couch potatoes do their thing. Those things do nothing for me. I'm far more interested in knowing Nature rather than human nature, but criminality is preventing many of us from obtaining funding to further our explorations of the Universe around us. I've explained it for you. Einstein was a huckster. It really is that simple. He knew it, too, and showed no shame. He even gloated about it. Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater. - Albert Huckster Einstein. Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity. - Albert Huckster Einstein. As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Huckster Einstein. God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.- Albert Huckster Einstein. If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. - Albert Huckster Einstein. He knew how to lie, cheat, steal fame and fortune and keep his mouth shut. He was the most brilliant huckster in all history. I do. Einstein was a huckster. He'll tell you not to worry about his mathematical difficulties (an obvious lie), he'll tell you the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity when that is an obvious lie, he'll tell you to keep your mouth shut if you want success in life. He was as bold a liar as Al Capone and a helluva lot smarter. David Copperfield may know how to make the Statue of Liberty disappear on your TV screen, but at least you know it is smoke and mirrors, even if you dont know precisely how it is done. Einstein was a far better magician, but it is still smoke and mirrors. I'm not trying to blow you away, that is reserved for idiots. You've passed the test. Now I want you as an ally, but you'll need to relax and take stock. I know it comes as a shock to have all you thought and taught shaken at its very foundations, but the importance of mathematics and logic is greater than Einstein's drivel. I am a cynic, and proud of it. http://www.i-cynic.com/ I am Diogenes the dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels. He'd use a lantern by daylight, explaining that he was searching for an honest man. Even Alexander the Great didn't escape unscathed. When the young conqueror found Diogenes sitting in the marketplace and asked how he could help him, the old philosopher replied that you can step out of my sunlight. It is. arctan (-v/c) to be precise. Look CAREFULLY at the GIF. The vertical ray is now in the frame of the observer, you. The diagonal ray is in the frame of the ship. This is the complement of everyone else's vertical ray in the frame of the ship and the diagonal ray in the frame of the observer. Since the claim is that the velocity of light is constant in both frames, I've produced time contraction by kicking the flashlight over at an angle and making clocks on the ship run faster instead of slower. Neat trick, huh? :-) Well, I can't disagree with that logic. You've got me there, but according to relativists, it travels at c in ALL frames of reference. Who are you going to believe, them or yourself? I expect you to think. Oh yes it is. Name (or perform) the experiment to support your claim. Here's my results. http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Magnitude is a logarithmic scale. Look it up. Already done... Einstein was a huckster. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals I don't currently have time to discuss this right now, as much as I would like to, but I have a few question for you. 1) I read your clock analysis, do you think the HK experiment is possible. You said the counter is perfect in a clock (usually) but the oscillator is not, so is HK possible to perform and get accurate results? 2) I still have some difficult with your light example, because a component of the light's velocity is in the direction of ship, it seems like that should matter. In the other version (Garder's) the light moves perpendicular to ship. Seems like this should matter, I can't quite put my finger on it though. Do you see what I am saying? Is there any validity to it? Peter === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals No. No. Is there any No. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals O yes, like this one: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html I think it is one of his very best :-) Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals And he invented a new kind of mathematics as well ;-) http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals WOW, what a donkey's ass you are, HAHAHAHAHA! Pythagoras revisited: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html Your ignorant arrogance really never stops, does it? Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals It doesn't. You don't SEE the results of calculations. The ONLY things that I *bother* calculating are THINGS I ACTUALLY SEE, and LENGTH is NOT one of them. The universe outlaws seeing a length. At any moment your eye sees many points of light from different directions. So you see many PAST events. That is ALL. YOU NEVER *SEE* a currently happening event unless it happened at your eye, like the event where photon Y hits your eye, and THOSE are the events I try to predict. Based on other events where photon Z hits your eye I predict future events where photon X hits your eye. That's science. Discussing length is science-fiction. By motion is relative I actually meant each party SEES the angular size of the other party get smaller and smaller. Do you SEE the symmetry? To even discuss that we'd have to DEFINE v and c and such, you don't OBSERVE a velocity. Drop it, it just confuses things, and it's NOT necissary, just STICK to observations like photon y hits your eye. Me either, I'm saying drop it as a subject of conversation and stick to observables like photon Y hits your eye, then we don't have to BOTHER with DEFINING motion or relative and just deal with labels and between like photon Y hits your eye between the events where photon x hits your eye and photon z hits your eye, this is the NON-schitziod way of doing SCIENCE because EVERYONE agrees about the truth and falseness of these statements in BOTH Newtonian physics AND in SR phyics, so it is the APPROPRIATE way to have a CONVERSATION about BOTH theories. Using language biased for one versus the other leads to a biased debate and incorrect conclusions, which no offense, is what you have being doing to-date, but since I think you are an honest person, and now that I've told you, you should stop it. He's an example that I'll describe with Newtonian physics OK? Assume that Stella runs away from Terrance in a straight line at 4/5 the speed of X m/s, then turns around real fast and runs back at the same speed 5 seconds. She's gone for 10 seconds, right? Well what if every 1/10 of a second Terrance sends an american dollar to Stella at the speed of X m/s, then she'd get all 100 USD right? And she'd get the first $10 before turning around and the final $90 on her way back, right? What if every 1/6 of a second she sent Terrance a canadian dollar at the speed of X m/s (so that means she doesn't have to throw it as hard on her way back, but on her way out she has to throw the canadian dollar harder than Terrance throws the american dollar), so Terrance gets all 60 CAD, but he gets the first 30 CAD during the first 9 seconds and the final 30 during the last 1 second. So if Terrance compares the RATE at which he THROWS dollars versus RECIEVES dollars, then for 9 seconds he gets them at 1/3 the rate he sends them, and for 1 second he gets them at 3/1 the rate he sends them. And for Stella, she notes that for 5 seconds she GETS dollars at 1/3 the rate she sends them (oh no! they are BOTH getting dollars at a rate less than they are sending, either Newtonian physics must be wrong or our notion that a two people can't both be giving money to each and both me losing money is wrong, oh no! See how silly that is!) and for 5 seconds she GETS dollars them at 3/1 the rate she sends them. Ok now let's draw a picture of the situation. F | E | C D | / B / |/ A Where A is the point when Stella is about to run away from Terrance. Where B is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 10th dollar. Where C is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 50th dollar. Where D is the point when Stella is sending Terrance her 30th dollar. Where D is the point when Stella turns around. Where D is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 10th dollar. Where E is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 90th dollar. Where E is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 30th dollar. Where F is when Stella returns. Where F is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 100th dollar. Where F is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 60th dollar. Not that at C and D Stella and Terrance have both RECIEVED less dollars than they are sent, this is the fact analogous to time dilation notice how it is STUPID to think is MEANS anything, it just means that some dollars have been sent and not yet recieved. So the above picture has lines that go from A to D, from D to F, and from A to F that represent the paths that Stella and Terrance take. You could draw a line from B to D to represent the path of an American dollar, and a series of lines parallel to that representing the paths of the other American dollars. You could draw a line from D to E to represent the path of a Canadian dollar, and a series of of lines parallel to that representing the paths of the other canadian dollars. Now imagine that Stella and Terrance don't want to count 1/10 and 1/6 of a second respectively, so instead they build a device and call it a ticker that takes a number t (from the seconds reading of a clock) and a numbers d (from a meters reading of a GPS satellite) and computes (1/10)(1/X)sqrt([(X*t)^2-d^2]), which since Stella and Terrance both move less fast than X m/s is defined since (X*t)^2-d^2 is non-negative. When Stellas's ticker reads n, then Stella sends the nth Canadian dollar, and when Terrance's ticker reads n, then Terrance sends the nth American dollar. And by contruction, Terrance can go to the store and buy two identical tickers and play toss the ticker before they leave to their hearts content because it doesn't matter which one they take. So Terrance and Stella can throw away their watches and use their tickers instead. Now if Terrance and Stella close their eyes and only pay attention to the noise that their ticker makes and the noise of their money reciever telling them how much money they have, then they EACH will claim that at first that the other person was giving them less money than they were sending themselves, and then the situation was reversed (rate 1/3, then rate 3/1), but in the end Stella gets more dollars from Terrance than Terrance gets from Stella. Why? Because Stella turns around when she gets her 10th dollar from Terrance, so she spent as much MONEY (30 CAD) getting money at 1/3 the rate she sent money (only got 10 USD for her 30 CAD) as she spent (30 CAD) getting money at 3/1 the rate she spent it (got 90 USD for her 30 CAD). This is the financial twin paradox. There IS no REAL paradox, because there IS an asymmetry. So let's say that in addition to not wanting to count, Stella and Terrance didn't wan to move or throw, so they got scooters, and the didn't even plan on this trip, the scooter manufacture made the scooters send dollars at the right speed and move around and reciever dollars, all you have to do is plug in the ticker and the scooter does the rest. Well, clearly the SCOOTERS are different. And even if Terrance and Stella FELL ASLEEP for the whole ten seconds, from looking at their bank records on the scooter Terrance would see that he lost dollars at 3 times the rate he recieved them, and then gained dollars at 3 times the rate he lost them. Stella would say me too, and someone like Androcles would walk up and say you raving financial0SR-cultists, you can't BOTH have that pattern because you each gained a different amount of money during the trip. But Stella and Terrance could look at the back records and note that have-way through her spending, the rate flipped for Stella, so SHE must have changed directions during the time they were asleep. Stella and Terrance rightly point out to the Androcles-like person that the asymmetry in money is caused by an asymmetry in who moved after sending a certain amount of money, versus who sat there passively sending money and getting money based on the ticker and how fast the money came in, and they'd also point out that this financial example is based on Newtonian physics and has NOTHING TO DO WITH SR or any cult. They'd probably laugh at the Androcles-like person's raving. Do you understand this financial example? Can you understand how the two tickers are identical, and the twins can each perceive that they GET money from the other one at a first a slower rate than they send it, and then at a faster rate than they send it. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals It computes but isn't flat said. IFF X m/s is wrt Terrance. Unless sent only at the end of each 1/10th second, in which case still close enuf. We'll give you the tie. X m/s wrt Terrance, 'obviously'. ok rofflmfao! What a terribly unfair setup! For the first tenth of a second he sends dollars at an infinitely greater rate than he gets them! So much for Newton and Einstein! (Apparently, according to your 'logic'.) rofflmfao! How on earth could a non-psychotic imagine that fiddling-with-receiving babble (however correct) has any contradictory point to make about the sending/etc facts? rofflmfao! The name of the stupidity is probably UIT - Unnecessarily Ignorant Theorist. The only correct analogy at work here is that you are asserting your 'observables only' thesis, treating as unobservables the velocities and sending rates you specified. The receiving/'observing' rates have absolutely no meaning in regard to the givens you stated although they can be calculated therefrom. A theory/theorist that takes the relative primitives - those numbers you specifed - and treats them as irrelevant is deranged. rofflmfao! Hey, UIT, just what is it in set theory that says one must act in unnecesary ignorance? Just what is it about set theory in your thinking that says Einstein was wrong to posit clocks (and consequently observers) at every point in space? Just what is it about set theory in your thinking that demands ignorance? The idea that you must treat the only relevant knowables - the givens in your gedanken experiment - as irrelevant is worse than silly. You imagine lengths and time as unobservables but then imagine you can caluclate observables on their basis. eleaticus === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals X m/s relative to Terrance, who is stationary OK? Usually I prefer to send one every millionth of a second so that +/- isn't seen as such a big deal. Yup. Yeah. You can have both Terrance and Stella send money W times as often, and thereby reduce this initial period of time to be as small as you like. But if you consider the bank to be the medium, it's the classical situation where if you each send each other money, the bank get's some interest. That was my opinion about Androcles, that's why I constructed this example. F | E | C D | / B / |/ A Androcles at least can't get the math right for the SR twin paradox so I though showing the math for the financial twin paradox should clear things up. No meaning? You COUNT. If between events A and B you sent 10 dollars and only got 1/3 as many, that's a relative amount. You compare dollars to dollars. I'm just trying to see if you can get the math without twisting it around. Once you can demonstrate that you can handle the math we can start talking about special relativity. They aren't irrelevant. They simply aren't observable to Terrance and Stella. They don't have clocks, only tickers. They don't have meter sticks, but they can look at their bank accounts. Set theory says what exists in the material model. It is up to the physical theory to say what corresponds to observables. But observables are ALWAYS events, and it isn't set theory that says that, it's the fact that is all we can observe. He said to imagine clocks and observers. And it's only pedagogically wrong if people misunderstand what he meant, as I think YOU do. The better method is to STICK to observables. Clarity. You must remain ignorant of anything you don't understand so that you can STICK to things you understand and build up the things you didn't understand FROM the things that you do. They aren't irelevant to US the modellers, but they are irrelevant to Stella and Terrance. Stella can just run again and again at different efforts until she gets Terrance's money coming at 1/3 the rate she sends it. She doesn't need anything else. Stella can run until she recieves 10 dollars, so she doesn't need a clock to tell her when to turn around. The point is that I want to show you that if two people have tickers and that one moves so that each recieves ticks from the other one's ticker at 1/3 the rate of their ticker snds ticks, and that one turns around after getting 3K ticks for their own ticker and turns back in such a way as to get ticks from the other one's ticker at 3/1 the rate of their own ticker sends ticks, then when they get back together, one ticker will have ticked 6K ticks, and the other ticker will have ticked 10K ticks. Can you handle that math. If doesn't depend on X, as long the ticker has X programmed in it right and that ticks moves from one ticker to the other person at a speed of X. Sure if you want to do that. I'm fine with drawing lines in an abstract Minkowski plane and counting line segments, but since I don't know if you know how to do that, I'll base the lines on the unmeasureable. The point is that once you are done, the WHOLE experiment CAN be described in terms of ticks and relative counts of ticks. Here it goes. Terrance and Stella start out together with identical tickers. Stella and Terrance separate such that they each recieve ticks from the other one's ticker at a rate that is 1/3 the rate that they recieve ticks from their own ticker. After 9K ticks from his own ticker, Terrance starts getting ticks from Stella's ticker faster, at a rate of 3/1 the rate he recieves ticks from his own ticker. After K more ticks of his own ticker, Stella is rejoined with Terrance. Terrance clearly got 6K ticks from Stella's ticker. And Stella clearly got 10K ticks from Terrance's ticker. So the ONLY thing we need to compute is HOW MANY ticks Stella got from Terrance before the rate changed. If the answer is 9K, then we WOULD have a paradox, but because ticks take a while to get to someone, we can actually figure out that Stella got only 1K ticks at the 1/3 rate, and so she got 1K ticks from Terrance at 1/3 the rate she sent the first 3K ticks to Terrance. And she got 9K ticks from Terrance at 3/1 the rate she sent the second 3K ticks to Terrance. No paradox. AND no reference to meters, seconds, durations, distances, anything unobervable, just ticks and rates actual sending and recieving. Do you get it? Are you ready for SR yet? === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals I gave up with the idiot, he can't count to 10. Good luck with him. Androcles. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals You can't count 10 lines and 6 lines. You think if there must be 10 lines going right, that there must always be 10 lines going left. It is your unwarranted conditions that create paradoxes, not other people's math. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals see? Did you not say you believe in 'rotation' instead of contraction? You can't see a length but you believe in the length's rotation? lol That is the UIT - Unnecessary Ignorance Model - for science. There is nothing in the universe that says you can't have a local observer seeing what is going on at each location and telling you about it.. a KTX. a And 'the length is rotated'? Sorry, but I have used the phrase Schizoid Math, Nitwit Science' for a long time and you have been taking the phrase's content to extremes, what with the set theory as the basis thesis. The original use of the phrase was about basics of SR, and you have moved it to the pre-basics, as it were. The little speeches you give - such as the immediate above - sound very good until one realizes that you have removed basic consequences of the L-E transforms from consideration but you still are stuck on the ether crap. eleaticus === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Why didn't you respond to my financial twin paradox instead of something I never said? Eleaticus, I'm not trying to sound good, and I'm not even TRYING to remove things from consideration. I've noticed that you and Androcles both claim that SR predicts things that it doesn't, so to avoid confusion I'm going to go to more primitive concepts that can be less easily confused. After we agree on what is and is not an SR predict, THEN we can define length and duration and such and discuss other things. It's simply a waste of everyone's time to use these words early on if we haven't even agreed yet on what SR predicts. So before we even do that let's make sure we can talk about the MATH correctly. I don't want this to turn into the Maxwell's equation thing. So here's the math behind the prediction of SR but in a Newton example so that we can separate SR physics from SR math. SO again, this is going to be Newtonian physics for the rest of this post, I'll mention speeds and times and all that familar stuff to make it super-easy OK? So here's an example that I like to call the financial twin paradox and it uses 100% Newtonian physics! Assume that Stella runs away from Terrance in a straight line at 4/5 the speed of X m/s, then turns around real fast and runs back at the same speed 5 seconds. She's gone for 10 seconds, right? Well what if every 1/10 of a second Terrance sends an american dollar to Stella at the speed of X m/s, then she'd get all 100 USD right? And she'd get the first $10 before turning around and the final $90 on her way back, right? What if every 1/6 of a second she sent Terrance a canadian dollar at the speed of X m/s (so that means she doesn't have to throw it as hard on her way back, but on her way there she has to throw the canadian dollar harder than Terrance has to throw the american dollar), so Terrance gets all 60 CAD, but he gets the first 30 CAD during the first 9 seconds and the final 30 during the last 1 second. So if Terrance compares the RATE at which he THROWS dollars versus RECIEVES dollars, then for 9 seconds he gets them at 1/3 the rate he sends them, and for 1 second he gets them at 3/1 the rate he sends them. And for Stella, she notes that for 5 seconds she GETS dollars at 1/3 the rate she sends them (oh no! they are BOTH getting dollars at a rate less than they are sending, either Newtonian