Again: Relativity for Thought Experiments

[Daryl McCullough]

For the various thought-experiments involving rockets and clocks and
measuring rods and poles and light signals, Special Relativity can be
developed with a small number of assumptions about the way that clocks
and rods behave. The rest is all pure mathematics, deriving consequences
from assumptions. If someone thinks that SR is contradictory, (and that
this can be shown using thought experiments of various types), then they
should be able to derive a contradiction from the following assumptions:

We will make use of the following concepts:(A) ideal clocks,
(B) ideal measuring rods, (C) light signals, (D) an inertial
path of an object, (E) a "standard inertial coordinate system".
These concepts are related through the following axioms:

Definition: A coordinate system, is a way of associating four
numbers, x,y,z,t, with every point in space at every time.

Assumption: there exists a coordinate system and a real number c
making the following true:

1. An inertial path is defined by three functions x(t), y(t),
z(t) satisfying dx/dt = constant, dy/dt = constant, dz/dt = constant.
2. A light signal follows a path that is an inertial path such that
(dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2.
3. An ideal clock in motion shows an elapsed time T satisfying
dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the current speed of
the clock.
4. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
coordinate system, will have length L' when traveling at speed
v in the direction of the orientation of the rod, where L' is
given by: L' = L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
5. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
coordinate system, will still have length L when traveling at speed
v in a direction perpendicular to the orientation of the rod,

A coordinate system satisfying 1-5 will be called a "standard
inertial coordinate system". So the assumption is that there
exists at least one standard inertial coordinate system.

Here's the challenge for anti-relativists: can you show that
assumptions 1-5 are contradictory? Note what's missing from
these assumptions: there is NO mention of "relativity" at all.
There is no mention of equivalence of different observers.
There is no mention of observers at all.
There is no mention of laws of physics having the same form
in every inertial frame. All the claims 1-5 are only claimed
to be true in one, specific coordinate system.

So, does anyone believe that 1-5 are contradictory? If so, show
it: derive a contradiction from 1-5.

If not, then you have agreed that SR is consistent, at least as
far as thought experiments involving clocks, rods, light signals,
rockets, etc. The "relativity" part of SR is actually *PROVABLE*
from 1-5, without making any additional assumptions.

Theorem, if (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system satisfying 1-5, then
so is any other coordinate system (x',y',z',t') related to the
first through one of the following transformations:

* Rotations.
* Translations.
* Lorentz transformations.

So if 1-5 hold in *any* coordinate system, whatsoever, then they hold
in *every* standard inertial coordinate system.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7925526.365.1320500400185.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbct14...

| For the various thought-experiments involving rockets and clocks and
| measuring rods and poles and light signals, Special Relativity can be
| developed with a small number of assumptions about the way that clocks
| and rods behave. The rest is all pure mathematics, deriving consequences
| from assumptions. If someone thinks that SR is contradictory, (and that
| this can be shown using thought experiments of various types), then they
| should be able to derive a contradiction from the following assumptions:
|
| We will make use of the following concepts:(A) ideal clocks,
| (B) ideal measuring rods, (C) light signals, (D) an inertial
| path of an object, (E) a "standard inertial coordinate system".
| These concepts are related through the following axioms:
|
| Definition: A coordinate system, is a way of associating four
| numbers, x,y,z,t, with every point in space at every time.

A coordinate system is a way of representing a point
(x,y,z) relative to an arbitrary origin (0,0,0) independent of
time or mass or ludicrous McCullough's crackpot bullshit.

A second coordinate system in uniform translatory motion to
the first is a way of representing a point (xi,eta, zeta) relative to
an arbitrary origin (0',0',0') independent of
time or mass or ludicrous McCullough's crackpot bullshit.

The transformation of a position (point) from one coordinate
to the other is x' = x = vt so that 0' = 0-vt. The speed of light
has fuck all to do with anything and neither does ludicrous
McCullough's crackpot bullshit.

[Daryl McCullough]

Thanks for playing.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7925526.365.1320500400185.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbct14...

| Here's the challenge for anti-relativists: can you show that
| assumptions 1-5 are contradictory?

Yes.
Here's a crackpot assumption for you that forgot to mention:
"We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless 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." -- Albert Fuckwit Einstein.

Here's the challenge for relativistic morons like McCullough: can you show
that
Einstein's ludicrous assumption isn't contradictory?

Thanks for not playing, you fucking imbecile.

[Daryl McCullough]

You're not actually responding to anything I wrote.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:16665514.380.1320510059601.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbza28...

| You're not actually responding to anything I wrote.
|

Nobody gives a flying fuck about McCullough's relativity, Einstein's
relativity is the only game in town and you are afraid to play.
Skipping Einstein's drivel shows you didn't write anything of significance
worth responding to.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Saturday, November 5, 2011 11:22:01 AM UTC-4, Androcles wrote:

> Here's a crackpot assumption for you

> "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be
> defined at all unless 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."

There is not really any deep mystery here. There are two objects,
A and B, that are traveling at a constant velocity. A light signal
is sent from A to B, and back to A.

Let T_AB = the time required for the signal to travel from A to B,
as measured in a frame in which A and B are traveling at speed v.
Let T_AB' = the time required for the signal to travel from A to B,
as measured in a frame in which A and B are at rest.
Let T_BA = the time required for the return signal to travel from B
back to A, as measured in a frame in which A and B are traveling at
speed v.
Let T_BA' = the time required for the return signal to travel from B
back to A, as measured in a frame in which A and B are at rest.

Einstein is just saying that T_AB' = T_BA'. You can take that as
a definition of time for the AB coordinate system, if you like.

T_AB will *NOT* be equal to T_BA. Instead, T_AB = (c+v)/(c-v) T_BA.

[Daryl McCullough]

Well, for some reason, you responded to my posting. For you to now
pretend that you don't care, is a little bit kooky.

[Daryl McCullough]

You have shown, repeatedly, that you are incapable of understanding Einstein,
so I was hoping to try to get you to understand in a different way. But
clearly you are firmly committed to not understanding.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9508230.423.1320512265553.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh5...

I let the lurkers know how fucking stooopid you are.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:24948569.393.1320512206932.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxi21...

| On Saturday, November 5, 2011 11:22:01 AM UTC-4, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Here's a crackpot assumption for you
|
| > "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot
be
| > defined at all unless 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."
|
| There is not really any deep mystery here. There are two objects,
| A and B, that are traveling at a constant velocity. A light signal
| is sent from A to B, and back to A.

at c+v one way and v-c the other.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Answer: because he was an imbecile like McCullough..

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 06:40:00 -0700 (PDT), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For the various thought-experiments involving rockets and clocks and
>measuring rods and poles and light signals, Special Relativity can be
>developed with a small number of assumptions about the way that clocks
>and rods behave. The rest is all pure mathematics, deriving consequences
>from assumptions. If someone thinks that SR is contradictory, (and that
>this can be shown using thought experiments of various types), then they
>should be able to derive a contradiction from the following assumptions:
>
>We will make use of the following concepts:(A) ideal clocks,
>(B) ideal measuring rods, (C) light signals, (D) an inertial
>path of an object, (E) a "standard inertial coordinate system".
>These concepts are related through the following axioms:
>
>Definition: A coordinate system, is a way of associating four
>numbers, x,y,z,t, with every point in space at every time.
>
>Assumption: there exists a coordinate system and a real number c
>making the following true:
>
>1. An inertial path is defined by three functions x(t), y(t),
>z(t) satisfying dx/dt = constant, dy/dt = constant, dz/dt = constant.
>2. A light signal follows a path that is an inertial path such that
>(dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2.

What's makes c any different from an A or B?

>3. An ideal clock in motion shows an elapsed time T satisfying
>dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the current speed of
>the clock.

Why? IOW, why not 1 - [v/c]^2? What is your basis?

