"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:

AllYou!, if you have something to add to the *content* of this thread,
please do so. Otherwise, you are violating the posting standards of
this group.

Too ****ing bad. The standards of this NG are a joke when one of its heroes is
allowed, if not encouraged, to use every tactic imaginable to silence those with
whom he disagrees. I posted a simple reply to someone and ****head Moortel
Goggled me to find other NGs in which I post, and stalked me there.

So **** you and your standards. If you're going to bitch about standards, do it
even handedly or go **** yourself.

Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
direction.
2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to
the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because
it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the
light ray simultaneously.
3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
mirror.

The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I
described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to
do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are
not what you predicted????

Ken Seto

wrote:
Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
direction.

You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to
the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because
it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the
light ray simultaneously.

This is a bogus cop-out. It would apply to your OWLS measurement as
well as it would to a TWLS measurement.

3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
mirror.

That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the technique I
described to remove the mirror delay time from the TWLS measured times.
I described that just a short time ago.
Welcome all, to Short Attention Span Theater.


The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I
described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to
do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are
not what you predicted????

No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay
has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS. This does
not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS. Fortunately, TWLS has been
amply measured to be c.
Therefore, OWLS is known to be c. The reason why SRians refuse to do a
direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to
measure something that has already been measured.

PD

"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions an isotropic crystal
velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.





|
| 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to
| the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because
| it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the
| light ray simultaneously.
|
| This is a bogus cop-out. It would apply to your OWLS measurement as
| well as it would to a TWLS measurement.
|
| 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
| mirror.
|
| That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the technique I
| described to remove the mirror delay time from the TWLS measured times.
| I described that just a short time ago.
| Welcome all, to Short Attention Span Theater.
|
|
| The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I
| described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to
| do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are
| not what you predicted????
|
| No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay
| has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS.

****ing idiot, welcome to the zero attention span toilet-treasure house
and the piles of poopoo.


| This does
| not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS.
Which it does not.


| Fortunately, TWLS has been
| amply measured to be c.

Nonsense, TWLS is always zero.

| Therefore, OWLS is known to be c.

Stooopid imbecile, OWLS = c+v where v is the velocity of A wrt B.
Proof:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



| The reason why SRians refuse to do a
| direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to
| measure something that has already been measured.

You can't afford to do it right, Phuckwit Duck?
It's fiscally irresponsible to waste 100 years on complete bull****!
Androcles.



Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions an isotropic crystal
velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.

Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.

I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of
those who have no grip on physics.

PD

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions an isotropic crystal
velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0

So why not TW(anything)S = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0?


OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.





|
| 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to
| the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because
| it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the
| light ray simultaneously.
|
| This is a bogus cop-out. It would apply to your OWLS measurement as
| well as it would to a TWLS measurement.
|
| 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
| mirror.
|
| That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the technique I
| described to remove the mirror delay time from the TWLS measured times.
| I described that just a short time ago.
| Welcome all, to Short Attention Span Theater.
|
|
| The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I
| described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to
| do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are
| not what you predicted????
|
| No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay
| has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS.

****ing idiot, welcome to the zero attention span toilet-treasure house
and the piles of poopoo.


| This does
| not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS.
Which it does not.


| Fortunately, TWLS has been
| amply measured to be c.

Nonsense, TWLS is always zero.

| Therefore, OWLS is known to be c.

Stooopid imbecile, OWLS = c+v where v is the velocity of A wrt B.
Proof:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



| The reason why SRians refuse to do a
| direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to
| measure something that has already been measured.

You can't afford to do it right, Phuckwit Duck?
It's fiscally irresponsible to waste 100 years on complete bull****!
Androcles.



Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity, PD

wrote
on 29 Oct 2005 05:30:16 -0700
. com:

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with
the same values when measured along axes in all directions an
isotropic crystal velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect
to time : the derivative of position with respect to time speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.

Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.

There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is
the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed).
However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his
favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta,
Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero, which
is a little odd considering the effort to drive those cars around
the track, with accelerations nearing 2.5-3 g, if memory serves,
not to mention fuel consumption, tire wear, and horrific crashes,
some of which result in driver's deaths. (Dale Earnhart -- #3 --
was not the first, though he's arguably the most well known.)

Mathematically, one might represent this as:

average velocity = integral(t=0,t_end) v dt
speed of average velocity = || integral(t=0,t_end) v dt ||
average speed = integral(t=0,t_end) ||v|| dt

(This is admittedly somewhat Newtonian, though v(t) might be
construed as being observed by a stationary observer, who knows
to compensate for the delay of light between x(t) and himself.
Since the velocity is at most 3 * 10^-7 c the errors are
minimal for NASCAR examples.)

If one envisions a perfectly circular 5 km racetrack,
and a NASCAR racer running around it at 90 m/s, one can
parameterize things without too much difficulty, letting
x and y be in meters and t in seconds. The origin is
at the center of the track, for simplicity.

x(t) = (2500/pi)*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)
y(t) = (2500/pi)*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)

The velocity of course is tangent to the track:

vx(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)
vy(t) = (2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)

with acceleration directed inward, lest the car fly into the stands --
which *has* happened, resulting in the deaths of spectators:

vx(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))^2*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)
vy(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))^2*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t)

d(t) is a funny animal generally -- mostly because one can't
take ||(x(t),y(t))|| to compute it, but instead has to do
a path integral. As per our assumptions it's simply 90 * t.
(We set t = 0 at the point the cars are up to speed and cross
the start/finish line, beginning the race.)

v(t) = ||(vx(t),vy(t))|| is a constant on this track (we assume
no pit stops), and is of course 90 m/s.

a(t) = ||(ax(t),ay(t))||, and for this example is about 10.18 m/s/s,
or just over 1 'g' force (1 g = 9.805 m/s/s). It is also constant.
Were a NASCAR auto to be equipped appropriately, the driver could
just read a book on this circular track. (That wouldn't work on
a real oval, of course! :-) )

500 laps on this race course would take 7 3/4 hours;
that's probably way over limit on endurance (races last
about 3 hours at most). However, after this race is
done, the winning driver, fatigued but happy, can walk
back to the winner's circle from where he started his car
(somewhere on pit road) -- though in most races he drives
the car to a podium. 7 3/4 hours to walk that distance?
Dude, I could have used a Segway...erm...why are all my teeth
on the ground? :-)

This also applies to light as well; a TWLS measures the lightspeed
along its entire path but its dx is zero if the source is near
enough to the "finish line". Fortunately for light, it never
gets tired (claims by certain creationists notwithstanding)
but light is also extremely gullible; it'll go wherever one aims
the mirror.

And of course the Earth has an average velocity of zero as
it completes its 940 billion kilometer journey around Sol.

For various reasons related to GR, we feel no motion;
the season changing is because of the varied tilt of one's
position relative to the Sun. We can observe the motion,
however, using parallax of nearby stars and the motion of
the other planets (planet = planetei, wanderer).

However, the theoretical centripetal acceleration is
easily calculated, assuming a circular orbit (which it
isn't exactly but never mind). It turns out to be

(1.501 * 10^11 m) * (2*pi/(86400*365.2425 s))^2 = 5.95 * 10^-3 m/s/s

The force of the moon on a 1 kg test mass 3.85 * 10^8 m away
would be

(6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) * 7.35*10^22 kg * 1 kg) / (3.85 * 10^8 m)^2
= 3.309 * 10^-5 kg-m/s/s

And the force of the sun on a 1 kg test mass 1 AU away
would be

(6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) * 1.9862*10^30 kg * 1 kg) / (1.501 * 10^11 m)^2
= 5.884 * 10^-3 kg-m/s/s

which should be exactly equal to the centripetal calculation,
but at least it's close.

I'll have to start a new thread on the tides but it should be
fairly clear now.


I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of
those who have no grip on physics.

Androcles is a slippery one, though. :-)


PD



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

ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON.
VELOCiTY = (ANY measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.
SPEED = (ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.

What about mirror delay VELOCiTY DiRECTiON CHANGE (i.e. acceleration)?


tadchem wrote: David R Tribble wrote: brian a m stuckless wrote:
No.!! No no no.!! DP DooOP.!!
1. "A clock and a ruler are two different things" ..in REAL
life.!! but A clock and a ruler are BOTH objective POiNTmass
things, in GR.

A GR radius r = v^2 / g = v_escape^2 / 2*(n - 1)*g, from
a POiNT A, ON a WORLD-line in SPACE-time, is COMPLETELY
iNCONCiEVABLE, in gtr; (GR's T_uv CANNOT BE mathematically
RELATED to matter, in any way).!!

PROFOUNDLY, G_uv NO matter ..means NO SPACE-time-curvature
in GR.!!

2. "The measurement of the time of two instants of a clock" ..here
in YOUR example, is a momentum VELOCiTY *duration* (time duration).

3. You CANNOT know MEASURED CLOCK POSiTiON A, within PLANCK length.

EXHiBiT the VELOCiTY c & the SPEED c "as-MEASURED Least-Squares".!!
$$ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!!

CALL.!! CALL iMMEDiATELY.!! iMMEDiATELY.!!, if you happen to "fix"
any HUP, or GR, POiNT A closer than PLANCK length, lp ..duh.!!

A. HUP, UP, GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty
[ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ]
[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ]
*You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!!

THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT.

B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle
[ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ]
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.]

Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN,
"Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!"
brian a m stuckless

Bilge wrote: Rob_Exeter: Dear All,
I was wondering if anybody could help me, I am a first year
undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Student at the University
of Exeter and i am lookng for a good clear explanation of
Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. Preferably on the internet
as i am a student i don't have much money!! I would be extremely
grateful for any info at all!

I'm not sure where to find an explanation, but the explanation
is simple, at least heuristically. First of all, it is more
accurate to use the term ``indeterminacy'' than ``uncertainty.''
There is nothing uncertain about the values you measure. Second,
For any physical process which is finite, there is only a finite
amount of information to measure.
If you list the possible mesurements you can make, only a subset
of those measurenents will be required to extract that information.
Once you specify a particular subset, other measurements will either
be redundant or incomensurate with the measurements you've made.
Heisenberg's principle tells us which measurements are mutually
incompatible and which are not. Essentially, two measurements are
considered incompatible if an arbitrarily precise measurement of
both would permit you to obtain more information about a system
than there is to obtain. You can think of it similarly to counting
bits. Regardless of how to try to divide N bits, there are only N
bits to count. More formally, the quantities you can measure are
called observables in quantum mechanics. Observables are
represented by hermitian operators. (You can think of an operator
as a particular type of matrix). So if you have two operators, A
and B, a measurement of both A and B is the combination AB or BA.
If AB and BA differ by a factor of i\hbar, the two measurements
are incompatible and a precise measurement of one, necessarily
leaves the other indeterminate. Two measurements are only
compatible if AB - BA = 0.
(Tell me if you want a more formal explanation. I tried to
provide a physical picture of what the uncertainty principle
means rather than a technically rigorous explanation and
derivation.)
Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle & Pelton Wheel Design.

|PD wrote:
| 1. A clock and a ruler are two different things.

Androcles wrote: | wrote:
| 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return
| to the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why?
| Because it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the
| location of the light ray simultaneously.

| 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
| mirror.
|
| That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the
| technique I described to remove the mirror delay time from the --

| No, it is because isotropy -- demands that, once the mirror delay
| has been removed by experimental analysis, then --

| Androcles. Androcles.
Planck out of bag.!! HUP UP Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty.

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | wrote:
| | Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| | 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| | direction.
| |
| | You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| | direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| | whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.
|
| isotropic:
| exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions an isotropic crystal
| velocity:
| the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
| speed:
| magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction
|
| TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
| OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
| TWLS OWLS.
|
| Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
| have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.

Indeed I have, idiot. Indy 500 drivers have a velocity of zero for each lap
they complete.

| I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of
| those who have no grip on physics.

Yes, it is, you moron. Very dangerous in a hands of a phuckwit like you.
Androcles.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news
In sci.physics.relativity, PD

wrote
on 29 Oct 2005 05:30:16 -0700
. com:

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with
the same values when measured along axes in all directions an
isotropic crystal velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect
to time : the derivative of position with respect to time speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.

Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.

There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is
the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed).
However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his
favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta,
Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero,

TWLS stands for "Two Way Light Speed", not for "Two
Way Light Velocity".

Dirk Vdm