"YBM" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| Smarter than someone that claims
| dtau/dt = 0 1, eh?
| Androcles.
|
| Too old to learn.
| Too stupid to learn.
| Too proud to learn.
|
| Sad.
Looking in the mirror were you?
Androcles

Androcles says...

So why don't you learn (special) relativity instead of making up your own?

Let me give a little parable: There is a certain person, call him
"A" who is trying out a new car---a fancy sportscar. He gets in,
and immediately kills the engine. He gets in again, and kills the
engine again. Finally, after getting it to sputter into motion,
he puts it in reverse, and there is a terrible grinding sound. His
conclusion: "This car is completely worthless."

A second person, let's call him "D", says, "No, you just have to
know how to drive one of these babies." He gets in, starts it up,
smoothly accelerates from 0 to 100 km/hr, takes a few spins around
the block, and then gets out and hands the keys back to "A".

"A" says: No, no, you idiot! You aren't driving it correctly!
If you had done it right, you would have found out what a worthless
car this really is.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Androcles says...

| Here's a rough analogy: Suppose I leave England at 12:00 local time,
| and travel east to Sweden. When I get to Sweden, the local time is
| 6:00. Does that mean that I've been travelling for 5 hours? No, because
| England and Sweden are not in the same time zone.
Oh Pu'lease!

Sorry if you feel patronized to be given this sort of elementary
refresher, but your mistakes are *exactly* this elementary.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Androcles says...

So why don't you learn (special) relativity instead of making up your own?

Let me give a little parable: There is a certain person, call him
"A" who is trying out a new car---a fancy sportscar. He gets in,
and immediately kills the engine. He gets in again, and kills the
engine again. Finally, after getting it to sputter into motion,
he puts it in reverse, and there is a terrible grinding sound. His
conclusion: "This car is completely worthless."

A second person, let's call him "D", says, "No, you just have to
know how to drive one of these babies." He gets in, starts it up,
smoothly accelerates from 0 to 100 km/hr, takes a few spins around
the block, and then gets out and hands the keys back to "A".

"A" says: No, no, you idiot! You aren't driving it correctly!
If you had done it right, you would have found out what a worthless
car this really is.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

A nice one :-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Parable.html

Dirk Vdm

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
| Androcles says...
|
| So why don't you learn (special) relativity instead of making up your
own?
|
| Let me give a little parable:

No, I don't need any parables. PROVE that you are right, mathematically.
If you want a parable,

"The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html"

I accuse Einstein (and now you also) of the same fraud.
Androcles.

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
| Androcles says...
|
| | Here's a rough analogy: Suppose I leave England at 12:00 local time,
| | and travel east to Sweden. When I get to Sweden, the local time is
| | 6:00. Does that mean that I've been travelling for 5 hours? No, because
| | England and Sweden are not in the same time zone.
| Oh Pu'lease!
|
| Sorry if you feel patronized to be given this sort of elementary
| refresher, but your mistakes are *exactly* this elementary.
|
| --
| Daryl McCullough
| Ithaca, NY
When I leave England with a positive velocity, I expect to arrive in Oslo.
When I leave England with a negative velocity, I expect to arrive in Ithaca
NY.
When you learn which way you are going, then you can tell me how wrong I am.
Androcles.

Androcles says...

So why don't you learn (special) relativity instead of making up your
own?

Let me try a little more seriously to address your point.

Einstein is not around to explain what he meant to you, but
it *doesn't* matter. Einstein's words are not sacred writ---if
what he wrote in 1905 has errors, it doesn't matter. What is
important is the way that relativity is understood today. Physics
have spent almost 100 years working with relativity, and the
present-day understanding is not dependent on whether Einstein
made mistakes or not.

So it is a *complete* waste of time for you to be poring over
Einstein's exact words. It doesn't show *anything*. If you want
to disprove relativity, then work with relativity as it is
understood *today*. Pointing out a flaw in a 100 year-old paper
is perhaps of historical interest, but it is of no *scientific*
interest at this point. People don't learn relativity by reading
Einstein, they learn it by reading a modern treatment of the
subject.

If you want to point out a flaw in relativity as it is *currently*
understood, then you need to be arguing against a *current* treatment
of relativity, not a 100-year-old treatment. Point out the flaws in
the way *I* understand relativity. Don't try to "correct" me, and
then point out flaws in your "correction". I agree completely that
your understanding of relativity is flawed. You need to show that
there is a flaw in the way that *I* (and all other physicists
today) understand relativity. If you think that modern relativity
is different from Einstein's original relativity, so what? It
doesn't matter, scientifically. Show the flaw in the theory that
modern physicists call "relativity".

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
| Androcles says...
|
| So why don't you learn (special) relativity instead of making up your
| own?

Let me try a little more seriously to address your point.

Ptolemy is not around to explain what he meant to you, but
it *does* matter.

Ptolemy's words are not sacred writ---if
What he wrote in 105 has errors, it doesn't matter. What is
important is how the Earth is the centre of the universe
is understood today. Astronomy has spent almost 1400 years
working with Ptolemaism, and the present-day understanding
is not dependent on whether Ptolemy made mistakes or not.