>4. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
>coordinate system, will have length L' when traveling at speed
>v in the direction of the orientation of the rod, where L' is
>given by: L' = L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

How come? Why show the direction of motion be any
different??? IOW why that and not something else
like say, 1 - [v/c] ... etc.

>5. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
>coordinate system, will still have length L when traveling at speed
>v in a direction perpendicular to the orientation of the rod,

How come? What make these 'special'?

>A coordinate system satisfying 1-5 will be called a "standard
>inertial coordinate system". So the assumption is that there
>exists at least one standard inertial coordinate system.

You declare, by definiton, OK, so what?

>Here's the challenge for anti-relativists: can you show that
>assumptions 1-5 are contradictory? Note what's missing from
>these assumptions: there is NO mention of "relativity" at all.
>There is no mention of equivalence of different observers.
>There is no mention of observers at all.
>There is no mention of laws of physics having the same form
>in every inertial frame. All the claims 1-5 are only claimed
>to be true in one, specific coordinate system.

What missing?

1. The basis for c being the limiting speed
2. What is its basis
3. What would causelengthss to change by 1/g only in the direction
of motion
4. What would cause t to increase by g when moving
5. Noting that all observations of moving systems are limited
to 'remote' viewing' which incurs obvious signal travel
paths and thus delays and inherrent distortions.

So, to sum up, what missing is any basis for your 5 'assumptions'

>So, does anyone believe that 1-5 are contradictory? If so, show
>it: derive a contradiction from 1-5.

One cannot find the ends in circular reasoning...

>If not, then you have agreed that SR is consistent, at least as
>far as thought experiments involving clocks, rods, light signals,
>rockets, etc. The "relativity" part of SR is actually *PROVABLE*
>from 1-5, without making any additional assumptions.

No, all you can prove is that limited to remote viewing things
will look a certain way, not that they necessarily are.

>Theorem, if (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system satisfying 1-5, then
>so is any other coordinate system (x',y',z',t') related to the
>first through one of the following transformations:

Theorems are not physics...

>* Rotations.
>* Translations.
>* Lorentz transformations.
>
>So if 1-5 hold in *any* coordinate system, whatsoever, then they hold
>in *every* standard inertial coordinate system.

But you're missing any actual physical foundation for the whole thing

[Daryl McCullough]

> What missing?

> 1. The basis for c being the limiting speed
> 2. What is its basis

A physical theory is, ultimately, a hypothesis about the
way the world works. You have to do experiments to find
out if the hypothesis makes correct predictions. What
you *DON'T* need is a "basis" for the hypothesis. It's
nice to have, but it's not necessary.

> 3. What would cause lengths to change by 1/g only in the direction
> of motion

I'm not speculating about causes.

> 4. What would cause t to increase by g when moving

Beats me.

> 5. Noting that all observations of moving systems are limited
> to 'remote' viewing' which incurs obvious signal travel
> paths and thus delays and inherrent distortions.

The assumptions that I gave don't say anything about observations.
Yes, it's true that observations are difficult because of delay
in signal propagation, but so what?

>One cannot find the ends in circular reasoning...

There is no circular reasoning involved. The issue was: given
a bunch of assumptions, are those assumptions CONSISTENT, or
are they contradictory? What kind of circular reasoning are
you claiming is involved?

> Theorems are not physics...

Of course not. The question for this thread is whether the
assumptions are mathematically consistent. That's a mathematical,
or logical, question, not a physical question. Of course,
answering those questions doesn't tell you whether the theory
is a physically correct theory, but it does put the question
of whether it is paradoxical to rest. Then we can move on to
the empirical support for the theory.

The problem is that the anti-relativity crackpots have been
stuck for DECADES (in Koobee's and Androcles' cases) making
claims about the mathematical consistency of SR. This is addressing
those claims.

>>* Rotations.
>>* Translations.
>>* Lorentz transformations.
>>
>>So if 1-5 hold in *any* coordinate system, whatsoever, then they hold
>>in *every* standard inertial coordinate system.
>
>But you're missing any actual physical foundation for the whole thing

I couldn't care less. To me, there are two issues: (1) Does it make sense,
as a mathematical model? and (2) Does it make consistent predictions?

This thread is only addressed to (1). Your point, that there must
be a "physical foundation" for theories, is, I think, a red herring.
It's not of any interest.

What I assume from your pseudonym "Aetherist" is that you want an
explanation of relativistic phenomena in terms of some underlying
properties of a physical medium such as the aether. But that just
pushes back the question one level: Why does the aether have those
properties?

Any theory has to eventually fall back on something that's hypothesized
to be true. Minkowsky spacetime is as good a stopping point as the
aether, in my opinion. Better, since it doesn't invoke undetectable
substances.

[Daryl McCullough]

> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?

This has been explained to you many times.

There are two *DIFFERENT* coordinates being discussed. In the
primed coordinate system, A and B are at rest, and the time T_AB'
for light to travel from A to B is equal to the time T_BA' for
light to travel from B to A.

In the unprimed coordinate system, the time T_AB for light to
travel from A to B is NOT equal to the time T_BA for light to

travel from B to A.

In *BOTH* coordinate systems, light has speed c. Einstein never
says that light has speed c+v or c-v. Those quantities come into
play as follows:

In the unprimed coordinate system, A and B are moving at speed v.
The distance between A and B is L. Let x_1 be the location
of A when the light signal is sent. Let t_1 be the time at which
the signal is sent. Let x_2 be the location of B when
the light signal is received (and the return signal is sent).
Let t_2 be the time at which the signal is received.
Let x_3 be the location of A when the return signal is received.
Let t_3 be the time when the return signal is received.

So we have the following equations:

(1) x_2 = x_1 + c (t_2 - t_1)

That's because at time t_1, the light is at x_1, and it travels
at speed c until it gets to x_2 at time t_2.

(2) x_2 = x_1 + L + v (t_2 - t_1)

That's because at time t_1, B is at x_1 + L, and it travels
at speed v until it gets to x_2 at time t_2.

(3) x_3 = x_2 - c (t_3 - t_2)

That's because at time t_2, the light is at x_3, and it travels
at speed c in the negative-x direction until it gets to x_3 at
time t_3.

(4) x_3 = x_1 + v (t_3 - t_1)

That's because at time t_1, A is at x_1, and it travels at
speed v until it gets to x_3 at time t_3.

Putting (1) and (2) together gives:

(5) L + v (t_2 - t_1) = c (t_2 - t_1)

So

(6) (t_2 - t_1) = L/(c-v)

Similar algebra gives:

(7) (t_3 - t_1) = L/(c+v)

So the occurrence of c+v and c-v in the equations does not mean
that light is traveling at speed c+v or c-v.

[Daryl McCullough]

How does saying something that has no relation to what I said show
anything about me?

[Aetherist]

Then you should be qually satified with Ptolemy's epicycles. It
IS the proper formulation for 'observed' orbital behavior from the
Earth's prspective. IOW its 'mathematically correct'. You should
give a sh** as to the physical basis.

>What I assume from your pseudonym "Aetherist" is that you want an
>explanation of relativistic phenomena in terms of some underlying
>properties of a physical medium such as the aether. But that just
>pushes back the question one level: Why does the aether have those
>properties?

Yes the will always be base features but there is a difference
between assunming formula and physical properties.

>Any theory has to eventually fall back on something that's hypothesized
>to be true. Minkowsky spacetime is as good a stopping point as the
>aether, in my opinion. Better, since it doesn't invoke undetectable
>substances.

For shallow thinkers perhaps...

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:595290.442.1320516803841.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak12...
|
The thread title and your pathetic drivel on coordinates
says it all about you, ya snipping imbecile.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:19843389.401.1320516679816.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxi21...

|> Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
|
| This has been explained to you many times.
|
| There are two *DIFFERENT* coordinates being discussed. In the
| primed coordinate system,

Hopeless! Einstein used Latin and Greek coordinate systems,
(x,y,z) and (xi,eta,zeta).
Try again, snipping shithead.

[Daryl McCullough]

> The thread title and your pathetic drivel on coordinates
> says it all about you, ya snipping imbecile.

Then why did you feel a need to post? You're really contradicting
yourself left and right, pal.

[Daryl McCullough]

This has been explained to you many times. If you understand it,
then say so. If you don't understand it, then point out which
lines do you not understand?

There are two *DIFFERENT* coordinates being discussed. In the

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6945577.460.1320520693298.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh5...
This has been explained to you before.
I let the lurkers know what a fucking stooopid snipping moron you are.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:10480972.398.1320520802763.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbyk13...

This has been explained to you many times.

AB/(c+v) <> BA/(v-c), to say otherwise is a contradiction.
You're not actually responding to anything I wrote, you stupid fuck.

[Daryl McCullough]

>Then you should be equally satisfied with Ptolemy's epicycles.

Provisionally, yes. His epicycles had many parameters, and the
advantage of the Copernican model is that it allowed for the
parameters to be COMPUTED, rather than being adjusted by hand.

In my opinion, the Minkowsky model is more like the Copernican
model, and aether theory is more like Ptolemy's. In both the
Ptolemy case and the aether theory case, you are adjusting a
theory to preserve a pre-existing assumption, that the Earth
is the center, in the first case, and that spacetime is
Galilean, in the second case. You can make those assumptions
work, if you fiddle with parameters enough, but it's simpler
to assume that the Earth is not the center, that spacetime
is not Galilean.

>>Any theory has to eventually fall back on something that's hypothesized
>>to be true. Minkowsky spacetime is as good a stopping point as the
>>aether, in my opinion. Better, since it doesn't invoke undetectable
>>substances.

>For shallow thinkers perhaps...

I would not say that there is any evidence that believers in aether
have thought more "deeply" into the issues than those who reject
the aether.

[Daryl McCullough]

You are unable to make the shift between two different
choices of variable names? You're kidding?

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3837975.75.1320520574329.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbay19...

| >Then you should be equally satisfied with Ptolemy's epicycles.
|
| Provisionally, yes. His epicycles had many parameters, and the
| advantage of the Copernican model is that it allowed for the
| parameters to be COMPUTED, rather than being adjusted by hand.
|
| In my opinion,

That's your trouble, McCullough. Instead of facts you resort to opinion.
No mathematician gives a hoot for ANY opinion, least of all yours.

[Daryl McCullough]

>This has been explained to you many times.
>AB/(c+v) <> BA/(v-c), to say otherwise is a contradiction.

And nobody said otherwise. AB/(c+v) is the time, T_BA required for
light to travel from B to A, as measured in the frame in which
A and B are traveling at speed v. AB/(c-v) is the time, T_AB, required
for light to travel from A to B, as measured in that frame.
They are unequal. Nobody said otherwise.

What Einstein said was that in the frame in which A and B are
at *REST*, the time T_AB' required for light to travel from A to
B is equal to the time T_BA' required for light to travel from B to A.

So:

In the frame in which A and B are moving: T_AB is unequal to T_BA.
In the frame in which they are at rest: T_AB' is equal to T_BA'.

In both frames, light has speed c.

[Daryl McCullough]

>This has been explained to you many times.
>AB/(c+v) <> BA/(v-c), to say otherwise is a contradiction.

Nobody said otherwise. What Einstein said was that the time
to go from A to B is equal to the time to go from B to A
AS MEASURED IN THE FRAME IN WHICH A AND B ARE AT REST.
The two times are NOT the same as measured in a frame in
which A and B are moving at speed v.

Once again, let AB be the distance between A and B in the
frame in which they are moving at speed v in the direction
parallel to the line between A and B. Let T_AB be the time
for a light signal to go from A to B. Let T_BA be the time
for a light signal to go from B to A. Then

T_AB = AB/(1-v/c)
T_BA = AB/(1+v/c)

These are not equal. Einstein did not say that they are equal.

Let AB' be the distance between A and B in the
frame in which they are at rest. Let T_AB' be the time
for a light signal to go from A to B. Let T_BA' be the time
for a light signal to go from B to A. Then

T_AB' = AB/c
T_BA' = AB/c

These *ARE* equal.

[Poutnik]

In article <nhgtq.21295$Lx4....@newsfe23.ams2>,
Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.October.2011 says...

That applies also to your opinion about others.

--
Poutnik

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:25352684.862.1320521644845.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcm23...

| >This has been explained to you many times.
| >AB/(c+v) <> BA/(v-c), to say otherwise is a contradiction.
|
| And nobody said otherwise.

Yes, the nobody Einstein did.

This has been explained to you many times.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
The light doesn't return to (0,0,0) as Einstein claims. It returns to (vt,
0, 0).

This has been explained to you many times.

Too bad you can't read algebra.

This has been explained to you many times.

You are a bigot and an imbecile.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1684770.89.1320521360902.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhd1...

| You are unable to make the shift between two different
| choices of variable names? You're kidding?
|

You are unable to distinguish between (x-vt) and (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) !
And I'm not kidding, you really are that fucking stupid!

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Then you should be equally satisfied with Ptolemy's epicycles.
>
>Provisionally, yes. His epicycles had many parameters, and the
>advantage of the Copernican model is that it allowed for the
>parameters to be COMPUTED, rather than being adjusted by hand.
>
>In my opinion, the Minkowsky model is more like the Copernican
>model, and aether theory is more like Ptolemy's. In both the
>Ptolemy case and the aether theory case, you are adjusting a
>theory to preserve a pre-existing assumption, that the Earth
>is the center, in the first case, and that spacetime is
>Galilean, in the second case.

You make an invalid and unwarranted assumption there. What
you call space-time is a manifestation OF aether and nature
nor an medium requires it to be Galilean. It fact, nature
requires the medium to be internally self consistent and
with c independent of the motion of the source/receiver
Lorentzian is required and even sonic phenomena behave this
way. If you were limited to making measurement with
instruments formed from fluidic structure of the medium
the results would be the same. It is ONLY because our
instruments are rigid wrt to media like air that we get
Galilean behavior. Those instruments are independent of
the medium characteristics being measured.

>You can make those assumptions work, if you fiddle with

>parameters enough, ...

What fiddling is required? Please be specific.

>... but it's simpler to assume that the Earth is not the

>center, that spacetime is not Galilean.

'empty space' is devoid of any actual geometry and we can
impose upon it any we want. The medium is not, it has
properties and these naturally and simply give answers to
those you blew off as unanswerable earlier. Like:

c^ = K/z and 1/u = K thus c^2 = 1/uz

Note that it sould be obvious from the above c is not
a 'global' constant and will vary from point to point
as a function of both u & z.

>>>Any theory has to eventually fall back on something that's hypothesized
>>>to be true. Minkowsky spacetime is as good a stopping point as the
>>>aether, in my opinion. Better, since it doesn't invoke undetectable
>>>substances.
>
>>For shallow thinkers perhaps...
>
>I would not say that there is any evidence that believers in aether
>have thought more "deeply" into the issues than those who reject
>the aether.

I would, there is actually clear evidence of this. Like actually
wanting answers to the points raised earlier, and looking for them.
Aetherist tend to have a much more unified view of nature than
mainstreamer seem to.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:13634937.411.1320522140008.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxi21...

| >This has been explained to you many times.
| >AB/(c+v) <> BA/(v-c), to say otherwise is a contradiction.
|
| Nobody said otherwise.

Einstein said otherwise, you lying cunt.

[Daryl McCullough]

> That's your trouble, McCullough. Instead of facts you resort to opinion.
> No mathematician gives a hoot for ANY opinion, least of all yours.

That the equations of SR are consistent is a matter of fact.
That SR is a better theory than aether theory is a matter of opinion.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca,NY

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1720793.82.1320522275060.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbay19...

|> That's your trouble, McCullough. Instead of facts you resort to opinion.
| > No mathematician gives a hoot for ANY opinion, least of all yours.
|
| That the equations of SR are consistent is a matter of fact.

, in your crazed opinion.

1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

The light doesn't return to (0,0,0), it returns to (vt,0,0).
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau( _vt_ ,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
-------------------------^^^^
That's a fact, not an opinion.
The equations of SR are a fuck-up by an incompetent arrogant Jewish cretin.
An imbecile like you is too STOOOPID to see it.

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> That's your trouble, McCullough. Instead of facts you resort to opinion.
>> No mathematician gives a hoot for ANY opinion, least of all yours.
>
>That the equations of SR are consistent is a matter of fact.
>That SR is a better theory than aether theory is a matter of opinion.

I would say which is better is a matter of how capable each is
in expaining the basis. By that measure aether beats SR
hands down. Which, of course, is why Einstein finally realized
that "space with ether is unthinkale". This is what I meant by
shallow thinkers, those that either cannot, or, obstinately willfully
will not seem to realize what Einstein clearly did, one cannot even
exist without the other. They fixate on the outdated and incorrect
aether model disproved by the MMX, namely the one that assumed that
'ponderable' matter plowed thru the aether rigid & independent from
it. The MMX is actual both proof of the aether medium and reveals
the true nature of matter itself.

[jon car]

On Nov 5, 1:23 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gamma math is supposed to make Relativity work but it doesn't.
Not even Einstein wanted to see that. I dare you.
I challenge you to demonstrate that it works.
Gamma does not solve everything in SR as Einstein believed.

Mitchell Raemsch; Relativity motion appearence is backward motion

[Daryl McCullough]

No, he didn't.

[Daryl McCullough]

> You make an invalid and unwarranted assumption there. What
> you call space-time is a manifestation OF aether and nature
> nor an medium requires it to be Galilean.

No, it's a HYPOTHESIS of yours that space-time is a manifestation
of aether. But the assumption of a Minkowsky geometry is much
*simpler* than an assumption of an aether. If you assume an
aether, you must ALSO make assumptions about the geometry of
space and time. So you don't avoid making assumptions about
the geometry of spacetime by assuming an aether.

>It fact, nature requires the medium to be internally self consistent.

That's not true. If an assumption is NOT internally self consistent,
then it can't become more consistent by making additional assumptions
(about the existence of an aether).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

[Daryl McCullough]

Okay. You are uninterested in discussions. You are only
interested in raving.

There is a single page that you read 30 or 40 years ago, which you have
steadfastly refused to understand in all that time. It's actually simple
algebra, but you cannot understand it. And you insult anyone who attempts
to explain it to you.

[Aetherist]

What I notice now is, that you cannot/did not specify then
'fiddling' with 'parameters' that you think is required

of the aether model to be Lorentzian in nature. You said:

"You can make those assumptions work, if you fiddle

with parameters enough, but it's simpler to assume

that the Earth is not the center, that spacetime
is not Galilean."

In fact, no 'Fiddling' is required, it is known (at least to
acoustic experts) that Lorentzian (what you call Minkowski)
structure is the natural behavior of fields generated by
moving sources in a simple fluidic medium. Do you want a
standard vetted reference for this? This put the
Energy-Momentum Tensor on exactly the same footing as all
others, which again, Einstein realized...

[Daryl McCullough]

Sorry, what you say is not true. The wave equation for sound has the same
form as the wave equation for electromagnetic waves, but after that, the
similarity ends. For one thing, an electromagnetic wave has 6 components:
E_x, E_y, E_z, B_x, B_y, B_z. For another, there is no reason to believe
that a mechanical clock would tick slower when it is moving relative to
a medium. Why in the world would that be?

Yes, you can tinker with your aether theory to make things work, but it's
tinkering, the same sort of tinkering that Ptolemy did.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:27313409.672.1320531053484.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbl36...
Yes he did. You are a liar as well as totally deranged.

[Androcles]

You are just whining because your precious crackpot theory is disproven by
logic.

[Daryl McCullough]

You haven't proved anything. You've just posted links to an equation
that you've spent 40 years failing to understand.

[Ron-boy]

daryl claimed
>>there is NO mention of "relativity" at all

Whenever you mention a one-way speed (such as v), you are talking
relativity because it takes two clocks to measure a one-way speed, and
relativity's definition of clock synchronization is currently in
vogue..

Whenever you use mention or use even one clock, the burden is on you
to prove that the clock is not intrinsically slowed. (The word
"intrinsically" refers to such cases as two triplets having
intrinsically different ages without accelerations.)

Whenever you use mention or use even one ruler, the burden is on you
to prove that the ruler is not intrinsically contracted.

Whenever you mention any one-way speed (such as v), the burden is on
you to prove that your pair of clocks is properly or correctly
synchronized, and the only correct or proper synchronization is
absolute synchronization, which you do not possess.

(And please do not complain about my use of the phrase "absolute
synchronization," as if it has no meaning. Einstein himself said that
the only reason that he could not measure light's one-way speed was
because he did not have absolutely synchronous clocks.)
http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html
[Einstein's phrase "the means of measuring time" = "truly synchronous
clocks"]

Of what value to science is even one coordinate system if it cannot be
proved that its rulers and clocks are undistorted and its clocks truly
synchronous?

~RA~

[Daryl McCullough]

I don't think you actually what it means to prove something using
logic.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:16465122.456.1320541308228.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...

| You haven't proved anything.

You've proven you are an ignorant and clueless bigot who makes ridiculous
assumptions.
Assume makes an ass out of u but not me.

1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in respect
of time, an event at A with an event at B.
2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA)
= c
4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal
5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
when t=0.
6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
moving system and as to the zero point of tau
7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
the case in the stationary system
8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line,
9) and our equations ASSUME the form
10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give it
our attention
14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
relativity

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:11728635.122.1320541235607.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbay19...
|I don't think

We already know that, no need to advertise it.

[Daryl McCullough]

> You've proven you are an ignorant and clueless bigot who makes
> ridiculous assumptions.

But when you are challenged to show that they are inconsistent,
you can't do it. Instead, you launch into insults. You are a
raver, full of impotent rage.

[Daryl McCullough]

Quote where Einstein said

AB/(c+v) = BA/(v-c)

He didn't say that. You are lying.

What he said was that IN THE FRAME in which
A and B are at rest, the time, as measured in that frame, for
light to travel from A to B is the same as the time for light
to travel from B to A. He did *NOT* say that that is true in
EVERY frame, only in the frame in which A and B are at rest.

[Daryl McCullough]

Everything discussed in my post is from the point of view of ONE coordinate
system. Relativity is about the comparison of TWO different coordinate systems.

> Whenever you use mention or use even one clock, the burden is on you
> to prove that the clock is not intrinsically slowed.

I couldn't care less whether it is intrinsically slowed. Nothing I said
makes any assumption about the nature of clocks.

> Of what value to science is even one coordinate system if it cannot be
> proved that its rulers and clocks are undistorted and its clocks truly
> synchronous?

The value is that you develop theories, make predictions, and then check
to see if your predictions match the results of experiments. If not, you
adjust your theories. The notion of "distorted" clocks and rulers is
irrelevant. You can use any coordinate system you like, and develop
your theories in terms of that coordinate system. Some coordinate
system result in SIMPLER theories than others, but any coordinate
system can be used for science.

[Daryl McCullough]

I probably shouldn't accuse you of lying, because to be able to
lie, you have to know the truth and say something different.
You actually have no idea what you are talking about, so
the possibility of lying is missing.

You're deeply confused. And one whose confusion causes
mindless rage against what you don't understand.

[Daryl McCullough]

> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?

You're lying. He didn't say that the speed of light was c+v
one way and v-c the other.

Why do you feel the need to lie about it?

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1601809.160.1320545630411.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvq4...

| Everything discussed in my post is from the point of view of ONE
coordinate
| system. Relativity is about the comparison of TWO different coordinate
systems.

Bullshit, relativity is about pretending the velocity of light is c for both
of them,
coming or going, closing speed or opening speed.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:20005435.463.1320544462869.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...

|> You've proven you are an ignorant and clueless bigot who makes
| > ridiculous assumptions.
|
| But when you are challenged to show that they are inconsistent,|
| you can't do it. Instead, you launch into insults. You are a
| raver, full of impotent rage.

When you are challenged to show that they are consistent,
you can't do it. Instead you run away from Einstein's crap and
substitute your own shit.

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:fgsrr...@drn.newsguy.com...
: Well, Androcles is right about something, which is that I will ignore
: anything he has to say. I won't even read it except by accident
: Daryl McCullough
: Ithaca, NY

Bigotry proven.

On Nov 6, 11:41 pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

If it's a mathematical contradiction, then *prove*
it! That's the beauty of mathematics, you don't have
to actually perform an experiment to prove something
wrong, you can post a derivation. So post one!


Here it is, Troll Kook McCullough, the proof by reductio-ad-absurdum
you asked for.


Catch 22.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's thought experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his thoughts.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'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' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

[Daryl McCullough]

> When you are challenged to show that they are consistent,
> you can't do it.

That's a lie. That was the whole point of this thread, showing
that the theory of SR is consistent. You ignored it. You are
a liar, a pathetic liar.

[Daryl McCullough]

You don't know anything about it, senile old man.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Saturday, November 5, 2011 10:52:08 PM UTC-4, Androcles wrote:

> Here it is, Troll Kook McCullough, the proof by reductio-ad-absurdum
> you asked for.
>
>
> Catch 22.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Those are two equations. They are not contradictory.

> In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
> the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
> use c+v.

You are profoundly stupid. Einstein does not use c+v as the speed of
light. That's a lie.

You are a pathetic liar.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:27546416.464.1320544954847.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...

| Quote where Einstein said
|
| AB/(c+v) = BA/(v-c)

He wrote
AB/(c+v) = AB/(c-v)
because the moron was too stupid to realise the light changed direction but
not the rod rAB.
That is what he wrote here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif

where tA, tB and t'A are epochs,
and here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

where intervals of time are used.

You are a stupid and worthless fucking LIAR, McCullough.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:376003.164.1320546307065.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvq4...

Stick with the math and learn something, you useless LYING cunt.

We establish by definition that Einstein got his knickers in a twist when
he said "we establish by definition that the "time" required by a ray to
travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A"
and claimed
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

(It would have been far easier to write
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v)) =tau(0,0,0, t+ x'/(c+v))
and then differentiate that, but then that would make Einstein's silly spoof
rather too obvious.)


Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small,

@tau/@x' + 1/(c-v) * @tau/@t = @tau/@0 + 1/(c+v)*@tau/@t

Ref right-hand side of:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img23.gif

There is no derivative @tau/@0 or @tau/@x',
Einstein confused the coordinate (x',0,0) with the length x'.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:27303073.477.1320546864612.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...

|> Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
|
| You're lying. He didn't say that the speed of light was c+v
| one way and v-c the other.
|
| Why do you feel the need to lie about it?

HEY CUNT!
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Can't read algebra and translate it to English, can you?
Why do you feel the need to lie about it, you fucking imbecile?

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:33152782.537.1320548755563.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh5...

| You don't know anything about it, senile old man.
|

Whine all you want, you are not talking math, ignorant and useless old cunt.

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6471007.552.1320548329869.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak12...

|> When you are challenged to show that they are consistent,
| > you can't do it.
|
| That's a lie.

Here's the challenge again, moron.

1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

The light returns to (vt,0,0), not to (0,0,0).

When you are challenged to show consistency you can't do it, you lying
useless cunt.

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sorry, what you say is not true.

Sorry, it is true. See "The Handbook of Physics" , Condon & Odishaw,
McGraw-Hill Sec Ed 1967 pages 3-113 3-117 look at Eq 8.7..

>The wave equation for sound has the same form as the wave equation for

>electromagnetic waves, ...

Including the Lorentz contaction when viewed from a FOR moving wrt
to the emitter...

>... but after that, the

>similarity ends. For one thing, an electromagnetic wave has 6 components:
>E_x, E_y, E_z, B_x, B_y, B_z. For another,

Yes it does, see Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force" to see
why 6, not the usual three...

>there is no reason to believe that a mechanical clock would tick slower
>when it is moving relative to a medium. Why in the world would that be?

Because if the physical systems were made up of only fluidic soliton
structures of said medium then the physical affects of motion would
cause exactly the same behavior as material systems.

>Yes, you can tinker with your aether theory to make things work,
>but it's tinkering, the same sort of tinkering that Ptolemy did.

Again prove the 'tinkering'. What is being tinkered with that isn't
known, published and observed behavior?

I'd like to know what you think is tinkering???

[Androcles]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:22809443.493.1320548681140.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbza28...

| On Saturday, November 5, 2011 10:52:08 PM UTC-4, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Here it is, Troll Kook McCullough, the proof by reductio-ad-absurdum
| > you asked for.
| >
| >
| > Catch 22.
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
|
| Those are two equations.

Wrong, img22 is an inequality; put some numbers in and it becomes apparent.
You can even use your numbers, c = 5, v = 3.
Go on, snip, whine and run, you fuckwitted useless kook.

[Koobee Wublee]

Daryl McCullough is tossing that useless bullshit around again. In
the meantime, there is really no hope in believing a resolution to the
twins’ paradox under SR. All you need to show so is with the time
transformation of the Lorentz transform. Here is how. We have from
the Lorentz transform showing the following.

1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** 1 = observer
** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
** 3 = observer
** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
** v13^2 = v31^2
** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
** * = dot product of 2 vectors

At this stage, the Lorentz transform is a tale of 3 points --- 2
observers and 1 observed. Notice there are no inertial or non-
inertial crap haunting these equations. They are just what they are.
<shrug> Then, we need to write them into 2 observers observing each
other instead. This is where the Einstein Dingleberries make the
mistake. <shrug>

The proper way (the proper does not have the same sense of meaning in
GR) to do so is to equate observer 1 with the observed (which is 2) in
equation 1) and to equate observer 3 with the observed (which is again
2) for obvious reason. So, here we go.

3) dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

4) dt1 = dt3 / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 3 in equation 2)
** d[s32] = d[s33] = 0

Since equations 3) and 4) cannot possibly coexist in the same
universe, the paradox remains very real. Now, let’s identify exactly
how the Einstein Dingleberries have been making this petty mistake in
the past 100 years. They just equate observer 1 with the observed
(which is 2) for both equations. This is just stupid and wrong.
<shrug>

5) dt3 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 1)
** d[s12] = d[s11] = 0

And

6) dt1 = dt3 sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)

Where

** observed 2 = observer 1 in equation 2) as well
** d[s32] = d[s31] = - d[s13]
** [v13] = d[s13] / dt1

This error allowed equations 5) and 6) to coexist and misled Paul
Andersen to show off his applet crap that explained how there is no
paradox --- absolute stupidity in applying the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>

[Jerry]

On Nov 5, 11:19 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This error allowed equations 5) and 6) to coexist and misled Paul
> Andersen to show off his applet crap that explained how there is no
> paradox --- absolute stupidity in applying the Lorentz transform.
> <shrug>

Thus splutters the idiot who demonstrated a lack of understanding
of even high school physics.

Do you remember your claim that a pure gradient refractive index
lens, with no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead
will merely displace an incident beam without changing its
direction?