physics must be wrong or our notion that a two people can't both be giving money to each and both me losing money is wrong, oh no! See how silly that is!) and for 5 seconds she GETS dollars them at 3/1 the rate she sends them. Ok now let's draw a picture of the situation. F | E | C D | / B / |/ A Where A is the point when Stella is about to run away from Terrance. Where B is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 10th dollar. Where C is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 50th dollar. Where D is the point when Stella is sending Terrance her 30th dollar. Where D is the point when Stella turns around. Where D is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 10th dollar. Where E is the point when Terrance is sending Stella his 90th dollar. Where E is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 30th dollar. Where F is the point when Stella returns. Where F is the point when Stella is recieving Terrance's 100th dollar. Where F is the point when Terrance is recieving Stella's 60th dollar. Note that at C and D Stella and Terrance have both RECIEVED less dollars than they have sent, this is the fact analogous to time dilation notice how it is STUPID to think is MEANS anything, it just means that some dollars have been sent and not yet recieved. So the above picture has lines that go from A to D, from D to F, and from A to F that represent the paths that Stella and Terrance take. You could draw a line from B to D to represent the path of an American dollar, and a series of lines parallel to that representing the paths of the other American dollars. You could draw a line from D to E to represent the path of a Canadian dollar, and a series of of lines parallel to that representing the paths of the other canadian dollars. Now imagine that Stella and Terrance don't want to count 1/10 and 1/6 of a second respectively, so instead they build a device and call it a ticker that takes a number t (from the seconds reading of a clock) and a numbers d (from a meters reading of a GPS satellite) and computes (1/10)(1/X)sqrt([(X*t)^2-d^2]), which since Stella and Terrance both move less fast than X m/s is defined since (X*t)^2-d^2 is always non-negative. When Stellas's ticker reads n, then Stella sends the nth Canadian dollar, and when Terrance's ticker reads n, then Terrance sends the nth American dollar. And by contruction, Terrance can go to the store and buy two identical tickers and then play toss the ticker with Stella before she leaves to his heart's content because it doesn't matter which one each takes. So Terrance and Stella can throw away their watches and use their tickers instead. Now if Terrance and Stella close their eyes and only pay attention to the noise that their ticker makes and the noise of their money reciever telling them how much money they have, then they EACH will claim that at first the other person was giving them less money than they were sending themselves, and then the situation was reversed (rate 1/3, then rate 3/1), but in the end Stella gets more dollars from Terrance than Terrance gets from Stella. Why? Because Stella turns around when she gets her 10th dollar from Terrance, so she spent as much MONEY (30 CAD) getting money at 1/3 the rate she sent money (only got 10 USD for her 30 CAD) as she spent (30 CAD) getting money at 3/1 the rate she spent it (got 90 USD for her 30 CAD). This is the financial twin paradox. There IS no REAL paradox, because there IS an asymmetry. So let's say that in addition to not wanting to count, Stella and Terrance didn't want to run or throw or catch, so they get scooters, and they don't even plan the trip, the scooter manufacturers make the scooters send dollars at the right speed and move around and recieve dollars, all Terrance and Stella have to do is plug in their ticker and the scooter does the rest. Well, clearly the SCOOTERS are not identical. And even if Terrance and Stella FELL ASLEEP for the whole ten seconds, from looking at their bank records on the scooter Terrance would see that he lost dollars at 3 times the rate he recieved them, and then gained dollars at 3 times the rate he lost them. Stella would say me too, and some Androcles-like person might walk up and say you raving financial-SR-cultists, you can't BOTH have that pattern because you each gained a different amount of money during the trip. But Stella and Terrance could look at the back records and note that halfway through her spending, the rate flipped for Stella, so SHE must have changed directions during the time they were asleep. Stella and Terrance rightly point out to the Androcles-like person that the asymmetry in money is caused by an asymmetry in who moved after sending a certain amount of money, versus who sat there passively sending money based on the ticker and getting money based on how fast the money came in, and they'd also point out that this financial example is based on Newtonian physics and has NOTHING TO DO WITH SR or any cult. They'd probably laugh at the Androcles-like person's raving. Do you understand this financial example? Can you understand how the two tickers are identical, and the twins can each perceive that they GET money from the other one at a first a slower rate than they send it, and then at a faster rate than they send it? That's the math, do you get it yet? === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Crock of . Let the observers equally accelerate toward each other simultaneously in their own frames (clocks initially synchronized), then simultaneously decelerate to a stop at their common midpoint. The assumption of space-time symmetry requires that their clocks agree on the endpoints of this time interval. OTOH, when moving at constant v wrt each other (between acceleration and deceleration), each says the other's clock is ticking slower, thus we must resort to gtr in order to account for the equal number of ticks recorded on their clocks upon intersecting each other. According to gtr, during acceleration of one clock, the other clock is ticking much faster, it being in free fall in a gravitational well, while the first is being forced forward against this field, i.e. restrained from falling, and thus deeper within the gravity well. The first clock is ticking slower than the other clock. This is a fine argument, but for one fact, the absence of empirical confirmation. When the first clock ceases to accelerate and enters into an inertial motion, he counts the number of cycles of intercepted signals from the other clock. These must be much larger in number per elapsed time interval than those intercepted afterward, or IOW the frequency must be blue shifted in excess of the str doppler shift. As the initial distance between these clocks approaches infinity, the frequency intercepted during a finite period of acceleration must also approach infinity (this way around in its orbit toward a distant cluster of galaxies, it should theoretically observe a blue shifting of light coming from those galaxies that is a function of distance to the object. The greater the distance, the greater the acceleration induced blueshift. OTOH, only the doppler shift corresponding to the instantaneous relative velocity is actually observed (str doppler shift). IOW, the gravitational time offset required to resolve the above argument is invalid, because it simply doesn't happen. Richard Perry === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Just a minor elaboration, the principle of relativity by itself doesn't fix the geometry. Galilean relativity, with an invariant time, preserves lengths under transformation. Special relativity, with an invariant