So it is a *complete* waste of time for you to be poring over
Ptolemy's exact words. It doesn't show *anything*. If you want
to disprove the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, then work
with Ptolemaism as it is understood *today*.
Pointing out a flaw in a 1900 year-old paper is perhaps of historical
interest, but it is of no *scientific* interest at this point. People don't
learn the Earth is a the centre of the Universe by reading Ptolemy,
they learn it by reading a modern treatment of the subject, and join
the flat Earth society.


If you want to point out a flaw in geocentrism as it is *currently*
understood, then you need to be arguing against a *current* treatment
of geocentrism, not a 600-year-old treatment.

Pointing out the flaws in the way *YOU* understand relativity is simple
to anyone but you, because yours is a belief and has nothing whatever to
do with science. The only way to show you your flaws is to deal with the
subject on a mathematical level, and your level of mathematics doesn't go
beyond simple algebra.




| Don't try to "correct" me,

(As the Cardinal said to Galileo)

| and
| then point out flaws in your "correction". I agree completely that
| your understanding of relativity is flawed.

Agree with whom? Spermless Dinky van de moortel? Lying nTaul Andersen?

| You need to show that
| there is a flaw in the way that *I* (and all other physicists
| today) understand relativity.

As I said, that can only be done through mathematics, and your level
of math isn't good enough. That's easy enough to see, you have no
equations to back up your claim. You tell me the Lorentz equations
ARE, but you cannot derive them.
That I do not agree with your religion doesn't make your faith the
one and only true holy writ, even if you believe it.


| If you think that modern relativity
| is different from Einstein's original relativity, so what?

When did I say that?
Modern relativity is identical to Einstein's relativity. You are way
off the path on that score.

| It doesn't matter, scientifically.

By scientifically, you mean religiously.

Show the flaw in the theory that modern physicists call "relativity".

| --
| Daryl McCullough
| Ithaca, NY
|

Ok.
First show me you know to use a minus correctly.
Androcles

Androcles says...

So it is a *complete* waste of time for you to be poring over
Ptolemy's exact words. It doesn't show *anything*. If you want
to disprove the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, then work
with Ptolemaism as it is understood *today*.

That's exactly right, except for the fact that there *is*
no Ptolemaism today. So the analogy with relativity is flawed.

Pointing out the flaws in the way *YOU* understand relativity
is simple to anyone but you, because yours is a belief and has
nothing whatever to do with science.

The problem with that statement is that it is completely
false. The successes of relativity theory are unprecedented,
from a better understanding of planetary motion, to a better
understanding of the electrodynamics of atoms and molecules,
to a better understanding of the dynamics of the universe as
a whole.

In contrast, what you have been posting is what has no
scientific merit whatsoever. You don't understand relativity,
and you don't understand mathematics.

The only way to show you your flaws is to deal with the
subject on a mathematical level, and your level of
mathematics doesn't go beyond simple algebra.

| Don't try to "correct" me,

(As the Cardinal said to Galileo)

You misunderstood my point---I'm not saying you can't
criticize what I'm saying, I'm saying what you are doing
is criticizing something that I *didn't* say.

I say X, you say "You don't mean X, you mean Y", and then
you go on to show that Y is nonsensical. Okay, Y is nonsense.
But I didn't say Y, I said X.

| and
| then point out flaws in your "correction". I agree completely that
| your understanding of relativity is flawed.

Agree with whom?

With *you*. You are the one saying that relativity is flawed. Obviously,
that is relativity as you understand it. It isn't relativity as *I*
understand it.

| You need to show that
| there is a flaw in the way that *I* (and all other physicists
| today) understand relativity.

As I said, that can only be done through mathematics, and your level
of math isn't good enough.

Your judgement of that is incorrect.

That's easy enough to see, you have no
equations to back up your claim. You tell me the Lorentz equations
ARE, but you cannot derive them.

I've posted derivations of them in this very newsgroup.

That I do not agree with your religion doesn't make your faith the
one and only true holy writ, even if you believe it.

I'm saying the opposite. *You* are the one who keeps going
back to Einstein, as if it were a holy text. My understanding
of relativity was developed by working out problems on my own,
*not* by reading Einstein, or any other text.

| If you think that modern relativity
| is different from Einstein's original relativity, so what?

When did I say that?

You were the one who complained that what I posted was different
from what Einstein wrote.

Modern relativity is identical to Einstein's relativity. You are way
off the path on that score.

Then quit citing Einstein. Why not start with a modern treatment.

| It doesn't matter, scientifically.

By scientifically, you mean religiously.

No. You are the one treating it as a religion.

Show the flaw in the theory that modern physicists call "relativity".

First show me you know to use a minus correctly.

