Androcles wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
Below is Randy Poe's attempt to handle a coordinate system
which the imbecile Dirk Van de moortel says I do not understand.

Randy Poe:
I'm going to take another tack, one which may dispense with
all this endless origin silliness. The kind of argument that
could result from trying to introduce and then solve Einstein's
differential equation could keep us here till the heat death
of the universe.

Let's look at the transit time of the light signals.


Now, from the point of view of S, the emitter and mirror
are some distance d apart.

d1 = (c+v)t.

What is the origin of this equation?

I believe I wrote down this:

x = x1 + d + v(t-t1) for the mirror

and this:

x = x1 + c(t-t1) for the light

Where in all of what I wrote did I say anything
like the above?

d2 = (c-v)t.


d = d1 = d2.

I think we both agreed that in the S frame, the
light travels more than d in the forward direction,
and less than d in the reverse direction. So there
is nothing like this statement.

Done looking.

But alas, what you looked at were your own nonsense
equations rather than anything I wrote.

Left in for the shame of it:
The light signal leaves the
emitter at x1, at time t1. It is traveling toward the
mirror at speed c, but at the same time the mirror is
receding at speed v. So from the point of view of the S
observer, the transmit time from emitter to mirror is
d/(c-v). Which means t2 = t1 + d/(c-v).

On the return trip, the light signal is coming back at
c and the apparatus at the back of the truck is rushing
to meet it at speed v. They converge at a rate of c+v,
and the transit time is d/(c+v). Which means t3 =


t1 + d/(c-v) + d/(c+v)
t3 = t1 + d/(c-v) + d/(c+v)= t1 + d*[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]= t1 +
d*[(c+v)/(c^2-v^2) + (c-v)/(c^2-v^2)]= t1 + d*[(c + v + c - v)/(c^2
-

v^2)]= t1 + d*[2c/(c^2 - v^2)]Or


t3-t1 = d*[2c/(c^2-v^2)]

LOL!

Please let me in on the joke.

By the way, you realize that everything above is
valid for sound waves too, right?


In Einstein's and Poe's world.
_____________________ _
[Poe's Trucking Inc.] [ \_
[___________________]_[___| t1
| oo oo o
|--------d-------|
|
|
__________________________ _
[ Poe's Trucking Inc. ] [ \_
[________________________]_[___| t2
| oo oo o
|-----------d----------|


Why don't you amplify how this follows from my definitions.

Alas, explaining his own "deduction" process is not
part of Androcles' game plan.



In Einstein's coordinate system:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

What is the meaning of the first argument in the
parenthesis tau(*,*,*,*)?
x1 of course.

Not in Einstein's paper. Perhaps you should read the
part where he defines the functional form of tau, and
explains what the first variable is. (It isn't x).

In Poe's coordinate system:

½[tau(x1,t+t1)+tau(x1,t+(d-vt)/(c-v)+(d-vt)/(c+v))] =
tau(x2,t+(d-vt)/(c-v))

Really? What are the meaning of the two arguments in
tau(*,*) in what is supposedly my coordinate system and my
definition of tau?

Unanswered. Surprise, surprise.


You're aware that the notation tau(*,*) or tau(*,*,*,*)
indicates a function of 2 or 4 variables, right?

Sure, but the y and z coordinates are added by Einstein
to confuse you.

You got bored before he explained what happens with
motion in general directions, not just x.

What
are those variables in the two equations you wrote?
Which equations?

- Randy