For those who missed it, the thread in question was titled "Sobral
1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by the Moons
gravity" http://tinyurl.com/3dyb7kw

K-W's tremendously amusing contributions to this thread began on
July 20, 2011 and continued for nearly an entire month before I
finally figured out an explanation that even He could understand:
http://tinyurl.com/3tsg7jt

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the thought experiment that K-W in His omni-mis-science
refused to answer:

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

Jerry

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc6233e3-dba3-41f6...@f3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
This is not clear to me at all. Firstly, when you say the "proper way", do
you mean the way you think it should be (ie this is is your own personal
opinion, unsupported by any reasons why it is the "proper way"), or do you
mean the way that SR thinks it is "proper" to solve equations of motion? And
what does "equate to" mean in this context? These are different things, so
"equate to" can't mean "make them equal", without a definition of "equate
to" your statement is meaningless.

The bottom line on this appears to be you claiming that SR is inconsistent.
Physicists have spent 105 years looking for inconsistencies in SR, and none
have appeared. If they exist, they will be a lot more subtle than your naive
argument. The only problem is obviously an error in your argument. However,
it remains to vague - "proper way", "equate to" - to treat as a scientific
statement. Fix the pretty obvious errors in your argument, and if there is
anything left than it can be compared to experimental evidence to see if
there is any truth left in your argument at all.

[Jerry]

On Nov 6, 12:09 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> The proper way (the proper does not have the same sense of meaning in
> GR) to do so is to equate observer 1 with the observed (which is 2) in
> equation 1) and to equate observer 3 with the observed (which is again
> 2) for obvious reason.
>
> ____________________________________
> This is not clear to me at all. Firstly, when you say the "proper way", do
> you mean the way you think it should be (ie this is is your own personal
> opinion, unsupported by any reasons why it is the "proper way"), or do you
> mean the way that SR thinks it is "proper" to solve equations of motion? And
> what does "equate to" mean in this context? These are different things, so
> "equate to" can't mean "make them equal", without a definition of "equate
> to" your statement is meaningless.
>
> The bottom line on this appears to be you claiming that SR is inconsistent.
> Physicists have spent 105 years looking for inconsistencies in SR, and none
> have appeared. If they exist, they will be a lot more subtle than your naive
> argument. The only problem is obviously an error in your argument. However,
> it remains to vague - "proper way", "equate to" - to treat as a scientific
> statement. Fix the pretty obvious errors in your argument, and if there is
> anything left than it can be compared to experimental evidence to see if
> there is any truth left in your argument at all.

If you aren't going to configure your newsreader (Microsoft
Windows Mail) to use well-understood ">" attribution marks, can
you at least trim the post that you are responding to to a bare
minimum? And do not, PLEASE do not embed your response in the
middle of a quoted post, because that makes sorting out who said
what totally confusing!

Thanks,
Jerry

[Poutnik]

In article <2989845.470.1320534906252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbct14>, stevend...@yahoo.com says...

>
>
> Yes, you can tinker with your aether theory to make things work, but it's
> tinkering, the same sort of tinkering that Ptolemy did.

Aether theories always remind me the flogiston theory of burning.
Nobody ever detected flogiston, but the theory had a stubborn live.

They are mechanical transition of classic waves on EM.

Classical waves need medium,
bacause they are always a kind of oscilation of medium particles.

EM waves do not need medium and medium particles,
having its own particles, belonging to nothing else but EM field.

BTW aether could not be the searched dark metter,
as it interacts with EM force.

If you were shooting a small balls in air,
they do not need the air to exist.
If you shoot them in way they are creating "ball waves",
they would persist even in vacuum.


--
Poutnik

[Bart Sinclair]

On Nov 6, 10:02 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <2989845.470.1320534906252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

> forums@vbct14>, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com says...

>
>
>
> > Yes, you can tinker with your aether theory to make things work, but it's
> > tinkering, the same sort of tinkering that Ptolemy did.
>
> Aether theories always remind me the flogiston theory of burning.
> Nobody ever detected flogiston, but the theory had a stubborn live.
>
> They are mechanical transition of classic waves on EM.
>
> Classical waves need medium,
> bacause they are always a kind of oscilation of medium particles.

how many particles makes up an oscillation of a wave

>
> EM waves do not need medium and medium particles,

wrong, they need vacuum
you cant send em without vacuum!!

> having its own particles, belonging to nothing else but EM field.

you just said they are waves, not field

[this space intentionally left blank]

> Poutnik

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

You're lying. He did not write
AB/(c+v) = AB/(c-v)
The figures you link to do not have that equation.

Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

[Androcles]

Asked and answered. You are a stupid snipping cunt, you can't keep track
of your own posts by snipping, you fucking useless shithead.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

Oh, my god, you are dishonest!

What Einstein wrote was the following:

"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B

[Later on, he derives:]

t_B - t_A = AB/(c-v)
and
t'_A - t_B = AB/(c+v)

[then he concludes:]

"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous,"

------------------------------------

There cannot be a more blatant case of lying (or abysmal stupidity) than
that. Einstein says that if the times are equal (in some frame), then the
clocks are synchronized (in that frame). If the times are NOT equal (in
some frame) then the clocks are NOT synchronized (in that frame).

He just proved that the clocks are NOT synchronized in the moving frame.
The times are NOT equal.

For you to snip the single line t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B, without noting
that it occurs inside a conditional (IF this is true, then such and
such follows) is the height of dishonesty. Or stupidity. I guess that's
another explanation.

You're a horrible person.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

Did you actually even read the text, or do you just look at the figures?

Einstein introduces an auxiliary variable x' = x - vt. Why did he do
this? It's convenient because an object at rest in the moving frame
will have a constant value for x'.

So look at the round-trip for a light signal from A to B. These observers
are both at rest in the moving frame.

The location of A as a function of time (as measured in the stationary
frame) is given by:

x = x'_A + vt
y = 0
z = 0

The location of B as a function of time (as measured in the stationary
frame) is given by:

x = x'_B + vt
y = 0
z = 0

Einstein chooses coordinates so that x'_A = 0, and he just uses x'
for x'_B.

Now, in a round-trip by a light signal, the signal is sent from A
at coordinates

x = 0
y = 0
z = 0
t = 0

(1) In terms of the auxiliary variable x', the signal starts at
x' = 0
y = 0
z = 0
t = 0

The signal arrives at B at coordinates

x = x'_B + v x'_B/(c-v)
y = 0
z = 0
t = x'_B/(c-v)

(2) In terms of the auxiliary variable x', the signal arrives at B at

x' = x'_B
y = 0
z = 0
t = x'_B/(c-v)

The return signal arrives back at A at coordinates:

x = v (x'_B/(c-v) + x'_B/(c+v))
y = 0
z = 0
t = x'_B/(c-v) + x'_B/(c+v)

(3) In terms of the auxiliary variable x', the return signal arrives at
A at

x' = 0
y = 0
z = 0
t = x'_B/(c-v) + x'_B/(c+v)

Letting tau(x',y,z,t) be the time as measured in the moving frame,
we have:

(1) The light signal is sent from A at time
tau(0,0,0,0)

(2) The light signal arrives at B at time
tau(x'_B, 0, 0, x'_B/(c-v))

(3) The return signal arrives at B at time
tau(0, 0, 0, x'_B/(c-v) + x'_B/(c+v))

I know you've been confused by the one equation for 40 years, so there isn't
much hope on my part that I can un-confuse you in one post, but I really
don't think that there is anything more to say about it.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

You have shown no quote from Einstein saying that AB/(c+v) = AB/(c-v).
You're lying.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

> Here's the challenge again, moron.
>
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> The light returns to (vt,0,0), not to (0,0,0).

The light returns to coordinates
x=vt
y=0
z=0

But the auxiliary variable x' is defined to be x' = x-vt.
So in terms of the auxiliary variable x', the light returns
to the point

x'=0
y=0
z=0

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:19:14 AM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Daryl McCullough is tossing that useless bullshit around again. In
> the meantime, there is really no hope in believing a resolution to the
> twins’ paradox under SR. All you need to show so is with the time
> transformation of the Lorentz transform. Here is how. We have from
> the Lorentz transform showing the following.
>
> 1) dt3 = (dt1 + [v31] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)
>
> And
>
> 2) dt1 = (dt3 + [v13] * d[s32] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v13^2 / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** 1 = observer
> ** 2 = observed by both observers 1 and 3
> ** 3 = observer
> ** [v13] = velocity of 3 as observed by 1
> ** [v31] = velocity of 1 as observed by 3
> ** v13^2 = v31^2
> ** [s12] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 1
> ** [s32] = displacement vector of 2 as observed by 3
> ** * = dot product of 2 vectors

If d[s12] = 0, then d[s32] is NONZERO, and vice-verse
(unless dt3 = dt1 = 0).

If observer 1 and observer 2 are the same observer,
then d[s12] = 0, d[s32] is nonzero. Then your equations
become:

1) dt3 = dt1/ sqrt(1 – v31^2 / c^2)

So dt3 < dt1

On the other hand, if observer 3 and observer 2 are the same
observer, then d[s32] = 0 and d[s12] is nonzero.

> Since equations 3) and 4) cannot possibly coexist in the same
> universe,

That's true. Equation 3) can only happen if observer 1 and observer 2
are the same. Equation 4) can only happen if observer 3 and observer 2
are the same. So 3) and 4) can only BOTH be true if all 3 observers
are the same.

[Androcles]

Yes, I did.
Did you, ya fucking snipping imbecile?

[Androcles]

<stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8715571.13.1320589433927.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbcj8...

|
| > Here's the challenge again, moron.
| >
| > 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| >
| > The light returns to (vt,0,0), not to (0,0,0).
|
| The light returns to coordinates
| x=vt
| y=0
| z=0
|
| But the auxiliary variable x' is defined to be x' = x-vt.

, independent of time.

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."


Oh, so there are THREE coordinate systems,
(x,y,z) K stationary, (x',y',z') k auxiliary and (xi,eta, zeta) Kappa
moving,
with two transformations:
x' = x-vt (the Galilean coordinate transformation)
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (the Einstein coordinate transformation)

Neither one is the mystical Lorentz transformation,
x' = x * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
so why do you lie that it is?
Don't you know the difference between multiplication and division, cretin?
This has been explained to you before (in 3rd grade, which you failed).

How fast is the coordinate system Kappa moving
past the auxiliary coordinate system k, clueless shithead?

Or can't you count to three, imbecile?

[Androcles]

Asked and answered. Not my fault if you snipped it, you STOOOOOPID fuck.

--

Hahahannie, get your gun (Rodgers and Hammerstein)

I'm superior, you're inferior
I'm the big attraction, you're the small
I'm the major one, you're the minor one
I can beat you shootin', that's not all

/ C - Dm - / G7 - C - / - - D7 - / G - Cdim7 G7 /

Anything you can snip, I can snip better
I can snip any thing better than you
No you can't, Yes I can, No you can't, Yes I can
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

/ G7 C G7 C / / / Dm7 G7 - - /

Anything you can be I can be greater
Sooner or later, I'm greater than you
No you're not, Yes I am, No you're not Yes I am
No you're not, Yes I am, yes I am

I can shoot a partridge with a single cartridge
I can get a sparrow with a bow and arrow
I can do most anything
Can you bake a pie? No. Neither can I

/ Em - Em6 - / Dm - Dm6 - / D7Am7 D7Am7 D7 - / G7 - Dm7 G7 /

Anything you can snip I can snip louder
I can snip anything louder than you
No you can't....

Anything you can snip, I can snip cheaper
I can snip anything cheaper than you
Fifty cents, Forty cents, Thirty cents, Twenty cents
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

Anything you can dig, I can dig deeper
I can dig anything deeper than you
Thirty feet, Forty feet, Fifty feet, Sixty feet
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

I can drink my liquor faster than a flicker
I can do it quicker and get even sicker
I can live on bread and cheese
And only on that? Yes, So can a rat

Anything you can reach, I can go higher
I can sing anything higher than you
No you can't....

Anyone you can lick, I can lick faster
I can lick anyone faster than you
With your fist? With my feet, With your feet? With an axe
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can

Any school where you went, I could be master
I could be master much faster than you
Can you spell, No I can't, Can you add, No I can't
Can you teach, Yes I can, yes I can

I could be a racer, quite a steeple chaser
I can jump a hurdle even with my girdle
I can open any safe
With out being caught? Yes, That's what I thought, you crook

Any note you can hold I can hold longer
I can hold any note longer than you.
No you can't, Yes I ca-a-a-a-an, Yes you ca-a-an

[Androcles]

You fucking stupid snipping LUNATIC!

[Androcles]

| "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| t_B - t_A = t_A' - t_B

New York is 5 HOURS behind London, we want that and the clocks do NOT
synchronise. Nor do they depend on light signals from London to New York
and back again.
The common "time" for A and B *CAN* be defined without his bullshit light
signals
because it IS.
Einstein was a fucking LIAR and YOU are just a CUNT, too stupid to know the
difference between gain and offset. His entire synchronisation crap is a red
herring and irrelevant, as well as a LIE.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

You lied. Einstein never said that
AB/(c+v) = AB/(c-v)

You're a liar.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

The fact that you've switched topics shows that you realize
that you have lied. Einstein did not say

AB/(c+v) = AB/(c-v)

Why did you lie about that?

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

You keep changing the topic. The question was:
Does the light signal return to the coordinates

x' = 0
y = 0
z = 0

The answer is YES. It returns to the point
x = vt

y = 0
z = 0

But by definition of x', x' = x - vt, so in terms
of x', the light signal returns to

x'= 0
y = 0
z = 0

So I met your challenge.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

> You challenged me to show that what Einstein was consistent.
> I did. And you ignored it. If what I wrote was incorrect,
> then point out which line was mistaken.

Why did you issue a challenge, and then ignore the response?
Because you are coward, in addition to being dishonest?

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:02:49 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>In article <2989845.470.1320534906252.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
>forums@vbct14>, stevend...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can tinker with your aether theory to make things work, but it's
>> tinkering, the same sort of tinkering that Ptolemy did.
>
>Aether theories always remind me the flogiston theory of burning.
>Nobody ever detected flogiston, but the theory had a stubborn live.

Phlogiston: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

It was a concept that had clear evidence that contradicted the
idea. Please specify the same for aether.

>They are mechanical transition of classic waves on EM.
>
>Classical waves need medium,
>bacause they are always a kind of oscilation of medium particles.

Right, all known wave for which the underlying mechanism has
actually been directly tested require a carrier medium. There
are no known exceptions. It is only 'by proclamation' that
light is the exception.

>EM waves do not need medium and medium particles,
>having its own particles, belonging to nothing else but EM field.

Hmmm, what about phonons? So they don't need a carrier media
also? Sorry, you don't know history very well.

>BTW aether could not be the searched dark metter,
>as it interacts with EM force.

I'm curious, How?

>If you were shooting a small balls in air,
>they do not need the air to exist.
>If you shoot them in way they are creating "ball waves",
>they would persist even in vacuum.

True, balls are not waves, nor do they behave like
waves. So, it would appear that you think light is
consist of balls? and those just appear and dissappear
by magic.

[Ron-boy]

daryl noted:
The value is that you develop theories, make predictions, and then
check
to see if your predictions match the results of experiments. If not,
you
adjust your theories. The notion of "distorted" clocks and rulers is
irrelevant. You can use any coordinate system you like, and develop
your theories in terms of that coordinate system. Some coordinate
system result in SIMPLER theories than others, but any coordinate
system can be used for science.

One cannot use a coordinate system whose clocks are not properly
related
and whose clocks are running slow and whose rulers are contracted to
obtain experimentally correct results.

daryl also noted:
Everything discussed in my post is from the point of view of ONE
coordinate
system. Relativity is about the comparison of TWO different coordinate
systems.

Relativity's time (called "relative time") exists whenever two clocks
are
"synchronized" per Einstein's definition, and since this can occur in
just
one frame, SR does pertain to one frame.

