Androcles wrote:

Then you must deduce logically whether it is nonsense or not.

If you actually understood logic, that might work.

The mosquito flies 32 ft from Sam to Joe in 16 seconds and takes
4 seconds to fly back again because Sam and Joe are walking at
3 fps. That's reality.

Along comes Einstein and says "I don't like that. The time for a
mosquito to fly from Sam to Joe is the same as it take from Joe
to Sam."

No. He doesn't say that.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| sue jahn wrote:
| IOW
| What the the great Einstein can't conceive, is fair game for
| a negative proof. ;-)
|
| No. The point is that understanding a subject as complicated as math
or
| physics is a lot of work.

Only for those with an IQ in double digits. Those with less than that
don't bother. Those with more write the math.


If you aren't willing to do that work, then
| the subject will always be a mystery to you.

Then derive the cuckoo transforms that you so dearly love and accept.

We establish by definition that the "time" (16 seconds) required by a
mosquito to travel from Sam to Joe equals the "time" (4 seconds) it
requires to travel from Joe to Sam.
Do the work, McCullough, it's "science".
Change the distance between Sam and Joe from 32 ft to 40 ft,
make c-v = 2 fps and c+v = 8 fps into c = 8 fps both ways and
derive the transform.
If you aren't willing to do that work, then the subject will always be
a mystery to you.

Androcles.

sue jahn skrev:
"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.

It is plain stupid to discuss whether
Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Kõrper"
is a scientific paper or not.


Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of
relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or
defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,
inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electrical current,
measured in Amperes, may be operationally defined in terms
of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode
in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons
with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies
on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum
kept in a laboratory in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You should read the URLs you are giving, Sue.
The scientific method is the basis of science.
You should learn it.

This is a better URL:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or
group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal
mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


The Special Theory of Relativity is step 2. above.
Experimental physicists have for a century done
step 2. and 3. The result is that SR is unfalsified

A couple of other URLs:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html
http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html


As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Judge for youself and ask your doctor to adhere
to the same standards you use.

Of course that's not science.
It is taken from a popular book about science,
namely Einstein's "Relativity".
It is written for the laypersons, not scientists.

Don't you know the difference between a popular
book and a scientific paper, Sue?

Here is the scientific paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
THAT's science.

Paul

Androcles wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No. The point is that understanding a subject as complicated as math
or physics is a lot of work.

Only for those with an IQ in double digits.

No, it's hard work for anyone.

If you aren't willing to do that work, then
the subject will always be a mystery to you.

Then derive the cuckoo transforms that you so dearly love and accept.

As I said, if you want to understand *you* have to be willing to put
work into it. I can't do all the work for you.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| Then you must deduce logically whether it is nonsense or not.
|
| If you actually understood logic, that might work.

Slinging cheap insults wont help you understand.


|
| The mosquito flies 32 ft from Sam to Joe in 16 seconds and takes
| 4 seconds to fly back again because Sam and Joe are walking at
| 3 fps. That's reality.
|
| Along comes Einstein and says "I don't like that. The time for a
| mosquito to fly from Sam to Joe is the same as it take from Joe
| to Sam."
|
| No. He doesn't say that.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If you won't do the work, it will always be a mystery to you.
What's so hard about replacing "light" with "mosquito" and
"A" with Sam, "B" with "Joe", McCullough?
Simple denial won't help you understand.
Sue is right, you are an idiot.
Androcles.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn skrev:
"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.

It is plain stupid to discuss whether
Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Kõrper"
is a scientific paper or not.


Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of
relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or
defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,
inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electrical current,
measured in Amperes, may be operationally defined in terms
of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode
in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons
with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies
on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum
kept in a laboratory in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You should read the URLs you are giving, Sue.
The scientific method is the basis of science.
You should learn it.

This is a better URL:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory
must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for
instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle
whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as
scientific theories.


I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or
group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal
mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


The Special Theory of Relativity is step 2. above.
Experimental physicists have for a century done
step 2. and 3. The result is that SR is unfalsified

A couple of other URLs:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html
http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html


As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Judge for youself and ask your doctor to adhere
to the same standards you use.

Of course that's not science.
It is taken from a popular book about science,
namely Einstein's "Relativity".
It is written for the laypersons, not scientists.

Don't you know the difference between a popular
book and a scientific paper, Sue?

Here is the scientific paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
THAT's science.
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions

I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Sue...



Paul

Androcles wrote:
"SDaryl" wrote

| The mosquito flies 32 ft from Sam to Joe in 16 seconds and takes
| 4 seconds to fly back again because Sam and Joe are walking at
| 3 fps. That's reality.
|
| Along comes Einstein and says "I don't like that. The time for a
| mosquito to fly from Sam to Joe is the same as it take from Joe
| to Sam."
|
| No. He doesn't say that.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]

That doesn't mention mosquitos, now does it?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| "SDaryl" wrote
|
| No. The point is that understanding a subject as complicated as
math
| or physics is a lot of work.
|
| Only for those with an IQ in double digits.
|
| No, it's hard work for anyone.
You are anyone, are you?

|
| If you aren't willing to do that work, then
| the subject will always be a mystery to you.
|
| Then derive the cuckoo transforms that you so dearly love and
accept.
|
| As I said, if you want to understand *you* have to be willing to put
| work into it. I can't do all the work for you.


But I have and I understand it.
Wanna see it again?
Nah, you snipped the last time. Why bother with you?
Androcles.

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| "SDaryl" wrote
|
| | The mosquito flies 32 ft from Sam to Joe in 16 seconds and takes
| | 4 seconds to fly back again because Sam and Joe are walking at
| | 3 fps. That's reality.
| |
| | Along comes Einstein and says "I don't like that. The time for a
| | mosquito to fly from Sam to Joe is the same as it take from Joe
| | to Sam."
| |
| | No. He doesn't say that.
|
| [quote]
| we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to
travel
| from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
| [end quote]
|
| That doesn't mention mosquitos, now does it?

You want to argue for the sake of arguing. You have no desire to learn.
**** off.
Androcles

Androcles writes:

But I have and I understand it.

No, you don't.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY