"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | | This is a follow up to a post "Where is the flaw?" I had before
about
| | | relativity. I want to make my question as simple as possible; I
felt
| | | the question of that post before was not simple enough:
| | |
| | | Suppose that a space station is located at point
| | | P0=(x0,y0,z0,t0)=(0,0,0,0). There is a space ship moving from
point
| | | P1=(x1,y1,z1,t1)=(0,1,0,0) to point P2=(x2,y2,z2,t2)=(1,1,0,1),
with
| | | respect to the inertial frame of reference of the space station.
So
| the
| | | velocity of the space ship with respect to the space station is
| | | v=(1,0,0). The units of measurement are assumed to be kilometers
and
| | | years.
| | |
| |
| | One kilometer a year?
| | 2.74 meters a day, 11 cm/hour.
| | Snails are MUCH faster.
| | Androcles
| |
| | Yes, that is true. Still, the argument still works (or perhaps, does
| | not work) in any units. There are no approximations in the argument.
|
|
| Son, if you want to understand magic, you have to study it. It is all
| about deception. Smoke and mirrors. You say you are not out to show
| Einstein was wrong. Well, Houdini wasn't 'wrong' either, they were both
| successful stage magicians. It takes a real sorcerer to know how the
trick
| is done, that's all. It's no good coming out of the theatre after the
show
| is over and asking the audience, most of them think the woman really
| was sawn in half, especially the ones that think they can do it but dare
| not try.
| The cuckoo transformations
| xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| were derived from a mirror and a smokescreen, 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c.
| See, the light leaves A and bounces at a mirror B, returning to A.
| On the way along the ruler is passes 1,2,3,...,27,28,29, and arrives at
| 30. Then it goes back again, 29,28,27,...3,2,1,0 to where it started.
| So the distance traveled is (at least in a coordinate system) is zero.
| The light hasn't gone anywhere, it is back where it started.
| Hence c = 0/0.
|
[anip]
Androcles.

| Division by zero isn't legitimate in mathematics, even when
| disguised as algebra. For example,
| v = c
| Multiply by c
| cv = c^2
| Subtract v^2
| cv-v^2 = c^2-v^2
| Factorize:
| v(c-v) = (c+v)(c-v)
| Divide by c-v
| v = c+v
| but v = c, so substitute
| c = c+c
| c = 2c
| 1 = 2.
| That's how Einstein did his magic.
| Proof:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
|
| It's up to you to decide whether Einstein was an idiot or a charlatan,
| that's
| a matter of opinion, but the math is undeniable. Do not be fooled into
| thinking c = 300,000 km/sec, it is 0/0. The speed of light is 300,000
| km/sec,
| relative to the source, but c is not the speed of light, that is the
lie.
| He wasn't a real magician, he was a muggle. A con artist. A ****bag. A
LIAR.
| Being Mr. Nice Guy is the stock-in-trade of the huckster.
| "Please believe me" when I say "In agreement with experience WE further
| ASSUME the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c.
| That is very different to Newton, who is in your face. "If you deny it,
that
| is
| against the supposition." Newton was not Mr. Nice Guy, he didn't need to
me.
| Newton was a mathematician who devised the calculus, Einstein was a
beggar.
| Einstein's disciples are incompetent fools trying to appear smart. They
are
| as
| scruffy as he was.
|
| Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics school for
| zauberlehrlings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | So the time T that it takes for the space ship to get from point
P1 to
| | | point P2 from the point of view of the space station is T=1 year.
Let
| | | us calculate the time T' that it takes for the space ship to get
from
| | | point P1 to point P2 from the point of view of the space ship
using
| the
| | | time dilation formula. We get:
| | |
| | | T'=T*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=sqrt(1-1/c^2) years, where c is the speed of
| light
| | | in kilometers per year.
| | |
| | | Now, let us think of the space station as moving and the space
ship at
| | | rest. (Since there is no prefered frame of reference according to
| | | relativity theory, this is certainly a legitimate way of
understanding
| | | this scenario.) So the time that point P1 leaves the space ship to
the
| | | time that P2 reaches the space ship from the point of view of the
| space
| | | ship is T'. Now, let us apply the time dilation formula to
calculate
| | | the time T" that the space station measures for point P1 to leave
the
| | | space ship to the time that P2 reaches the space ship. Since the
| | | velocity of the space station with respect to the space ship is
| | | v=(-1,0,0), we get:
| | |
| | | T''=T' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=1-1/c^2 years, where c is the speed of
light
| in
| | | kilometers per year.
| | |
| | | But T'', which is defined to be the time that the space station
| | | measures for point P1 to leave the space ship to the time that P2
| | | reaches the space ship is really the same thing as T, the time
that
| the
| | | space ship goes from point P1 to point P2 from the perspective of
the
| | | space station.
| | |
| | | So we have 1-1/c^2 years = T'' = T = 1 year. So 1-1/c^2=1, which
| | | implies that -1/c^2=0, which implies that the speed of light c is
| | | infinity. What is going on here? I would really appreciate if
someone
| | | could tell me where the flaw is in my argument. As I said before,
I am
| | | not out to claim that Einstein is wrong; I am giving Einstein the
| | | benefit of doubt and assuming that I am wrong in my understanding
of
| | | relativity or that I made a simple mistake in my calculations
| | | somewhere.
| | |
| | | Thank you,
| | | Craig
| | |
| |
|

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| wrote in message
oups.com...
| I can't find any problems with your math
|
| Never mind the math, check the physics.


HAHAHAHAHA! Another Roberts convert!

You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge, Dork!


Show us the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike both
ends of a train simultaneously, Dork.

Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| wrote in message
oups.com...
| I can't find any problems with your math
|
| Never mind the math, check the physics.


HAHAHAHAHA! Another Roberts convert!

You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge, Dork!


Show us the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike both
ends of a train simultaneously, Dork.

You can't demonstrate that in polite company. Ask him
to teach you the one where the bellhop conjures up
an extra two dollars. Demonstrating that one won't get ya
thrown out of the pub.

Sue...


Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
| in message ...
| |
| | wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | I can't find any problems with your math
| |
| | Never mind the math, check the physics.
|
|
| HAHAHAHAHA! Another Roberts convert!
|
| You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge, Dork!
|
|
| Show us the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike both
| ends of a train simultaneously, Dork.
|
| You can't demonstrate that in polite company.

What polite company?

The pee puppy doesn't understand mathematics and never will.
x' = x-vt -- Einstein.
xi = g * x' -- Einstein.

x' = g * (x - v t) -- The ****headed Dork Van de merde, fumble mumbler.


Ask him
| to teach you the one where the bellhop conjures up
| an extra two dollars. Demonstrating that one won't get ya
| thrown out of the pub.

I wouldn't ask him the time of day. He doesn't know it.

Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
| in message ...
| |
| | wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | I can't find any problems with your math
| |
| | Never mind the math, check the physics.
|
|
| HAHAHAHAHA! Another Roberts convert!
|
| You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge, Dork!
|
|
| Show us the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike both
| ends of a train simultaneously, Dork.
|
| You can't demonstrate that in polite company.

What polite company?

The pee puppy doesn't understand mathematics and never will.
x' = x-vt -- Einstein.
xi = g * x' -- Einstein.

x' = g * (x - v t) -- The ****headed Dork Van de merde, fumble mumbler.


Ask him
| to teach you the one where the bellhop conjures up
| an extra two dollars. Demonstrating that one won't get ya
| thrown out of the pub.

I wouldn't ask him the time of day. He doesn't know it.

Where else are you going to find a ?mathematician? that
will wager someone doesn't know their own identity.
He is good for a laugh 'till his bladder fills up.

Sue...


Androcles.

wrote in message oups.com...


Perhaps when used properly, relativity theory is able to predict many
things about our universe that Newtonian mechanics can't.

That is correct.

So as a tool,
it may be good.

Yes, it is a useful tool when used correctly.

But if you actually believe relativity theory,

One does not 'believe' in a scientific theory. One checks that it is
internally self consistent, that it agrees with experiment, and that it
is useful. Relativity is all of these.

...then it
seems to run into problems, since relativity theory also seems to make
predictions which are completely opposed to our understanding of
reality and our experience.

Absolutely, that is why some people have problems with it.

Isn't there a better theory out there than
relativity?

What actually happens (that is to say the results of experiment and
observation) is opposed to our understanding of reality and everyday
experience. Any valid theory must be likewise.

You can move the weirdness around by changing the theory but
it must be there somewhere.

Martin Hogbin

wrote:
This is a follow up to a post "Where is the flaw?" I had before about
relativity. I want to make my question as simple as possible; I felt
the question of that post before was not simple enough:

Suppose that a space station is located at point
P0=(x0,y0,z0,t0)=(0,0,0,0). There is a space ship moving from point
P1=(x1,y1,z1,t1)=(0,1,0,0) to point P2=(x2,y2,z2,t2)=(1,1,0,1), with
respect to the inertial frame of reference of the space station. So the
velocity of the space ship with respect to the space station is
v=(1,0,0). The units of measurement are assumed to be kilometers and
years.

So the time T that it takes for the space ship to get from point P1 to
point P2 from the point of view of the space station is T=1 year. Let
us calculate the time T' that it takes for the space ship to get from
point P1 to point P2 from the point of view of the space ship using the
time dilation formula. We get:

T'=T*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=sqrt(1-1/c^2) years, where c is the speed of light
in kilometers per year.

Now, let us think of the space station as moving and the space ship at
rest. (Since there is no prefered frame of reference according to
relativity theory, this is certainly a legitimate way of understanding
this scenario.) So the time that point P1 leaves the space ship to the
time that P2 reaches the space ship from the point of view of the space
ship is T'. Now, let us apply the time dilation formula to calculate
the time T" that the space station measures for point P1 to leave the
space ship to the time that P2 reaches the space ship. Since the
velocity of the space station with respect to the space ship is
v=(-1,0,0), we get:

T''=T' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=1-1/c^2 years, where c is the speed of light in
kilometers per year.

But T'', which is defined to be the time that the space station
measures for point P1 to leave the space ship to the time that P2
reaches the space ship is really the same thing as T, the time that the
space ship goes from point P1 to point P2 from the perspective of the
space station.

Not at all. If you assume that you essentially assume universal time
and your conclusion below that c is infinity naturally follows. SR
provides transformations between events. You cannot compare just
distances or times of events in different reference frames. You must
always use the transformation rules. If you do that for your example
you will find out that the same time is calculated regardless of the
choice of reference frame. This is the essence of SR. You started with
SR and at the end you essentially applied a Galilean transform, which
implies c is infinity.

Mati






So we have 1-1/c^2 years = T'' = T = 1 year. So 1-1/c^2=1, which
implies that -1/c^2=0, which implies that the speed of light c is
infinity. What is going on here? I would really appreciate if someone
could tell me where the flaw is in my argument. As I said before, I am
not out to claim that Einstein is wrong; I am giving Einstein the
benefit of doubt and assuming that I am wrong in my understanding of
relativity or that I made a simple mistake in my calculations
somewhere.

Thank you,
Craig

wrote:

snip

As I said before, I am
not out to claim that Einstein is wrong; I am giving Einstein the
benefit of doubt and assuming that I am wrong in my understanding of
relativity or that I made a simple mistake in my calculations
somewhere.

Thank you,
Craig

Try it this way:

Stella leaves earth with a wrist watch and a big faced clock.
As Stella is running away from the images of Terra's clock.
Terra's clock apears slow.

At the station Stella adjust the big clock back to match
***her view of Terra's watch***
and leaves it on the station.

On the way home Stella observes the clock left on
the space station running slow.

At reunion, Stealla and Terra's watches agree and
they note how far behind the clock on the space station
appears.

That difference should be predictable with some variation
of your gamma corrections and the experiment is consistant
with Einstein's statement:

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged
from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of
the clock is not one second, but



seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Dirk Van de moortel"
| wrote
| | in message ...
| | |
| | | wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | | I can't find any problems with your math
| | |
| | | Never mind the math, check the physics.
| |
| |
| | HAHAHAHAHA! Another Roberts convert!
| |
| | You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge, Dork!
| |
| |
| | Show us the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike both
| | ends of a train simultaneously, Dork.
| |
| | You can't demonstrate that in polite company.
|
| What polite company?
|
| The pee puppy doesn't understand mathematics and never will.
| x' = x-vt -- Einstein.
| xi = g * x' -- Einstein.
|
| x' = g * (x - v t) -- The ****headed Dork Van de merde, fumble mumbler.
|
|
| Ask him
| | to teach you the one where the bellhop conjures up
| | an extra two dollars. Demonstrating that one won't get ya
| | thrown out of the pub.
|
| I wouldn't ask him the time of day. He doesn't know it.
|
| Where else are you going to find a ?mathematician? that
| will wager someone doesn't know their own identity.
| He is good for a laugh 'till his bladder fills up.
|
| Sue...

About as good for a laugh as Osama bin Laden. The comparison
is striking, both are maniacal and fervently religious adherents to
their respective causes.
Androcles

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...
|
| wrote in message
oups.com...
|
|
| Perhaps when used properly, relativity theory is able to predict many
| things about our universe that Newtonian mechanics can't.
|
| That is correct.
|
| So as a tool,
| it may be good.
|
| Yes, it is a useful tool when used correctly.
|
| But if you actually believe relativity theory,
|
| One does not 'believe' in a scientific theory. One checks that it is
| internally self consistent, that it agrees with experiment, and that it
| is useful. Relativity is all of these.

Liar. Relativity is NONE of these. You didn't check, you affirmed
your belief, and you BELIEVE in nonsense.

Androcles.