Also, many say that SR pertains to the Michelson-Morley experiment,
and this
was a single-frame case.

Also, if a single observer in a single frame uses a single ruler to
measure a
single distance, then this is relativity because relativity assumes no
physical
length contraction.

Also, if a single observer in a single frame uses a single clock to
time events at
the clock, then this is also relativity because SR assumes no physical
or intrinsic clock slowing.

Furthermore, in order to compare two frames, there must first be one
frame, and this
is where SR actually begins.

Moreover, I claim that SR has never made a single scientific
prediction.

Name one if you think otherwise. (It cannot made any valid predictions
because its instruments are distorted and out of synch.)(For example,
it claims that light's one-way speed is c invariantly, but cannot even
show how this can happen in even one frame even on paper.)

I strongly suggest that you study up on SR.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

> Oh, so there are THREE coordinate systems,
> (x,y,z) K stationary, (x',y',z') k auxiliary and (xi,eta, zeta)
> Kappa moving,
> with two transformations:
> x' = x-vt (the Galilean coordinate transformation)
> xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (the Einstein coordinate transformation)

> Neither one is the mystical Lorentz transformation,

Sure it is: putting x'=x-vt into the equation for xi gives:

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which is the Lorentz transformation for the x-coordinate.

[Androcles]

<stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11937478.538.1320594198811.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbct14...

|> You challenged me to show that what Einstein was consistent.
| > I did.

You fucking liar, you don't even know what consistent means.
Heck, you can't even count to three.

(x,y,z) K-frame, stationary

coordinate transformation x' = x-vt, Galilean.

(x', y, z) k-frame, auxiliary

coordinate transformation xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), Einsteinian.

(xi, eta, zeta) Kappa-frame, moving.

NO Lorentz transformation x' = x * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), you been LYING for
years.

You are a lying disgusting cheat and a horrible moron. In short, a CUNT!

[Androcles]

<stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26061750.573.1320593963171.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak12...

| You keep changing the topic.

[Androcles]

[Androcles]

[Androcles]

<stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9548837.577.1320594403555.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak12...

You fucking liar, the Lorentz transformation is L' = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5

You are so stupid you don't multiplication from division.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

You're wrong. The equations that Einstein derives are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)
x' = gamma (x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z

where gamma = 1/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)

Einstein uses different notation here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif

He uses tau for t', xi for x', eta for y' and zeta for z', and
uses beta for gamma.

[stevend...@yahoo.com]

What you wrote is not the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation,
in terms of Einstein's tau, xi, eta, zeta and beta is:

tau = beta (t - vx/c^2)
xi = beta (x - vt)
eta = y
zeta = z

In more recent notation:

t' = gamma (t-vx/c^2)
x' = gamma (x-vt)

y' = y
z' = z

What you wrote: x' = x*square-root(1-(v^2/c^2)) is NOT the
Lorentz transformation. It's the length-contraction formula.
It's related to the Lorentz transformations, but it is not
the same thing.

Let's go over the things that you have been wrong about
in the last couple of days:

1. You claimed that Einstein wrote "AB/(c-v) = AB/(c+v)".
He didn't write any such thing. That's false.

2. You claimed that, in the round-trip for light signals, the
return signal arrives at coordinates (vt, 0, 0), not (0,0,0).
But Einstein clearly said that he was using the auxiliary variable
x' = x-vt. In terms of x', y , z, the coordinates for the arrival
of the return signal are (0,0,0), just as Einstein said.

3. You said that xi = x'/square-root(1-v^2/c^2) is inconsistent
with the Lorentz transformations. That's not true. Since Einstein's
x' is defined to be x' = x-vt, this equation is equivalent to
xi = (x-vt)/square-root(1-v^2/c^2), which is the Lorentz transformation
for the variable xi.

Three strikes, and you're out. I'm done with you, forever.

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 06:40:00 -0700 (PDT), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For the various thought-experiments involving rockets and clocks and
>measuring rods and poles and light signals, Special Relativity can be
>developed with a small number of assumptions about the way that clocks
>and rods behave. The rest is all pure mathematics, deriving consequences
>from assumptions. If someone thinks that SR is contradictory, (and that
>this can be shown using thought experiments of various types), then they
>should be able to derive a contradiction from the following assumptions:
>
>We will make use of the following concepts:(A) ideal clocks,
>(B) ideal measuring rods, (C) light signals, (D) an inertial
>path of an object, (E) a "standard inertial coordinate system".
>These concepts are related through the following axioms:
>
>Definition: A coordinate system, is a way of associating four
>numbers, x,y,z,t, with every point in space at every time.
>
>Assumption: there exists a coordinate system and a real number c
>making the following true:
>
>1. An inertial path is defined by three functions x(t), y(t),
>z(t) satisfying dx/dt = constant, dy/dt = constant, dz/dt = constant.
>2. A light signal follows a path that is an inertial path such that
>(dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2.
>3. An ideal clock in motion shows an elapsed time T satisfying
>dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the current speed of
>the clock.
>4. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
>coordinate system, will have length L' when traveling at speed
>v in the direction of the orientation of the rod, where L' is
>given by: L' = L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>5. An ideal measuring rod that has length L when at rest in the
>coordinate system, will still have length L when traveling at speed
>v in a direction perpendicular to the orientation of the rod,
>
>A coordinate system satisfying 1-5 will be called a "standard
>inertial coordinate system". So the assumption is that there
>exists at least one standard inertial coordinate system.
>
>Here's the challenge for anti-relativists: can you show that
>assumptions 1-5 are contradictory? Note what's missing from
>these assumptions: there is NO mention of "relativity" at all.
>There is no mention of equivalence of different observers.
>There is no mention of observers at all.
>There is no mention of laws of physics having the same form
>in every inertial frame. All the claims 1-5 are only claimed
>to be true in one, specific coordinate system.
>
>So, does anyone believe that 1-5 are contradictory? If so, show
>it: derive a contradiction from 1-5.
>
>If not, then you have agreed that SR is consistent, at least as
>far as thought experiments involving clocks, rods, light signals,
>rockets, etc. The "relativity" part of SR is actually *PROVABLE*
>from 1-5, without making any additional assumptions.
>
>Theorem, if (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system satisfying 1-5, then
>so is any other coordinate system (x',y',z',t') related to the
>first through one of the following transformations:

I think you could significantly clarify this by saying the following:

At any given instant, in any local frame, one can accurately describe
what will be S-E-E-N in any other arbitrarily defined frame moving wrt
it by computing the coordinates using the above methodology. However
no one can claim that what is seen in this fashion is the actually
situation at those location at that instant. This is as far as you
can 'scientifically' get with this.


Since this is ALL that can be said, such things as observed pole
lengths, light flashes, ... etc. measured at remote locations by
use of light signals which are limited to traveling at light speed
have inherrent signal delays. Couple that with a directiomal physical
length contraction with speed and such remote observations can and
DO result in a distorted perspective. Thus may not reflect the actual
physical situation of objects at the very same instant. This is the
crux of the issue, what you see may not reflect actual reality. Just
like watching the Magician's trick from the perspective of the audience.

>* Rotations.
>* Translations.
>* Lorentz transformations.
>
>So if 1-5 hold in *any* coordinate system, whatsoever, then they hold
>in *every* standard inertial coordinate system.

[Androcles]

You're wrong. The equations that Einstein derives are:

t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

=========================================================
You horrible disgusting LYING bastard, the crap Einstein pulls out his arse
are

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

You fucking worthless imbeciles can't even read Greek letters!

[Androcles]

| What you wrote is not the Lorentz transformation.

=========================================================
You horrible disgusting LYING bastard, the crap Einstein pulls out his arse
are

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

You fucking worthless imbeciles can't even read Greek letters!

the Lorentz transformation is L' = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5

You are so stupid you don't multiplication from division.