"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

| A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
|
| And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
| and GPS design specifications.
|
| I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Alan Schwartz.
You can't even compute dx/dt.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

| A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
|
| And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
| and GPS design specifications.
|
| I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Alan Schwartz.
You can't even compute dx/dt.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles


Taken from table 2-4 of
https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
I get:

dx=26658.883 m
dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)

v=299779139.335 m/s

c=299792458.000 m/s


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
|
| | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| |
| | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
| | and GPS design specifications.
| |
| | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.
|
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
| Alan Schwartz.
| You can't even compute dx/dt.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|
|
| Taken from table 2-4 of
| https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| I get:
|
| dx=26658.883 m
| dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
|
| v=299779139.335 m/s
|
| c=299792458.000 m/s

This is how is should be done:
dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s

I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
what "velocity" means.
As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

Androcles wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
|
| | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| |
| | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
| | and GPS design specifications.
| |
| | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.
|
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
| Alan Schwartz.
| You can't even compute dx/dt.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|
|
| Taken from table 2-4 of
| https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| I get:
|
| dx=26658.883 m
| dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
|
| v=299779139.335 m/s
|
| c=299792458.000 m/s

This is how is should be done:
dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s

*snort*
And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose. Or
did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the
atmosphere and one at the ground?
Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?


I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
what "velocity" means.
As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.


| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)
= 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma
= 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort,
which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

|
| I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
| what "velocity" means.
| As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
| BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
| I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
| Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|

No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that
isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both
OWLS and TWLS can be istropic but have different velocities.

wrote:
No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that
isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both
OWLS and TWLS can be istropic but have different velocities.

Isotropy = "same regardless of direction"
If light goes from A to B and returns from B to A, the only difference
between those two paths is direction.
If OWLS is isotropic, this means that the speed going from B to A is
the same as the speed from A to B, those two paths differing only in
direction. One cannot assume that the lightspeed from B to A is
*different* than the lightspeed from A to B and at the same time hold
that OWLS is isotropic.

If the length from A to B is L, then the length from B to A is L.
OWLS = L/(tAB) or OWLS = L/(tBA)
By presumption of isotropy, we mean that
L/(tAB)=OWLS=L/(tBA)
From this we deduce that tAB=tBA, and actually we can make this
deduction without actually measuring tAB or tBA at all.

From this we know, *without measuring them individually* that
tAB + tBA = 2(tAB)
as long as, an in every case that, OWLS is isotropic.

On the other hand, we calculate TWLS as
TWLS = 2L/(tAB+tBA).
Note that in this calculation, we have already done the fitting
necessary to remove any delay associated with reflection.

Without having to measure tAB and tBA individually, I already know that
TWLS = 2L/2(tAB) = L/(tAB) = OWLS.

Recap: *without* measuring tAB and tBA individually, and *only*
assuming isotropy of OWLS, I can deduce that it *must* be the case that

OWLS = TWLS. You'll note that *nowhere* in this did I presume any
numerical value for L/tAB or L/tBA or 2L/(tAB+tBA), and in particular I
did not use the value of c anywhere.

PD

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:
No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that
isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both
OWLS and TWLS can be istropic but have different velocities.

Isotropy = "same regardless of direction"
If light goes from A to B and returns from B to A, the only difference
between those two paths is direction.
If OWLS is isotropic, this means that the speed going from B to A is
the same as the speed from A to B, those two paths differing only in
direction. One cannot assume that the lightspeed from B to A is
*different* than the lightspeed from A to B and at the same time hold
that OWLS is isotropic.

If the length from A to B is L, then the length from B to A is L.
OWLS = L/(tAB) or OWLS = L/(tBA)
By presumption of isotropy, we mean that
L/(tAB)=OWLS=L/(tBA)
From this we deduce that tAB=tBA, and actually we can make this
deduction without actually measuring tAB or tBA at all.

From this we know, *without measuring them individually* that
tAB + tBA = 2(tAB)
as long as, an in every case that, OWLS is isotropic.

On the other hand, we calculate TWLS as
TWLS = 2L/(tAB+tBA).
Note that in this calculation, we have already done the fitting
necessary to remove any delay associated with reflection.

Without having to measure tAB and tBA individually, I already know that
TWLS = 2L/2(tAB) = L/(tAB) = OWLS.

Recap: *without* measuring tAB and tBA individually, and *only*
assuming isotropy of OWLS, I can deduce that it *must* be the case that

OWLS = TWLS. You'll note that *nowhere* in this did I presume any
numerical value for L/tAB or L/tBA or 2L/(tAB+tBA), and in particular I
did not use the value of c anywhere.

PD

You are using *algebra* to explain something to Seto?
This might turn out to be problematic:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...quareDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...quareRoot.html
Ahem - enjoy ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
| | | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
| | | trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
| | | something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
| | | proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
| | | from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
| | | neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
| | | confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
| | | (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
| | | the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.
| | |
| | | And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design
specifications,
| | | and GPS design specifications.
| | |
| | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c
here.
| |
| | Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker
than
| | Alan Schwartz.
| | You can't even compute dx/dt.
| | http://www.freefarts.com
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | Taken from table 2-4 of
| | https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf,
| | I get:
| |
| | dx=26658.883 m
| | dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s)
| |
| | v=299779139.335 m/s
| |
| | c=299792458.000 m/s
|
| This is how is should be done:
| dx= 100km (height of atmosphere)
| dt = 2.2usec (life of muon)
| v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s
|
| *snort*
| And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose.

The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground.
You supposed wrong.

I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2
usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the
ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon.



| Or
| did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the
| atmosphere and one at the ground?
| Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles?

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math. Did you borrow it from
EinsteinHoax? He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then
SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the
velocity transform is the identity).

You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and
ass-picking?

= 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma
= 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort,
which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort.

Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles

|
| I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know
| what "velocity" means.
| As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt.
| BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from?
| I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere.
| Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than
| Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz.
| http://www.freefarts.com
| Androcles
|

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

Androcles wrote:

[snip]

The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and
the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground.
You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High
School algebra, snort.
xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
= 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²)

d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma)

Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math. Did you borrow it from
EinsteinHoax? He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then
SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the
velocity transform is the identity).

Hm, actually Ernest Einsteinhoax Wittke had it the other way
around:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...nicWittke.html
He had the
- ahem - "Lorentz Transformation for Length"
L = L' / sqrt(1-v^2) for contraction
and the - ahem - "Lorentz Transformation for Time"
T = T' sqrt(1-v^2) for dilation
and then deduced his "Lorentz Transformation for Velocity":
L/T = L'/T' / (1-v^2)

But perhaps, somewhere down the line he changed his mind and
did it the way you just showed - I wouldn't be surprised.

We had one bright "Dr. Cui Silong" (aka Jeany) who declared that
L T = L' T' ,
and called it the invariance of Spacetime Area ;-)

Dirk Vdm