Why do I have to prove my competence before you can point
out the flaws in relativity? That doesn't make any sense.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
| Androcles says...
|
| So it is a *complete* waste of time for you to be poring over
| Ptolemy's exact words. It doesn't show *anything*. If you want
| to disprove the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, then work
| with Ptolemaism as it is understood *today*.
|
| That's exactly right, except for the fact that there *is*
| no Ptolemaism today. So the analogy with relativity is flawed.

Ptolemaism was the operation of the then known universe by mathematics
alone, as is relativity. Making the speed of light observer dependent is
no different in principle to making the retrograde motion of Mars be caused
by epicycles.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html
The analogy is appropriate.


| Pointing out the flaws in the way *YOU* understand relativity
| is simple to anyone but you, because yours is a belief and has
| nothing whatever to do with science.
|
| The problem with that statement is that it is completely
| false. The successes of relativity theory are unprecedented,
| from a better understanding of planetary motion, to a better
| understanding of the electrodynamics of atoms and molecules,
| to a better understanding of the dynamics of the universe as
| a whole.
|
| In contrast, what you have been posting is what has no
| scientific merit whatsoever. You don't understand relativity,
| and you don't understand mathematics.

So you assert, but cannot prove. I can make assertions too.
They carry no weight.
|
| The only way to show you your flaws is to deal with the
| subject on a mathematical level, and your level of
| mathematics doesn't go beyond simple algebra.
|
| | Don't try to "correct" me,
|
| (As the Cardinal said to Galileo)
|
| You misunderstood my point---I'm not saying you can't
| criticize what I'm saying, I'm saying what you are doing
| is criticizing something that I *didn't* say.
|
| I say X, you say "You don't mean X, you mean Y", and then
| you go on to show that Y is nonsensical. Okay, Y is nonsense.
| But I didn't say Y, I said X.

You said, and I quote:
"The principle of (special) relativity says that all *inertial* observers
are
equivalent."
So you said X, and I have not claimed you said Y.
Einstein's relativity says
"...the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather
that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the
same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this
conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of
Relativity'')..."
Einstein also said: "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."
That's a rotating frame with both clocks relatively at rest, and not an
*inertial* frame.
If you wish to argue that Einstein was wrong, I'll not disagree with you. He
was wrong.
Is it your position now that Einstein was wrong?

|
| | and
| | then point out flaws in your "correction". I agree completely that
| | your understanding of relativity is flawed.
|
| Agree with whom?
|
| With *you*. You are the one saying that relativity is flawed. Obviously,
| that is relativity as you understand it. It isn't relativity as *I*
| understand it.

Well, obviously you have never understood Einstein's relativity, you have
your own brand. I didn't intentionally discuss McCullough's relativity, but
we can if you like.
Go ahead, state your postulates and derive your equations.


|
| | You need to show that
| | there is a flaw in the way that *I* (and all other physicists
| | today) understand relativity.
|
| As I said, that can only be done through mathematics, and your level
| of math isn't good enough.
|
| Your judgement of that is incorrect.

So you assert. Assertions carry no weight.
Go ahead, state your postulates and derive your equations.

|
| That's easy enough to see, you have no
| equations to back up your claim. You tell me the Lorentz equations
| ARE, but you cannot derive them.
|
| I've posted derivations of them in this very newsgroup.
Copy and paste them, then. That isn't hard to do. A Google search
should make it easy enough for you to find your own quotes.
Go ahead, state your postulates and derive your equations.

|
| That I do not agree with your religion doesn't make your faith the
| one and only true holy writ, even if you believe it.
|
| I'm saying the opposite. *You* are the one who keeps going
| back to Einstein, as if it were a holy text. My understanding
| of relativity was developed by working out problems on my own,
| *not* by reading Einstein, or any other text.


Go ahead, state your postulates and derive your equations.


| | If you think that modern relativity
| | is different from Einstein's original relativity, so what?
|
| When did I say that?
|
| You were the one who complained that what I posted was different
| from what Einstein wrote.

Yes, I did, didn't I? I hadn't realised you considered Einstein was
incorrect
and you had your own brand of relativity. Tell us all about it, and why
Einstein
was wrong.


|
| Modern relativity is identical to Einstein's relativity. You are way
| off the path on that score.
|
| Then quit citing Einstein. Why not start with a modern treatment.

Go ahead. State your postulates and derive your equations. I'll try
to leave Einstein out of it, but it would help a lot if you told us where
he went wrong and why your version is correct.
|
| | It doesn't matter, scientifically.
|
| By scientifically, you mean religiously.
|
| No. You are the one treating it as a religion.
Of course. I consider it to be a religion, to be believed without reason.
Show otherwise.

|
| Show the flaw in the theory that modern physicists call "relativity".
|
| First show me you know to use a minus correctly.
|
| Why do I have to prove my competence before you can point
| out the flaws in relativity? That doesn't make any sense.
|
| --
| Daryl McCullough
| Ithaca, NY
This is my post. I called it "How to use a minus sign". You have
stepped in with a demonstration of how NOT to use a minus sign.
Prove your case.
Tell us where you believe Einstein went wrong, state your postulates
and derive your equations.
Androcles