c, preserves the spacetime interval. -- What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make. -- Richard P. Feynman, 1959 === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Unfortunately you failed to notice a few things. (1) I constructed an example of Minkowski math based on Newtonian physics (2) You are unfamilar with how constant acceleration is handled in SR. You take a curve and break it up into a series of straight lines, compute the proper length. If you then take the pieces to all have p.p. << 1/1,000,000 then you can with great accuracy say that a clock ticks for every 1/1,000,000 units of proper length AS MEASURED BY THE POLYGONAL PATH. You can then draw straight light-like lines from each clock-ticking event on one polygonal line to to other polygonal line. Correct, and my comments above tell you how to approcimate that to a high degree of accuracy. Here you are mistaken. Just as in the twin case F | E | C D | / B / |/ A sends it. sends it. So relative motion does not implie EACH SEES THE OTHER MOVE SLOWER. If you had two twins at rest relative to a clock between them and they both started accelerating and decellerating based on what they SAW on the clock, then they wouold stay synchornized, though each would agree that their clocks are still synchronized with each other but not with the clock at the location where they met. Let's get this straight, two people moving TOWARDS each other will eventually SEE the other one giving them money faster than they send money. The ONLY reason to not see that effect right away is if they USED to NOT be moving away, since it takes light a while to get there. You DO NOT need GTR, it's an UNnecissary complication. SR predicts that an accelerating clock measures less proper time between two events than an inertially moving clock travel between the same events. You don't need GR. Apparantly you are confused that GR says that accelleration and gravitation are locally equivalent, the WAY you deduce that gravity causes slower clocks is by USING the SR result that accelerating clocks measure proper time more slowly. You are putting the horse before the cart and then claiming that the cart brought the horse into town! Were you joking or do you not understand science very well? There is lots of emperical verification for the real effect, if your I can't do math effect isn't seen, it's not surprising to me Perry, sorry. This is neither GR nor SR you are doing. If you have two bodies that accelerate, then coast, then the doppler shift will EVENETUALL be constant and based on the relative velocity. The only reason it isn't SEEN right away is because for awhile the light from your accelerating buddy is still on it's way, not until after you see that, do you see the constant blue shift, and this amount of proper time you wait, .... da da da is based on distance. I'm serious that you can draw a polygonal path with small proper times and draw straight lines and count. That's all you need to get the REAL predictions Perry, what you are doing is WRONG, completely wrong. Wrong. It just means that you see with the pre acceleration image for longer and/or the accelerating image for longer. Or I'm misunderstanding your example. Hey, how about you fix an inertial observer Bob and then define Terrance's Bob-position as a function of Bob Bob-time and Stella's Bob-position as a function of Bob-time. Then we can discuss what Terrance and Stella SEE according to SR, OK? If you want to describe what two accelerating observers SEE, then SR is sufficient, if you want to compute the gravitational redshift of light, then we need GR. I'm not particularly interested in doing GR with you because I've seen your claims about SR and if you do the STR that badly, your just going to give me a headache if you do the GTR. Honestly, you apparantly couldn't even handle the financial twin paradox and that's Newtonian physics. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals 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: 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. 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. 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. IOW, B and C don't agree in this instant on the reading on the A clock. 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. This requires that A intercept an arbitrarily large number of ticks during its brief acceleration interval in order balance the books. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. It is you sir, who errs in this argument. Both of the following papers are more empirical proof of that fact. http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.pdf http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Fizeau.pdf === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Balance what books? Where did this COME from? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 I'm not EVEN having an arguement, you didn't SAY anything. 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. 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. 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. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals What are MCIFs? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html Pretty much just another way of stating what you stated, i.e. that the accelerating frame is resolved into a sequence of instantaneous velocities and corresponding inertial frames. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates: that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames. Baez is wrong right there. The word inertial is not used at all in Einstein's paper, ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ What is often said is often stupidity. The two postulates of SR are: 1) The Principle of Relativity, otherwise known as Galilean Relativity, of which Einstein gives the example of a magnet moving past a conductor or a conductor moving past a magnet. This he calls a reciprocal electrodynamic action. The PoR holds good. 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. As to inertial frames, Einstein also states (end of section 4) Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. There is no way motion at the equator can be called an inertial frame. Baez doesn't know what he's talking about. The clock at the equator running slower that a clock at the pole is found from If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2) tv^2/c^2 second slow. That is admitted assumption and also nonsense. When we use a quadrilateral with two parallel sides, both parallel to the X-axis, we find that Einstein's earlier ASSUMPTION IF we place x' = x-vt.... fails, we now have x' = x+vt. I wouldn't trust one single word of what Baez says, Baez does not and never has understood Einstein's relativity. I strongly doubt the often said others do, either. Androcles. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals LOL! The reason that I don't trust the Baez link is that I just proved it wrong. There are already more waves (ticks) suspended between A and B than between C and B at the onset, the advance in the B clock reading over the acceleration interval of A certainly doesn't help matters. Those extra ticks have to go somewhere, we can't just sweep them under the rug and pretend that they never existed. Just after acceleration the number of suspended waves must be exactly the same in the frames of both A and C, since after all, they are comoving, i.e. in the same frame and in the same x position. OTOH, neither C nor B will agree with B that B intercepted these extra waves during its acceleration interval, because from their frames B doesn't in fact do so. And that is why this frequency shift isn't empirically observed, i.e. it cannot logically exist. Being that this extra shift is a direct prediction of str, and given that it is a very testable prediction, and given that it fails that test, well that's about all there to it. It's just ing insanity personified. How many of these mathmagicians do you suppose would see no problem with a statement such as Richard Perry === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Most of them, of course :-) I took Don Koks' version of the twin paradox (Doppler shift variation) apart at http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm Where that guy got his doctorate is something of a mystery, he can't count to 14! I can only surmise they are handing out degrees to 6-year-olds, my grandson has just turned 7 now and he can do better than Koks. He's even progressing to multiplication! You can get a Nobel prize for imagining time dilation, too. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm Androcles. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals What Androcles fails to tell you is that I took apart http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm right here on usenet. Actually Koks can count to 14, but he counts different things (light signals) than Androcles wants him too. F | E | C---D | / B / |/ A Here's a picture. Draw a triangle such that AF is 14 units long, and and CD is sqrt(48) units long. Then if AB and EF are both 7-sqrt(48) units long then BD makes a 45 degree angle with AF, and ED also does. SR predicts that there if you draw 13 line segments from AF to DF, that are parallel to BD and such that the spacing along AF is equally spaced (so one unit separation), and draw one line from D to E, then each line from AF to DF corresponds to a message from Terrance to Stella and the line DE corresponds to a message from Stella to Terrance. SR predicts that if Stella and Terrance have identical tickers, then Terrance will see seven times as many ticks of his ticker between A and C as Stellas sees from her ticker between A and D. If you can count higher than 14 (Androcles is worried about that), then you can draw a million lines from AD to AE that are parallel to DE and equally spaced. Use can also draw a million lines from DF to EF that are parallel to DE. Terrance will now see almost 2 million little signals from Stella. If you draw a 14 million lines from AF that are parallel to BD that have endpoints equally spaced on AF such that the ones with endpoints below B end on AD and the ones with endpoints above B end on DF, then you will notice that one million line end on AE, while almost 14 times as many start on AE. Similarly you will find that 1 million lines end on EF while about 1/14 as many start on EF. That's what it MEANS to say Terrance sees about 1/14 times as many ticks of Stella's ticker as his own for (7+sqrt(48)) million terrance-little-ticks. And that's what it MEANS to say Terrance sees about 14/1 times as many ticks of Stella's ticker as his own for 7-sqrt(48) terance-little-ticks. And similarly, you'll not that for the 1 million ticks starting on AD, there are about 1/14 as many that start on AB to end on AD, that's what it means to say that Stella sees about 1/14 as many ticks of Terrance's ticker as she sees on her own ticker for 1 million stella-little-ticks. And that for the 1 million ticks starting on DF, there are about 14/1 as many that start on BF that end on DF, so that's what it means to say that Stellas sees about 14/1 as many ticks of Terrance's ticker as she sees on her own ticker for 1 million stella-little-ticks. Androcles can't handle that math, he just snips it unread each time. I haven't yet been able to figure out why. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Surfing around the net from the pages that you linked was just fascinating. Ever posted a paper to the BBC researchers site? Here's one of the more interesting pages that I ran across. It may be useful to anyone trying to remember contributor's links: Green Eggs Report http://ger.ar.com/ger/sci/physics/content.html I also ran across a very nice page, in my travels, by W. Beatty, on Electromagnetic fables. Ironically there is a section in this page on the question of being able to see electricity (see recent thread) . He answers in the affirmative. Richard Perry === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Sorry, I meant to provide the link: http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#electron === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Isn't that covered in most E&M books? It was in all the ones I used. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals A, that A A === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Why not quote Einstein for 1) as well? 1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. Do you mean so say that you haven't realised that the equations of mechanics hold good means that the frame of reference is inertial? Do you mean to say you don't know the definition of inertial reference frame? write It's often said ... - since it is often said. Thirdly, the PoR is _not_ otherwise known as Galilean Relativity. It is one of the postulates of Galilean relativity, just as it is a postulate of SR. -- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals That's about as funny as a strawman. Here's a test, if you think something I say is funny, odds are, you misunderstood. I never said I believed in a length's rotation. Why the resistance to sticking to observables, like what your EYE sees, it's enough to make predictions, so if it avoids people misunderstanding the theory, then purge the rest I say. You can do that. No local observer can see length though. You can see a solid angle of color on your retina, is that what you want to talk about? I'm saying to drop the language of length (because it causes you to claim that SR says things that it does not say) and stick to events. Like the event where light leaves part of an object and the like the event where that light reaches your eye. Just do that instead. I agree that for SOME people that is UNnecissary Ignorance, but based on the things I've seen you say like SR says that two observers each say the other is shorter you need to stop it. SR says that things have proper lengths, and everyone agrees on proper lengths, and all the physical predictions are based on proper length and any other length is just window dressing, so leave it alone. found ONE post with the word length and rotation and I mentioned consistently that I didn't believe in length, so why would I say length is rotated, obviously I didn't, this is a straw man created by you. So why did I say rotated, well I was trying to discribe a set of vectors, the future-pointing vectors, and I wanted to use the most popular term proper rotation to discribe the set in case you were familiar with the term and needed to look it up. For that I apologize. Here's a more explicit definition. be future pointing if there exists a positive number w and a vector W such that B(F,W)=0 and V=W+w*F. OK? Now we don't have to mention the word rotation in that post, and you can stop thinking I said something about rotating lengths. Sheesh! Can you follow the financial twin paradox? Can you draw the lines? Can you find the point where the lines intersect? Can you count them? That's all you need to predict observables, have you done it, or do you not want to understand the theory? You think it's Schizoid to talk about observations instead of little fictions like length? Why? If you can count, then you can move meter sticks and clocks and such into your line of sight and consider events like saw meter stick and thing A line up when clock hand image was at 1 and events like saw meter stick only half covering things A when clock hand image was at 2. Those are real observations, and can be predicted with elementary geometry. Have you looked at the financial twin paradox case, it is based on Newtonian physics. If you don't like time dilation, then Newton must be wrong too, because there is isomorphic mathematics in a subset of Newtonian physics. I don't believe in an ether eleaticus. I remove all reference to frame (frame of the ether or ANY OTHER frame), and without frames, I don't NEED transforms of anykind. Elementary hyperbolic geometry is sufficient to do SR. I'm doing it the elementary way for you, because you had trouble with the more computational method. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Did you not say Minkowski is a subset of set theory and SR a subset of Minkowski? How do you escape use of the word 'believe' in the context of insisting upon your set theory-based approach? How do you escape the word 'rotation; in ...? Yo miss the point even though it goes back at least to Einstein 1905: the observers/clocks are information sources and any one or a million of them not seeing a length something is immaterial. A million see the immediate presence of the object at their location and another million don't, so not only is the magnitude of the object knowable in all dimensions, so too is the fact that it is a doughnut. Ignorance is no excuse for denying length or its contraction as observables. Wrong. L=x1-x0. L'=x1'-x0'= gx1-gvt-gx0+gvt=g(x1-x0)=gL. Either the moving system measuring rod has shrunk because it takes more of the same units to measure the length L, or L' is in different units of measurement. Or we can remove ourselves from the observable 3-d physical extent of the objects and say the moving one has rotated, giving us the unusual 'projection greater than length being projected'. Ah, yes! Proper length. The denial that L'=gL actually means anything. Ah, yes. Proper length, that which obtains from proper use of the Newtonian transformations done right. Consider the object that runs from x0=10 to x1=110, with v=88.1234, and t = 5000. What is the 'proper length' of the object? Google is a piece of when it comes to these ngs. So why did I say rotated, well I was trying to discribe a long with moved it good === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals No I didn't. SR is a theory, not a set. SR is a generator of predictions, and the predictions are based on two things, (1) past observations, NOT A SET and (2) a material model (a set) and (3) elementary minkowski geometry. I am DEFINING what the modern SR theory IS. And I compare it to experiment. It's held up. Good for the theory. That doesn't mean I believe the SR theory (or set theory) is true. I acted like that when testing it, but as a fair and honest scientist I have to admit that multiple theories could fit the data, so that it is scientifically meaningless to say the one is true and start believing it. And even if I only had one theory, my JOB is to be SKEPTICAL, not to act of FAITH. So we way I actually act is AS IF I thought the theory was FALSE but was trying to disprove it to someone who DID believe it. THAT is why I get so offended when people call me I don't even believe in set theory. Huh? I think you just got me confused with another poster, it can happen, no big deal, but if you keep insisting on strawman views instead of my actual views, then I *will* eventually get annoyed. All you know is which observer/clocks see the object. You'd have to COMPUTE a length based on your OPINION about how far away the observers are. The fact that it's a COMPUTATION and not an observation is sufficient for me to deny it as an observable. Calm down and REALIZE that I will ALLOW all the observers you want AS LONG AS THEY REPORT TO YOU THROUGH OBSERVATIONS. So in the end the predictions will ALL be about OBSERVATIONS. You just threw three variables out, that means nothing. The naive definition of length is the difference between the endpoints at the same time, there no SINGLE OBSERVATION of two points in different locations at the same time. I have no idea what you are doing. I thought you wanted to have lots of observers, so can't both BOTH use the observers to measure the proper length of the rod by choosing observers that are at rest with the rod? And if you don't WANT armies of observers doing observations FOR you, then STICK TO WHAT YOU SEE! We can either stick to what ONE observers SEES, or you can be SPECIFIC about what observers help you, THAT is what we can do, otherwise you are just being vague intentionally. WHY ON EARTH are you opposed to sticking to observables? That's what the real theory is ABOUT, the stupid fairy-stories about length were just supposed to make the math easier, so if it's not, then stick to the observables people SEE. Well YOU haven't yet defined it to mean anything. And one CAN make predictions WITHOUT it, so I would SAY that it doesn't mean anything, but I WOULD say that it is whatever one defined it to mean is irrelevant to physics. I cut it out with Occam's razor, not with anything else. I don't DO transformations of ANY type. Get OVER it. I see four numbers. Well MAYBE that's enough information to find the proper length of two space-like separated events, so let's see, I need two events. Sorry I can't figure it out. If you mean, what is the proper separation of the two events (5000,10) and (5000,110) then answer is 100. Then provide your OWN quote of me saying that. ... wasn't a good quote. There ARE some OTHER people that talked about rotating lengths, but they weren't me, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, and with my denials, can't you accept that it was LIKLEY someone else. Find the someone else and talk to them about it, but don't strawman me. [snip eleaticus falsly accusing me of many things and me explaining my ACTUAL statements as opposed to the strawmen versions that eleaticus made] === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Are you talking about the site: http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm ? It says data from http://www.britastro.org/vss/, curve from your program. But neither the vss nor the BAA provides the inputs you gave Copernicus.exe DO they? Nowhere on that page does it say what physical model you used, in fact there IS a strong implication that the vss or the BAA gave you ALL the inputs to Copernicus.exe, but in reality you had MANY free parameters to tweak didn't you. I've WORKED with REAL astronomers that are making LEGITIMATE models of the INTERNAL modes of (elsewhere on your site) some kind of dark matter and local dynamics to model the variable star data. If you have enough parameters to tweak individually, then it's NOT surprising if you can get just as good a fit to the data as the guy I know does. But he has a material model that HAS fewer parameters that works for ALL variable stars, get that? Same parameters, all stars. If you honestly expect people to take your I adjust hidden parameters until my theory stands up on a par with I made a model with a small number of parameters that works for all stars, then you are going to be disappointed. It is VERY easy to have lots and lots of parameters and fit data, so no one is IMPRESSED when someone does it. It simply IS NOT a good test of a THEORY to have a MODEL with lots of adjustable parameters. The whole reason un-renormalizable QFTs are DISliked is BECAUSE they require an infinite number of independantly adjusted parameters, and that's considered poor science (even if its a correct theory), that's the company you have Androcles. If you have to adjust a parameter for every star, then it's just NOT a good TEST of the THEORY (light depending on the source). EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, it's STILL a BAD TEST of the theory. If I were you, I'd stick to something closer to home, like GPS. But GPS stands up to SR just as well as variable stars, so maybe you are worried that if you don't have enough hidden parameters to adjust that you'll be proven wrong, well if that's the case, then you are a coward. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals Science, son, is about observation, invenstigation and explanation, even if you can't directly observe what is there because it it too far away or too small. Nobody ever saw an electron orbiting a molecule, but most of us still use the Bohr model of the atom. So head, why don't you explain the curve instead of ranting like a lunatic? Androcles. === Subject: Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals The Bohr model is a loser, sorry. Androcles I've already told you the difference between testing a material model and testing a physical theory. You can assume SR and construct a material mode, people are working on that. Or you can assume a material model and test a physical theory. I can't tell which you want to do. On the one hand, you seem to want to test a physical theory because that's what your web site is all about, but since you chose as a test case, something with many adjustable parameters, it doesn't leave much room for disproof, so it turns out not to be a good test, does it Androcles? Can't you do a test on something without so many adjustable hidden parameters Androcles? I mean, YOU are the one that wants to test your theory, surely you've come up with SOMETHING by now? === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Likewise. What has that got to do with crossbow bolts? (Be very careful) And? What are you suggesting these factors do? I'm interested; you've been very critical but very non-specific in all your responses. -- Paul === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Look up any discourse on how a planes wing work. With regard to air currents etc, clearly a slight upbreeze or temperature differential is not going to alter a bricks rate of fall in the same way as a paper dart. With Gordons bow, which appears to fire a lump of metal all this might have no impact whatsoever :) === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 LOL! :D I'll be sure to do that :) But hang on, you've looked up one of these discourses yourself, haven't you? Can *you* tell me how a plane's wing works? That would save me the effort. I ask again: what have paper darts got to do with crossbow bolts? That at least is true. -- Paul === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 ... and you obviously missed the part of his post where he noted he was neglecting air resistance. Twice. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 You can neglect all you like : but its not valid. Its like saying this program is 100% bug free if you neglect all the bugs. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 In Half-Life, the crossbow bolt didn't drop. In HL2, the 'bolt' is a length of induction heated steel rebarr! And, it DOES drop over distance. That rebarr has a lot of mass. It would weigh easily over a pound. So for short to medium range, the initial velocity will keep drop very slight. For long range you would have considerable drop, and it does in game. Just imagine a cherry hot chunk of rebarr fired at you at say 600 mph. At that speed it will cover a half a mile pretty quick. The concept model for this one in HL2 may not be super realistic, but it sure is fun! McG. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Over a set distance, yes. Over a set time, no. -- Paul === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 at given speed, time is distance. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 No, No, you're right. A crossbow flight is made to drop at the same speed and acceleration as a brick. Sigh. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Hmm, sarcasm. Are you suggesting that it doesn't? Reasons please. -- Paul === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Not exactly the same speed, but pretty close to it. A crossbow bolt will probably drop less because it's more aerodynamic, but gravity is still the dominant factor (and that works equally on all objects). -- ~ Cyde Weys ~ Sing me that sweet headcrab elegy. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 That's a fact. You overcome (briefly) the effects of gravity with mass at velocity. The faster it's going, the farther it travels before gravity pulls it down. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 That's wrong - gravity affects all objects all of the time. you cannot overcome gravity, without a force to counter-act it. Newtons first law: An object at rest will stay at rest, and a body moving in a straight line will continue to move in the same direction and at the same speed, unless an external force acts on it. Remember - Gravity is acceleration in a downwards direction. Ignoring Air resistance, If you drop a small stone off a cliff into the water, and fire a bullet horizontally from a gun at the same time, both will land in the water at the same time Why? Because, both start with a vertical velocity of 0. Gravity Does not affect their horizontal velocity, so any force acting on the horizontal is totally irrelevent to the downward movement of the object. -- Ben Cottrell AKA Bench Today's episode is brought to you by the word patience, the letter lambda, and the number two ;-) === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 go back and read what I said, gee! For it to stay in the air longer without dropping, considerably more force must be exerted to overcome inertia and give it a velocity of say 600 fps rather than 300 fps. At 300, it will drop more and quicker than at 600. You're right though, it comes down to simple mechanics :) McG. === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 I know what you're getting at, but you're not phrasing it correctly. It won't stay in the air longer without dropping, it will travel further. The duration of the flight before hitting the ground will be the same (assuming that in this branch of the thread, we're talking about rebar from crossbows, not rapidly spinning bullets). If something gets in the way before it hits the ground, it will hit the target higher up than the slower bullet, but that's because its flight time was shorter. The 300ft/s bullet won't drop quicker, it will drop at the same rate, but it will travel less distance before it hits the ground. -- Paul === Subject: Re: The physics of crossbow bolts in HL2 Ok, I can see that. Not the specifics, we don't have the formulae to work with. I think we may well be missing some of the criteria to work with too :) and yes, rebar, no rifling. Just literally shot off the bows string with only the crossbow for alignment during launch. Its massive enough and the flight short enough that windage won't matter. Only the elevation logistics. There are more variables affecting bullets and quarrels in the other threads of the discussion. I work with rebar kind often. And if it's even 3/8, for it to be redhot leaving the breech and for it to be buried in stone or brick walls makes it one helluva weapon. And a nasty one. Just imagine suddenly realizing you can't move cause you'r head is stuck to a wall....and it hurts...and it's HOT...and its